query_id
stringlengths 32
32
| query
stringlengths 6
5.38k
| positive_passages
listlengths 1
22
| negative_passages
listlengths 9
100
| subset
stringclasses 7
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|
a8dcb88b142aadc1fd0d7086f6fab7df
|
Should my retirement portfolio imitate my saving portfolio?
|
[
{
"docid": "a29bec6d3af870f1e5a648819ca6ac7c",
"text": "One big pie chart. Traditional (pretax) 401(k) and IRA, Roth 401(k) and IRA, and non-tax favored accounts. All of these need to be viewed holistically, the non-favored money is where I'd keep cash/low return safe instruments, Roth IRA for highest growth.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f32d03ea60fd0a998b6e6358b78fd644",
"text": "Short Answer: Length of Time invested and risk should be correlated. From what I am hearing this is pretty good game plan for your age. Minutia: Once you get closer to retirement lets say in 20 years. You might want to treat two lumps of money with different risk. For me at 49 I have a lump of money for 55-70 that carries a lot less risk then another lump of money for when I hit 80. This way I can wait and take Social Security at 70 when it pays the most per month. Then I'll have another pile of money for when my care costs start being very expensive. Or I think most people would benefit from making sure you have the funds you need for the next 5 years in items with extremely low risk and funds you need 6 years out or more you can have some risk tolerance there. Best laid plans though.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "e7777b222351bc03f73b9c5d9a640863",
"text": "Your asset mix should reflect your own risk tolerance. Whatever the ideal answer to your question, it requires you to have good timing, not once, but twice. Let me offer a personal example. In 2007, the S&P hit its short term peak at 1550 or so. As it tanked in the crisis, a coworker shared with me that he went to cash, on the way down, selling out at about 1100. At the bottom, 670 or so, I congratulated his brilliance (sarcasm here) and as it passed 1300 just 2 years later, again mentions how he must be thrilled he doubled his money. He admitted he was still in cash. Done with stocks. So he was worse off than had he held on to his pre-crash assets. For sake of disclosure, my own mix at the time was 100% stock. That's not a recommendation, just a reflection of how my wife and I were invested. We retired early, and after the 2013 excellent year, moved to a mix closer to 75/25. At any time, a crisis hits, and we have 5-6 years spending money to let the market recover. If a Japanesque long term decline occurs, Social Security kicks in for us in 8 years. If my intent wasn't 100% clear, I'm suggesting your long term investing should always reflect your own risk tolerance, not some short term gut feel that disaster is around the corner.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ee041db509c90ead2bc996a8bf01e099",
"text": "How is not different? You want to retire early; hence, you will save what you deem necessary to retire early. On the other hand, if you turn your retirement savings into capital gains; that's good. Nonetheless, if you start to earn capital gains that is detrimental to the economic value of the state; then, your taxes should be at higher rate to compensate for that. Everyone encourages business; rarely anyone would encourage a monopoly. Earning wealth is good business, hoarding wealth is a monopoly.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "acd6ecb60230cccbe47d3f7ed7d5ef80",
"text": "Take the easy approach - as suggested by John Bogle (founder of Vanguard - and a man worthy of tremendous respect). Two portfolios consisting of 1 index fund each. Invest your age% in the Fixed Income index fund. Invest (1-age)% in the stock index fund. Examples of these funds are the Total Market Index Fund (VTSMX) and the Total Bond Market Index (VBMFX). If you wish to be slightly more adventurous, blend (1-age-10)% as the Total Market Index Fund and a fixed 10% as Total International Stock Index (VGTSX). You will sleep well at night for most of your life.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "740de5afea45123d65bdc09bc1208f1b",
"text": "\"Yes, the \"\"based on\"\" claim appears to be true – but the Nobel laureate did not personally design that specific investment portfolio ;-) It looks like the Gone Fishin' Portfolio is made up of a selection of low-fee stock and bond index funds, diversified by geography and market-capitalization, and regularly rebalanced. Excerpt from another article, dated 2003: The Gone Fishin’ Portfolio [circa 2003] Vanguard Total Stock Market Index (VTSMX) – 15% Vanguard Small-Cap Index (NAESX) – 15% Vanguard European Stock Index (VEURX) – 10% Vanguard Pacific Stock Index (VPACX) – 10% Vanguard Emerging Markets Index (VEIEX) – 10% Vanguard Short-term Bond Index (VFSTX) – 10% Vanguard High-Yield Corporates Fund (VWEHX) – 10% Vanguard Inflation-Protected Securities Fund (VIPSX) – 10% Vanguard REIT Index (VGSIX) – 5% Vanguard Precious Metals Fund (VGPMX) – 5% That does appear to me to be an example of a portfolio based on Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT), \"\"which tries to maximize portfolio expected return for a given amount of portfolio risk\"\" (per Wikipedia). MPT was introduced by Harry Markowitz, who did go on to share the 1990 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences. (Note: That is the economics equivalent of the original Nobel Prize.) You'll find more information at NobelPrize.org - The Prize in Economics 1990 - Press Release. Finally, for what it's worth, it isn't rocket science to build a similar portfolio. While I don't want to knock the Gone Fishin' Portfolio (I like most of its parts), there are many similar portfolios out there based on the same concepts. For instance, I'm reminded of a similar (though simpler) portfolio called the Couch Potato Portfolio, made popular by MoneySense magazine up here in Canada. p.s. This other question about asset allocation is related and informative.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b255e47ebb7c1a770f6272185f798254",
"text": "At a very high-level, the answer is yes, that's a good idea. For money that you want to invest on the scale of decades, putting money into a broad, market-based fund has historically given the best returns. Something like the Vanguard S&P 500 automatically gives you a diverse portfolio, with super low expenses. As it sounds like you understand, the near-term returns are volatile, and if you really think you might want this money in the next few years, then the stock market might not be the best choice. As a final note, as one of the comments mentioned, it makes sense to hold a broad, market-based fund for your IRA as well, if possible.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f7776d8529615f03d3a1ff066204e2e5",
"text": "I have a similar plan and a similar number of accounts. I think seeking a target asset allocation mix across all investment accounts is an excellent idea. I use excel to track where I am and then use it to adjust to get closer (but not exactly) to my target percentages. Until you have some larger balances, it may be prudent to use less categories or realize that you can't come exactly to your percentages, but can get close. I also simplify by primarily investing in various index funds. That means that in my portfolio, each category has 1 or 2 funds, not 10 or 20.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8e0cc6474e82e1d2d036cd295fc54b37",
"text": "\"You're right, the asset allocation is one fundamental thing you want to get right in your portfolio. I agree 110%. If you really want to understand asset allocation, I suggest any and all of the following three books, all by the same author, William J. Bernstein. They are excellent – and yes I've read each. From a theory perspective, and being about asset allocation specifically, the Intelligent Asset Allocator is a good choice. Whereas, the next two books are more accessible and more complete, covering topics including investor psychology, history, financial products you can use to implement a strategy, etc. Got the time? Read them all. I finished reading his latest book, The Investor's Manifesto, two weeks ago. Here are some choice quotes from Chapter 3, \"\"The Nature of the Portfolio\"\", that address some of the points you've asked about. All emphasis below is mine. Page 74: The good news is [the asset allocation process] is not really that hard: The investor only makes two important decisions: Page 76: Rather, younger investors should own a higher portion of stocks because they have the ability to apply their regular savings to the markets at depressed prices. More precisely, young investors possess more \"\"human capital\"\" than financial capital; that is, their total future earnings dwarf their savings and investments. From a financial perspective, human capital looks like a bond whose coupons escalate with inflation. Page 78: The most important asset allocation decision is the overall stock/bind mix; start with age = bond allocation rule of thumb. [i.e. because the younger you are, you already have bond-like income from anticipated employment earnings; the older you get, the less bond-like income you have in your future, so buy more bonds in your portfolio.] He also mentions adjusting that with respect to one's risk tolerance. If you can't take the ups-and-downs of the market, adjust the stock portion down (up to 20% less); if you can stomach the risk without a problem, adjust the stock portion up (up to 20% more). Page 86: [in reference to a specific example where two assets that zig and zag are purchased in a 50/50 split and adjusted back to targets] This process, called \"\"rebalancing,\"\" provides the investor with an automatic buy-low/sell-high bias that over the long run usually – but not always – improves returns. Page 87: The essence of portfolio construction is the combination of asset classes that move in different directions at least some of the time. Finally, this gem on pages 88 and 89: Is there a way of scientifically picking the very best future allocation, which offers the maximum return for the minimum risk? No, but people still try. [... continues with description of Markowitz's \"\"mean-variance analysis\"\" technique...] It took investment professionals quite a while to realize that limitation of mean-variance analysis, and other \"\"black box\"\" techniques for allocating assets. I could go on quoting relevant pieces ... he even goes into much detail on constructing an asset allocation suitable for a large portfolio containing a variety of different stock asset classes, but I suggest you read the book :-)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "91ac8519ecdfef7fe122c4fde90a549d",
"text": "\"Note that an index fund may not be able to precisely mirror the index it's tracking. If enough many people invest enough money into funds based on that index, there may not always be sufficient shares available of every stock included in the index for the fund to both accept additional investment and track the index precisely. This is one of the places where the details of one index fund may differ from another even when they're following the same index. IDEALLY they ought to deliver the same returns, but in practical terms they're going to diverge a bit. (Personally, as long as I'm getting \"\"market rate of return\"\" or better on average across all my funds, at a risk I'm comfortable with, I honestly don't care enough to try to optimize it further. Pick a distribution based on some stochastic modelling tools, rebalance periodically to maintain that distribution, and otherwise ignore it. That's very much to the taste of someone like me who wants the savings to work for him rather than vice versa.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a68a6190f8f1909ef9cf515c36ca5e0d",
"text": "\"The goal of the single-fund with a retirement date is that they do the rebalancing for you. They have some set of magic ratios (specific to each fund) that go something like this: Note: I completely made up those numbers and asset mix. When you invest in the \"\"Mutual-Fund Super Account 2025 fund\"\" you get the benefit that in 2015 (10 years until retirement) they automatically change your asset mix and when you hit 2025, they do it again. You can replace the functionality by being on top of your rebalancing. That being said, I don't think you need to exactly match the fund choices they provide, just research asset allocation strategies and remember to adjust them as you get closer to retirement.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4235c550d5320e788346bb69d057967b",
"text": "\"In general, I'd try to keep things as simple as possible. If your plan is to have a three-fund portfolio (like Total Market, Total International, and Bond), and keep those three funds in general, then having it separated now and adding them all as you invest more is fine. (And upgrade to Admiral Shares once you hit the threshold for it.) Likewise, just putting it all into Total Market as suggested in another answer, or into something like a Target Retirement fund, is just fine too for that amount. While I'm all in favor of as low expense ratios as possible, and it's the kind of question I might have worried about myself not that long ago, look at the actual dollar amount here. You're comparing 0.04% to 0.14% on $10,000. That 0.1% difference is $10 per year. Any amount of market fluctuation, or buying on an \"\"up\"\" day or selling on a \"\"down\"\" day, is going to pretty much dwarf that amount. By the time that difference in expense ratios actually amounts to something that's worth worrying about, you should have enough to get Admiral Shares in all or at least most of your funds. In the long run, the amount you manage to invest and your asset allocation is worth much much more than a 0.1% expense ratio difference. (Now, if you're going to talk about some crazy investment with a 2% expense ratio or something, that's another story, but it's hard to go wrong at Vanguard in that respect.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b999a06246cc4ab75c1b6138c20c3969",
"text": "Fire your fund manager. There are several passive funds that seek to duplicate the S&P 500 Index returns. They have lower management fees, which will make returns lower than S&P, and they have less risk by following a broadly diversified strategy (versus midcap growing stocks). There's also ETFs, but evidence is growing that they're not as safe as hoped. But here's the deal: the S&P has been on a tear lately. It could be overvalued and what looks like a good investment could start falling again. A possible alternative would be one of the Lifetime funds that seek to perform portfolio adjustment with a retirement decade target; they're fairly new which mostly means nobody knows how they screw you over yet. In theory, this decade structure means the brokerage can execute trading cash for stocks, stocks for bonds, and bonds for cash in house.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "afc7c50144969e4676e73b6ccda36cf9",
"text": "JoeTapayer has good advice here. I would like to add my notes. If they give a 50% match that means you are getting a 50% return on investment(ROI) immediately. I do not know of a way to get a better guaranteed ROI. Next, when investing you need to determine what kind of investor you are. I would suggest you make yourself more literate in investments, as I suggest to anyone, but there are basic things you want to look for. If your primary worry is loss of your prinicipal, go for Conservative investments. This means that you are willing to accept a reduced expected ROI in exchange for lower volatility(risk of loss of principal). This does not mean you have a 100% safe investment as the last market issues have shown, but in general you are better protected. The fidelity investments should give you some information as to volatility or if they deem the investments conservative. Conservative investments are normally made up of trading bonds, which have the lowest ROI in general but are the most secure. You can also invest in blue chip companies, although stock is inherently riskier. It is pointed out in comments that stocks always outperform bonds in the long term, and this has been true over the last 100 years. I am just suggesting ways you can protect yourself against market downturns. When the market is doing very well bonds will not give you the return your friends are seeing. I am just trying to give you a basic idea of what to look for when you pick your investments, nothing can replace a solid investment adviser and taking the time to educate yourself.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1cc1cbf238b28b58a628df8b2952238f",
"text": "he general advice I get is that the younger you are the more higher risk investments you should include in your portfolio. I will be frank. This is a rule of thumb given out by many lay people and low-level financial advisors, but not by true experts in finance. It is little more than an old wive's tale and does not come from solid theory nor empirical work. Finance theory says the following: the riskiness of your portfolio should (inversely) correspond to your risk aversion. Period. It says nothing about your age. Some people become more risk-averse as they get older, but not everyone. In fact, for many people it probably makes sense to increase the riskiness of their portfolio as they age because the uncertainty about both wealth (social security, the value of your house, the value of your human capital) and costs (how many kids you will have, the rate of inflation, where you will live) go down as you age so your overall level of risk falls over time without a corresponding mechanical increase in risk aversion. In fact, if you start from the assumption that people's aversion is to not having enough money at retirement, you get the result that people should invest in relatively safe securities until the probability of not having enough to cover their minimum needs gets small, then they invest in highly risky securities with any money above this threshold. This latter result sounds reasonable in your case. At this point it appears unlikely that you will be unable to meet your minimum needs--I'm assuming here that you are able to appreciate the warnings about underfunded pensions in other answers and still feel comfortable. With any money above and beyond what you consider to be prudent preparation for retirement, you should hold a risky (but still fully diversified) portfolio. Don't reduce the risk of that portion of your portfolio as you age unless you find your personal risk aversion increasing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "586200e8f685acbfec8ff09bf4bec44f",
"text": "If the portfolio itself is taxable, then yes; if you have two stocks and you're rebalancing them, without using new cash, you are forced to sell one stock to buy another. That sale is taxable, unless you're in some sort of tax deferred/deductible account, such as an IRA. If you're talking about you being in a mutual fund and the fund itself rebalances, the same rules apply as above, though indirectly; you'll have capital gains realized and distributed to you, those gains will be taxed unless, again, your account is a retirement account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "af7535b950b00daa65f3e587fcb3e827",
"text": "Most of the “recommendations” are just total market allocations. Within domestic stocks, the performance rotates. Sometimes large cap outperform, sometimes small cap outperform. You can see the chart here (examine year by year): https://www.google.com/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=1&chvs=maximized&chdeh=0&chfdeh=0&chdet=1428692400000&chddm=99646&chls=IntervalBasedLine&cmpto=NYSEARCA:VO;NYSEARCA:VB&cmptdms=0;0&q=NYSEARCA:VV&ntsp=0&ei=_sIqVbHYB4HDrgGA-oGoDA Conventional wisdom is to buy the entire market. If large cap currently make up 80% of the market, you would allocate 80% of domestic stocks to large cap. Same case with International Stocks (Developed). If Japan and UK make up the largest market internationally, then so be it. Similar case with domestic bonds, it is usually total bond market allocation in the beginning. Then there is the question of when you want to withdraw the money. If you are withdrawing in a couple years, you do not want to expose too much to currency risks, thus you would allocate less to international markets. If you are investing for retirement, you will get the total world market. Then there is the question of risk tolerance. Bonds are somewhat negatively correlated with Stocks. When stock dips by 5% in a month, bonds might go up by 2%. Under normal circumstances they both go upward. Bond/Stock allocation ratio is by age I’m sure you knew that already. Then there is the case of Modern portfolio theory. There will be slight adjustments to the ETF weights if it is found that adjusting them would give a smaller portfolio variance, while sacrificing small gains. You can try it yourself using Excel solver. There is a strategy called Sector Rotation. Google it and you will find examples of overweighting the winners periodically. It is difficult to time the rotation, but Healthcare has somehow consistently outperformed. Nonetheless, those “recommendations” you mentioned are likely to be market allocations again. The “Robo-advisors” list out every asset allocation in detail to make you feel overwhelmed and resort to using their service. In extreme cases, they can even break down the holdings to 2/3/4 digit Standard Industrial Classification codes, or break down the bond duration etc. Some “Robo-advisors” would suggest you as many ETF as possible to increase trade commissions (if it isn’t commission free). For example, suggesting you to buy VB, VO, VV instead a VTI.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
30c1774653e7ab4bebd45919b76a0e4a
|
How do UK Gilts interest rates and repayments work?
|
[
{
"docid": "f29a86a321e07b5b5de007b5c99d4858",
"text": "\"A title such as \"\"5% Treasury Gilt 2020\"\" expresses the nominal yield. In other words, 5% is the yield you will receive if you are able to buy the Gilt at the nominal (issue) price of GBP100. Of course, you will not be able to buy such a Gilt in today's market for the nominal price of GBP100. It will be trading at a considerable premium and therefore, if you hold it until maturity you will realise a capital loss to offset the relatively high income you have received. Here is an example. The \"\"8% June 2021 Gilt\"\" has a coupon of 8%. To purchase a GBP100 nominal Gilt in today's market will cost you GBP135.89. Thus, you will pay 135.89 to receive GBP8.00 income annually. This represents a 5.88% yield (8/135.89 = 5.88%). That sounds pretty good. However, if you hold the Gilt until maturity you will only receive GBP100 on redemption and therefore you will experience a capital loss GBP35.89 on each Gilt purchased. When this capital loss is taken into account it means that the 5.88% yield you are receiving as income will be offset by the capital loss so that you have earned the equivalent of 0.757% annually. You can of course sell the Gilt before its 2021 maturity date, however as the maturity date gets closer the market price will get closer to the GBP100 nominal value and you will again face a capital loss. There's no free ride in the markets. 5 year Gilts currently have a redemption yield of about 0.75%, while 10 year Gilts currently have a redemption yield of about 1.15%. You may also wish to note that buying Gilts in the open market requires a minimum purchase of GBP10,000 nominal value. However, you can purchase small Gilt holdings through the post office.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "78015aab391f1e140edca5a2b2e7ccb6",
"text": "\"The name of the Gilt states the redemption date, but not the original issue date. A gilt with 8.75% yield and close to its redemption date may have been issued at a time when interest rates were indeed close to 8.75%. For example in the early 1990s, the UK inflation rate was about 8%. One reason for preferring high or low coupon gilts is the trade off between capital gains and income, and the different taxation rules for each. If you buy a gilt and hold it to its maturity date, you know in advance the exact price that it will be redeemed for (i.e. £100). You may prefer to take a high level of income now, knowing you will make a capital loss in future (which might offset some other predictable capital gain for tax purposes) or you may prefer not to take income that you don't need right now, and instead get a guaranteed capital gain in future (for example, when you plan to retire from work). Also, you can use the change in the market value of gilts as a gamble or a hedge against your expectation of interest rate changes in future, with the \"\"government guaranteed\"\" fallback position that if your predictions are wrong, you know exactly what return you will get if you hold the gilts to maturity. The same idea applies to other bond investments - but without the government guarantee, of course.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "f70c8c562e977d956ae841fdb3c441b5",
"text": "Your calc is spot on, the output is small because it's just 5 days worth of interest, and at today's low rates that's practically 0. Also the rate you would want to use is money market rates as that's typically where companies will park cash to earn interest since its a highly liquid market.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "be1e573ee5dca62d49e337262a6e5084",
"text": "There are quite a few advantages to credit cards in the uk. But don't borrow on them past the grace period. Set up a direct debit to pay amount in full.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9ffb3ef759cbb56470d2a1ac59d3fd1b",
"text": "\"Lots of loans that are shady to say the least are advertised currently on TV in the UK. I'm happily in a situation where I don't need a loan but might be asked to be a guarantor. If anyone asked me to be a guarantor for a loan, I'd either be capable and willing to loan that money to the person myself, or I wouldn't guarantee. I'd never, ever in a million years be a guarantor. There is one company in particular offering loans \"\"the good old-fashioned way\"\" asking for 49.9% interest with a guarantor. That is an interest rate that can bankrupt the guarantor. If you take the loan with me as the guarantor, and you decide that you are not interested in paying back the loan, I'm stuck with this loan. So since the guarantor must trust you, if he or she is established in the UK, the best thing to do would be for them to take a loan from a bank (or any supermarket nowadays will give you a loan at a decent rate) in their own name, give the money to you, and hope that you pay back the money. I'm equally responsible for repayment whether I'm guarantor or whether the loan is in my name, so I'd get that loan at a decent rate from a reputable bank.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d9ff22fad222bb44d548c34d3f973584",
"text": "Yes, the interest rate on a Treasury does change as market rates change, through changes in the price. But once you purchase the instrument, the rate you get is locked in. The cashflows on a treasury are fixed. So if the market rate increase, the present value of those future cashflows decreases, so the price of the treasury decreases. If you buy the bond after this happens, you would pay a lower price for the same fixed cashflows, hence you will receive a higher rate. Note that once you purchase the treasury instrument, your returns are locked in and guaranteed, as others have mentioned. Also note that you should distinguish between Treasury Bills and Treasury Bonds, which you seem to use interchangeably. Straight from the horse's mouth, http://www.treasurydirect.gov/indiv/products/products.htm: Treasury Bills are short term securities with maturity up to a year, Treasury Notes are medium term securities with maturity between 1 and 10 years, and Treasury Bonds are anything over 10 years.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "91d7641faa256507c857e5aca1d56be4",
"text": "\"What you are looking for is the \"\"debt maturity profile\"\" (to make it easier to google. Most countries continuously roll over their debt, in effect just paying interest forever. So when your debt is due, you issue another loan for the same amount and use the new loan to pay off the old one.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1c5f7796e8581ad364cb3aa2a495ea88",
"text": "\"Taking the last case first, this works out exactly. (Note the Bank of England interest rate has nothing to do with the calculation.) The standard loan formula for an ordinary annuity can be used (as described by BobbyScon), but the periodic interest rate has to be calculated from an effective APR, not a nominal rate. For details, see APR in the EU and UK, where the definition is only valid for effective APR, as shown below. 2003 BMW 325i £7477 TYPICAL APR 12.9% 60 monthly payments £167.05 How does this work? See the section Calculating the Present Value of an Ordinary Annuity. The payment formula is derived from the sum of the payments, each discounted to present value. I.e. The example relates to the EU APR definition like so. Next, the second case doesn't make much sense (unless there is a downpayment). 2004 HONDA CIVIC 1.6 i-VTEC SE 5 door Hatchback £6,999 £113.15 per month \"\"At APR 9.9% [as quoted in advert], 58 monthly payments\"\" 58 monthly payments at 9.9% only amount to £5248.75 which is £1750.25 less than the price of the car. Finally, the first case is approximate. 2005 TOYOTA COROLLA 1.4 VVTi 5 door hatchback £7195 From £38 per week \"\"16.1% APR typical, a 60 month payment, 260 weekly payments\"\" A weekly payment of £38 would imply an APR of 14.3%.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "acbae95606e012afa793a1d678fdec38",
"text": "I'm pretty sure you are don't actually plan to put £120,000 into a zero interest account, because when you take inflation into account, in 20 years, then £120,000 won't be worth anywhere near that amount. For its value to grow you need the interest rate to exceed the rate of inflation and so paying 20% (or even 40%) tax on the interest can make the difference between whether being richer and getting poorer.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f9dce05a7255e9cf5cd86ec82fce3395",
"text": "This is more of an interesting question then it looks on first sight. In the USA there are some tax reliefs for mortgage payments, which we don’t have in the UK unless you are renting out the property with the mortgage. So firstly work out the interest rate on each loan taking into account any tax reliefs, etc. Then you need to consider the charges for paying off a loan, for example often there is a charge if you pay off a mortgage. These days in the UK, most mortgagees allow you to pay off at least 10% a year without hitting such a charge – but check your mortgage offer document. How interest is calculated when you make an early payment may be different between your loans – so check. Then you need to consider what will happen if you need another loan. Some mortgages allow you to take back any overpayments, most don’t. Re-mortgaging to increase the size of your mortgage often has high charges. Then there is the effect on your credit rating: paying more of a loan each month then you need to, often improves your credit rating. You also need to consider how interest rates may change, for example if you mortgage is a fixed rate but your car loan is not and you expect interest rates to rise, do the calculations based on what you expect interest rates to be over the length of the loans. However, normally it is best to pay off the loan with the highest interest rate first. Reasons for penalties for paying of some loans in the UK. In the UK some short term loans (normally under 3 years) add on all the interest at the start of the loan, so you don’t save any interest if you pay of the loan quicker. This is due to the banks having to cover their admin costs, and there being no admin charge to take out the loan. Fixed rate loans/mortgagees have penalties for overpayment, as otherwise when interest rates go down, people will change to other lenders, so making it a “one way bet” that the banks will always loose. (I believe in the USA, the central bank will under right such loans, so the banks don’t take the risk.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9290868dcd38bddb8c9ff8d0d73e8d8a",
"text": "The idea is correct; the details are a little off. You need to apply it to the actual cash flow the bond would create. The best advice I can give you is to draw a time-line diagram. Then you would see that you receive £35 in 6 months, £35 in 12 months, £35 in 18 months, and £1035 in 24 months. Use the method you've presented in your question and the interest rate you've calculated, 3% per 6 months, to discount each payment the specified amount, and you're done. PS: If there were more coupons, say a 20 year quarterly bond, it would speed things up to use the Present Value of an Annuity formula to discount all the coupons in one step...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b3666af20f9bb3570574b277a7faccb3",
"text": "Unless you are getting the loan from a loan shark, it is the most common case that each payment is applied to the interest accrued to date and the rest is applied towards reducing the principal. So, assuming that fortnightly means 26 equally-spaced payments during the year, the interest accrued at the end of the first fortnight is $660,000 x (0.0575/26) = $1459.62 and so the principal is reduced by $2299.61 - $1459.62 = $839.99 For the next payment, the principal still owing at the beginning of that fortnight will be $660,000-$839.99 = $659,160.01 and the interest accrued will be $659,160.01 x (0.0575/26) = $1457.76 and so slightly more of the principal will be reduced than the $839.99 of the previous payment. Lather, rinse, repeat until the loan is paid off which should occur at the end of 17.5 years (or after 455 biweekly payments). If the loan rate changes during this time (since you say that this is a variable-rate loan), the numbers quoted above will change too. And no, it is not the case that just %5.75 of the $2300 is interest, and the rest comes off the principle (sic)? Interest is computed on the principal amount still owed ($660,000 for starters and then decreasing fortnightly). not the loan payment amount. Edit After playing around with a spreadsheet a bit, I found that if payments are made every two weeks (14 days apart) rather than 26 equally spaced payments in one year as I used above, interest accrues at the rate of 5.75 x (14/365)% for the 14 days rather than at the rate of (5.75/26)% for the time between payments as I used above each 14 days, $2299.56 is paid as the biweekly mortgage payment instead of the $2299.61 stated by the OP, then 455 payments (slightly less than 17.5 calendar years when leap years are taken into account) will pay off the loan. In fact, that 455-th payment should be reduced by 65 cents. In view of rounding of fractional cents and the like, I doubt that it would be possible to have the last equal payment reduce the balance to exactly 0.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c2a19b85909548e452288bbc78626295",
"text": "Different rates. What the BoE is conducting is known as Quantitative Easing, which is a form of monetary policy avalable to central banks whenever interest rates are already too close to zero or at zero (just like in the UK). In this case, the central banks hopes to influence longer-term rates, rather than just short-term rates. It is useful to remember that the rate central banks announce is a short-term rate used for interbank lending.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8ae1d1b1312fe92617416fb321e35db0",
"text": "Your plan will probably work. I speak from past experience approx 5-10 years ago, when Lloyds used to offer tiered interest of up to 4% on £5000 in their Vantage accounts. It was allowed for an individual person to have up to three Vantage accounts. The criteria for obtaining the headline interest rates were simply: What I, and many others, did was to set up three Vantage accounts, call them A, B, and C, and a standing order on each to transfer minimum amount + £1 on the same day each month in this manner: This satisfied the letter of conditions, though perhaps not the spirit. Most importantly it satisfied the bank, and all three accounts received that headline interest rate. These days banks have got a little wiser to this and have started including the 'set up n direct debits' condition, which makes this a more time-consuming system to arrange - you must assign your various bills across your accounts - but I believe that the overall plan still works. They don't care where the money comes from, or whether it stays - just that it comes in. Enough people get it wrong that they don't have to worry about the few who get it perfectly right (see also: how 0% balance transfer offers can be profitable...)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a19ebf47a6a423a517f69a38387dc80f",
"text": "If it's number of years and the interest is per-annum the formula is the same as the normal one. this should work on most hand-held calculators.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fbcfdd2fccff5c1708bebc49a7ad5d43",
"text": "You definitely used to be able to (see this BBC article from 2006), and I would imagine that you still can, although I also imagine that it would be more difficult than it used to be, as with all mortgages. EDIT: And here's an article from last year about Chinese banks targeting the UK mortgage market.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "09341e6010c64a265197ec01f49e1ee6",
"text": "As no one has mentioned them I will... The US Treasury issues at least two forms of bonds that tend to always pay some interest even when prevailing rates are zero or negative. The two that I know of are TIPS and I series bonds. Below are links to the descriptions of these bonds: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/indiv/research/indepth/tips/res_tips.htm http://www.treasurydirect.gov/indiv/research/indepth/ibonds/res_ibonds.htm",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
26900c4fad850b416d828f06c0bfb8a9
|
How to diversify IRA portfolio given fund minimum investments and IRA contribution limits?
|
[
{
"docid": "75e7861dcb4e20c30b223ec2dd32f571",
"text": "There are fund of funds,e.g. life cycle funds or target retirement funds, that could cover a lot of these with an initial investment that one could invest into for a few years and then after building up a balance large enough, then it may make sense to switch to having more control.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "85d95299377ae67fc27470493af5e935",
"text": "If you have other savings, the diversification occurs across the accounts. e.g. my 401(k) has access to the insanely low .02% fee VIIIX (Vanguard S&P fund) You can bet it's 100% in. My IRAs are the other assets that make the full picture look better allocated. A new investor has the issue you suggest, although right now, you can deposit $5500 for 2013, and $5500 for 2014, so with $11K available, you can start with $6 or $9K and start with 2 or 3 funds. Or $9K now, but with $500 left over for the '14 deposit, you can deposit $6K in early '15. The disparity of $3K min/$5500 annual limit is annoying, I agree, but shouldn't be a detriment to your planning.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e7e51aeef98c5784f66315b85e75acee",
"text": "Many mutual fund companies (including Vanguard when I checked many years ago) require smaller minimum investments (often $1000) for IRA and 401k accounts. Some also allow for smaller investments into their funds for IRA accounts if you set up an automatic investment plan that contributes a fixed amount of money each month or each quarter. On the other hand, many mutual fund companies charge an annual account maintenance fee ($10? $20? $25? more?) per fund for IRA investments unless the balance in the fund is above a certain amount (often $5K or $10K$). This fee can be paid in cash or deducted from the IRA investment, and the former option is vastly better. So, diversification into multiple funds while starting out with an IRA is not that great an idea. It is far better to get diversification through investment in an S&P 500 Index fund (VFINX since you won't have access to @JoeTaxpayer's VIIIX) or a Total Market Index fund or, if you prefer, a Target Retirement Fund, and then branch out into other types of mutual funds as your investment grows through future contributions and dividends etc. To answer your question about fund minimums, the IRA account is separate from a taxable investment account, and the minimum rule applies to each separately. But, as noted above, there often are smaller minimums for tax-deferred accounts.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "f3b46a3bcf094f4b1063d750d505eb04",
"text": "From Vanguard's Best practices for portfolio rebalancing:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "db73a1b5b50cf731eb237e3122d18353",
"text": "\"There are probably 3-4 questions here. Diversification - A good index, a low cost S&P fund or ETF can serve you very well. If you add an extended market index or just go with \"\"Total market\"\", that might be it for your stock allocation. I've seen people with 5 funds, and it didn't take much analysis to see the overlap was so significant, that the extra 4 funds added little, and 2 of the 5 would have been it. If you diversify by buying more ETFs or funds, be sure to see what they contain. If you can go back in time, buy Apple, Google, Amazon, etc, and don't sell them. Individual stocks are fun to pick, but unless you put in your homework, are tough to succeed at. You need to be right at the buy side, and again to know if, and when, to sell. I bought Apple, for example, long ago, pre-last few splits. But, using responsible a approach, I sold a bit each time it doubled. Has I kept it all through the splits, I'd have $1M+ instead of the current $200K or so of stock. Can you tell which companies now have that kind of potential for the future? The S&P has been just about double digit over 60 years. The average managed fund will lag the S&P over time, many will be combined with other funds or just close. Even with huge survivor bias, managed funds can't beat the index over time, on average. Aside from a small portion of stocks I've picked, I'm happy to get S&P less .02% in my 401(k). In aggregate, people actually do far worse due to horrific timing and some odd thing, called emotions.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5356ba20ab62d86c8a3508d557ea4cbb",
"text": "Asset Allocation serves many purposes, not just mitigating risk via a diversification of asset classes, but also allowing you to take a level of risk that is appropriate for a given investor at a given time by how much is allocated to which asset classes. A younger investor with a longer timeframe, may wish to take a lot more risk, investing heavily in equities, and perhaps managed funds that are of the 'aggressive growth' variety, seeking better than market returns. Someone a little older may wish to pull back a bit, especially after a bull market has brought them substantial gains, and begin to 'take money off the table' perhaps by starting to establish some fixed income positions, or pulling back to slightly less risky index, 'value' or 'balanced' funds. An investor who is near or in retirement will generally want even less risk, going to a much more balanced approach with half or more of their investments in fixed income, and the remainder often in income producing 'blue chip' type stocks, or 'income funds'. This allows them to protect a good amount of their wealth from potential loss at a time when they have to be able to depend on it for a majority of their income. An institution such as Yale has very different concerns, and may always be in a more aggressive 'long term' mode since 'retirement' is not a factor for them. They are willing to invest mostly in very aggressive ways, using diversification to protect them from one of those choices 'tanking' but still overall taking a pretty high level of risk, much more so than might be appropriate for an individual who will generally need to seek safety and to preserve gains as they get older. For example look at the PDF that @JLDugger linked, and observe the overall risk level that Yale is taking, and in addition observe the large allocations they make to things like private equity with a 27%+ risk level compared to their very small amount of fixed income with a 10% risk level. Yale has a very long time horizon and invests in a way that is atypical of the needs and concerns of an individual investor. They also have as you pointed out, the economy of scale (with something like #17B in assets?) to afford to hire proven experts, and their own internal PHD level experts to watch over the whole thing, all of which very few individual investors have. For either class of investor, diversification, is a means to mitigate risk by not having all your eggs in one basket. Via having multiple different investments (such as picking multiple individual stocks, or aggressive funds with different approaches, or just an index fund to get multiple stocks) you are protected from being wiped out as might happen if a single choice might fail. For example imagine what would have happened if you had in 2005 put all your money into a single stock with a company that had been showing record profits such as Lehman Brothers, and left it there until 2008 when the stock tanked. or even faster collapses such as Enron, etc that all 'looked great' up until shortly after they failed utterly. Being allocated across multiple asset classes provides some diversification all on it's own, but you can also be diversified within a class. Yale uses the diversification across several asset classes to have lower risk than being invested in a single asset class such as private equity. But their allocation places much more of their funds in high risk classes and much less of their funds in the lowest risk classes such as fixed income.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "926bbb14f14cc331260a220cf824cfef",
"text": "Apply as many deductions as you are legally entitled to. Those are taxes you may never ever pay. Then turn around and put any more monies above the maximum retirement contributions into a taxable account. But this time invest in tax efficient investments. For example, VTI or SPY will incur very minimal taxes and when you withdraw, it will be at lower tax rate (based on current tax laws). Just as you diversify your investments, you also want to diversify your taxes.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "28b5ddd17e812c9911fc68a3d4514b2b",
"text": "I really like keshlam's answer. Your age is also a consideration. If you make your own target fund by matching the allocations of whatever Vanguard offers, I'd suggest re-balancing every year or every other year. But if you're just going to match the allocations of their target fund, you might as well just invest in the target fund itself. Most (not all, just most) target funds do not charge an additional management fee. So you just pay the fees of the underlying funds, same as if you mirrored the target fund yourself. (Check the prospectus to see if an additional fee is charged or not.) You may want to consider a more aggressive approach than the target funds. You can accomplish this by selecting a target fund later than your actual retirement age, or by picking your own allocations. The target funds become more conservative as you approach retirement age, so selecting a later target is a way of moving the risk/reward ratio. (I'm not saying target funds are necessarily the best choice, you should get professional advice, etc etc.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3ca387b896dec855ad681eb1d9ab8944",
"text": "First, you should diversify your portfolio. If your entire portfolio is in the Roth IRA, then you should eventually diversify that. However, if you have an IRA and a 401k, then it's perfectly fine for the IRA to be in a single fund. For example, I used my IRA to buy a riskier REIT that my 401k doesn't support. Second, if you only have a small amount currently invested, e.g. $5500, it may make sense to put everything in a single fund until you have enough to get past the low balance fees. It's not uncommon for funds to charge lower fees to someone who has $8000, $10,000, or $12,000 invested. Note that if you deposit $10,000 and the fund loses money, they'll usually charge you the rate for less than $10,000. So try to exceed the minimum with a decent cushion. A balanced fund may make sense as a first fund. That way they handle the diversification for you. A targeted fund is a special kind of balanced fund that changes the balance over time. Some have reported that targeted funds charge higher fees. Commissions on those higher fees may explain why your bank wants you to buy. I personally don't like the asset mixes that I've seen from targeted funds. They often change the stock/bond ratio, which is not really correct. The stock/bond ratio should stay the same. It's the securities (stocks and bonds) to monetary equivalents that should change, and that only starting five to ten years before retirement. Prior to that the only reason to put money into monetary equivalents is to provide time to pick the right securities fund. Retirees should maintain about a five year cushion in monetary equivalents so as not to be forced to sell into a bad market. Long term, I'd prefer low-load index funds. A bond fund and two or three stock funds. You might want to build your balance first though. It doesn't really make sense to have a separate fund until you have enough money to get the best fees. 70-75% stocks and 25-30% bonds (should add to 100%, e.g. 73% and 27%). Balance annually when you make your new deposit.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ef25a6623be4b8f0fea3b10714130202",
"text": "Have a look at: Diversify Portfolio. The site provides various tools all focused on correlation, diversification and portfolio construction. You can scan through every stock and ETF listed on the NASDAQ and NYSE to find any kind of correlation you're looking for. You can also create a portfolio and then analyze all the correlations within it, or search for specific stocks that can be added to the portfolio based on correlation and various other factors.",
"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": "e374af4ed349a2931e35b34bac47367d",
"text": "It depends on how much diversification you think you need and what your mutual fund options are. For instance, picking an index fund already provides a fair amount of diversification, especially if you select a Total Market type of index (readily available from Fidelity and Vanguard, and many other fund families). Are you looking to balance domestic vs. international investments? You may want to add an international index fund to the mix. Feel that a particular sector has tremendous potential? Add a sector fund. This investment mix is up to you (or your investment advisor). However, depending on your Roth IRA mutual fund choices, some of these funds may have minimum investment requirement - $3k to open a fund's account, for instance. In that case, you'd have no choice but to put your entire investment into one fund, and wait for subsequent years where you'd be able to invest in other funds after providing additional contributions and/or reallocation any growth from your initial investment. One thing to look at is whether you have an option of putting some of your contributions into a money market account within the Roth IRA - you can then reallocate funds from that account into another fund after you can meet the minimum investment requirement. However, in my opinion, if you start out by investing in a solid, low-cost index fund from a reputable mutual fund company, you've already picked up most of the diversification you need - a single fund is enough.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "52240b1b1ddd4e13e6d3fab812b0d397",
"text": "Oh, ok. You have $3.8m cash to work with in creating a low-risk investment portfolio. All you need to do is pick investment options that stick to the three objectives of the fund. You may assume all the capital is available for immediate investment ($200k out of the $4m is set aside for scholarships so it must stay liquid).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "874263987ed13e8dad9d7c904843d6e1",
"text": "Your initial premise (mid-cap and small-cap company stocks have outperformed the market) is partially correct - they have, over many 40 yr periods, provided higher returns than large caps (or bond funds). The important thing to consider here is that risk adjusted, the returns from a diversified portfolio are far more robust - with proper asset allocation you and expect high returns and reduce your risk simultaneously. Imagine this scenario - you decide to stick to small / mid caps for 10 - 15 yrs and move into a more diversified portfolio then. Had you made that decision during a sustained period of poor small cap performance (late 80s or the 40's) you would have lost a boatload of return, as those were periods were small / mids underperformed the market as a whole, and large caps in particular. As an example, from 1946 to 1958 large caps outperformed small every single year. If 2016 were to be the first year of a similar trend, you've done yourself a major disservice. Since the dot com crash small /mids have outperformed for sure, pretty much every year - but that doesn't mean that they will continue to do so. The reason asset allocation exists is precisely this - over a 40 yr period, no single asset class outperforms a diversified portfolio. If you attempt to time the market, even if you do so with a multi-decade time horizon in mind, there a good chance that you will do more poorly.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f50607ffadab1c7bacb18fce2adec8de",
"text": "\"The way I've implemented essentially \"\"value averaging\"\", is to keep a constant ratio between different investment types in my portfolio. Lets say (in a simple example), 25% cash, 25% REIT (real estate), 25% US Stock, 25% Foreign stock. Lets say I deposit a set $1000 per month into this account. If the stock portion goes up, it will look like I need more cash & REIT, so all of that $1000 goes into cash & the REIT portion to get them towards their 25%. I may spend months investing only in cash & the REIT while the stock goes up. Of course if the stock goes down, that $1000 per month goes into the stock accounts. Now you can also balance your account if you'd like, regularly selling stock (or the REIT), and making the account balanced. So if the stock goes down, you'd use the cash & REIT to purchase more stock. If the stock went up, you'd sell the stock, and buy REIT & leave more in cash.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2698016794b852de38938d5a5e422209",
"text": "No, you can't. The limits are contribution limits, not limits on the value of the investment. If you contributed $5,500 for 2015, you are done contributing for that tax year. You are free to contribute another $5,500 for 2016.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "370145bbca8c2860511a87564b212acc",
"text": "I don't like your strategy. Don't wait. Open an investment account today with a low cost providers and put those funds into a low cost investment that represents as much of the market as you can find. I am going to start by assuming you are a really smart person. With that assumption I am going to assume you can see details and trends and read into the lines. As a computer programmer I am going to assume you are pretty task oriented, and that you look for optimal solutions. Now I am going to ask you to step back. You are clearly very good at managing your money, but I believe you are over-thinking your opportunity. Reading your question, you need a starting place (and some managed expectations), so here is your plan: Now that you have a personal retirement account (IRA, Roth IRA, MyRA?) and perhaps a 401(k) (or equivalent) at work, you can start to select which investments go into that account. I know that was your question, but things you said in your question made me wonder if you had all of that clear in your head. The key point here is don't wait. You won't be able to time the market; certainly not consistently. Get in NOW and stay in. You adjust your investments based on your risk tolerance as you age, and you adjust your investments based on your wealth and needs. But get in NOW. Over the course of 40 years you are likely to be working, sometimes the market will be up, and sometimes the market will be down; but keep buying in. Because every day you are in, you money can grow; and over 40 years the chances that you will grow substantially is pretty high. No need to wait, start growing today. Things I didn't discuss but are important to you:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ea037e297eea30bc449f3febfb1d4090",
"text": "\"When you have multiple assets available and a risk-free asset (cash or borrowing) you will always end up blending them if you have a reasonable objective function. However, you seem to have constrained yourself to 100% investment. Combine that with the fact that you are considering only two assets and you can easily have a solution where only one asset is desired in the portfolio. The fact that you describe the US fund as \"\"dominating\"\" the forign fund indicates that this may be the case for you. Ordinarily diversification benefits the overall portfolio even if one asset \"\"dominates\"\" another but it may not in your special case. Notice that these funds are both already highly diversified, so all you are getting is cross-border diversification by getting more than one. That may be why you are getting the solution you are. I've seen a lot of suggested allocations that have weights similar to what you are using. Finding an optimal portfolio given a vector of expected returns and a covariance matrix is very easy, with some reliable results. Fancy models get pretty much the same kinds of answers as simple ones. However, getting a good covariance matrix is hard and getting a good expected return vector is all but impossible. Unfortunately portfolio results are very sensitive to these inputs. For that reason, most of us use portfolio theory to guide our intuition, but seldom do the math for our own portfolio. In any model you use, your weak link is the expected return and covariance. More sophisticated models don't usually help produce a more reasonable result. For that reason, your original strategy (80-20) sounds pretty good to me. Not sure why you are not diversifying outside of equities, but I suppose you have your reasons.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
9d2a2c5287e395b1543b2fc80612c81c
|
Why doesn't a mutual fund in my 401(k) have a ticker symbol?
|
[
{
"docid": "2051b0442778b10df3a99b7fb3ac4b96",
"text": "\"That share class may not have a ticker symbol though \"\"Black Rock MSCI ACWI ex-US Index\"\" does have a ticker for \"\"Investor A\"\" shares that is BDOAX. Some funds will have multiple share classes that is a way to have fees be applied in various ways. Mutual fund classes would be the SEC document about this if you want a government source within the US around this. Something else to consider is that if you are investing in a \"\"Fund of funds\"\" is that there can be two layers of expense ratios to consider. Vanguard is well-known for keeping its expenses low.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "12dfd7a4c63537325923b5f65bab573a",
"text": "Exchange-traded funds are bought and sold like stocks so you'd be able to place stop orders on them just like you could for individual stocks. For example, SPY would be the ticker for an S & P 500 ETF known as a SPDR. Open-end mutual funds don't have stop orders because of how the buying and selling is done which is on unknown prices and often in fractional shares. For example, the Vanguard 500 Index Investor shares(VFINX) would be an example of an S & P 500 tracker here.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "daccd8ca0d17624588d8df91bea8c332",
"text": "One advantage not pointed out yet is that closed-end funds typically trade on stock exchanges, whereas mutual funds do not. This makes closed-end funds more accessible to some investors. I'm a Canadian, and this particular distinction matters to me. With my regular brokerage account, I can buy U.S. closed-end funds that trade on a stock exchange, but I cannot buy U.S. mutual funds, at least not without the added difficulty of somehow opening a brokerage account outside of my country.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3b0513ea719821872a14f80eda6c8c71",
"text": "ACWI refers to a fund that tracks the MSCI All Country World Index, which is A market capitalization weighted index designed to provide a broad measure of equity-market performance throughout the world. The MSCI ACWI is maintained by Morgan Stanley Capital International, and is comprised of stocks from both developed and emerging markets. The ex-US in the name implies exactly what it sounds; this fund probably invests in stock markets (or stock market indexes) of the countries in the index, except the US. Brd Mkt refers to a Broad Market index, which, in the US, means that the fund attempts to track the performance of a wide swath of the US stock market (wider than just the S&P 500, for example). The Dow Jones U.S. Total Stock Market Index, the Wilshire 5000 index, the Russell 2000 index, the MSCI US Broad Market Index, and the CRSP US Total Market Index are all examples of such an index. This could also refer to a fund similar to the one above in that it tracks a broad swath of the several stock markets across the world. I spoke with BNY Mellon about the rest, and they told me this: EB - Employee Benefit (a bank collective fund for ERISA qualified assets) DL - Daily Liquid (provides for daily trading of fund shares) SL - Securities Lending (fund engages in the BNY Mellon securities lending program) Non-SL - Non-Securities Lending (fund does not engage in the BNY Mellon securities lending program) I'll add more detail. EB (Employee Benefit) refers to plans that fall under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, which are a set a laws that govern employee pensions and retirement plans. This is simply BNY Mellon's designation for funds that are offered through 401(k)'s and other retirement vehicles. As I said before, DL refers to Daily Liquidity, which means that you can buy into and sell out of the fund on a daily basis. There may be fees for this in your plan, however. SL (Securities Lending) often refers to institutional funds that loan out their long positions to investment banks or brokers so that the clients of those banks/brokerages can sell the shares short. This SeekingAlpha article has a good explanation of how this procedure works in practice for ETF's, and the procedure is identical for mutual funds: An exchange-traded fund lends out shares of its holdings to another party and charges a rental fee. Running a securities-lending program is another way for an ETF provider to wring more return out of a fund's holdings. Revenue from these programs is used to offset a fund's expenses, which allows the provider to charge a lower expense ratio and/or tighten the performance gap between an ETF and its benchmark.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "3f3c87da7cc52e6d91695081713a8d9d",
"text": "\"How is that possible?? The mutual fund doesn't pay taxes and passes along the tax bill to shareholders via distributions would be the short answer. Your basis likely changed as now you have bought more shares. But I gained absolutely nothing from my dividend, so how is it taxable? The fund has either realized capital gains, dividends, interest or some other form of income that it has to pass along to shareholders as the fund doesn't pay taxes itself. Did I get screwed the first year because I bought into the fund too late in the year? Perhaps if you don't notice that your cost basis has changed here so that you'll have lower taxes when you sell your shares. Is anyone familiar with what causes this kind of situation of receiving a \"\"taxable dividend\"\" that doesn't actually increase the account balance? Yes, I am rather familiar with this. The point to understand is that the fund doesn't pay taxes itself but passes this along. The shareholders that hold funds in tax-advantaged accounts like 401ks and IRAs still get the distribution but are shielded from paying taxes on those gains at that point at time. Is it because I bought too late in the year? No, it is because you didn't know the fund would have a distribution of that size that year. Some funds can have negative returns yet still have a capital gains distribution if the fund experiences enough redemptions that the fund had to sell appreciated shares in a security. This is part of the risk in having stock funds in taxable accounts. Or is it because the fund had a negative return that year? No, it is because you don't understand how mutual funds and taxes work along with what distribution schedule the fund had. Do I wait until after the distribution date this year to buy? I'd likely consider it for taxable accounts yes. However, if you are buying in a tax-advantaged account then there isn't that same issue.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3434f214ebf6ea235e1f6dc952df5914",
"text": "\"How does [FINRA's 5% markup policy] (http://www.investopedia.com/study-guide/series-55/commissions-and-trade-complaints/finra-5-markup-policy/) affect the expense/profit/value of an ETF/Mutual Fund? An extreme example to illustrate: If my fund buys 100 IBM @ 100, The fund would credit the broker $10,000 for those shares and the broker would give the fund 100 shares. Additionally there would be some sort of commission (say $10) paid on top of the transaction which would come out of the fund's expense ratio. But the broker is \"\"allowed\"\" to charge a 5% markup. So that means, that $100 price that I see could have hit the tape at $95 (assume 5% markup which is allowed). Thus, assuming that the day had zero volatility for IBM, when the fund gets priced at the end of the day, my 100 shares which \"\"cost\"\" 10,000 (plus $10) now has a market value of $9,500. Is that how it \"\"could\"\" work? That 500 isn't calculated as part of the expense of the fund is it? (how could it be, they don't know about the exact value of the markup).\"",
"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": "a93de0c47ea465ff6df525d0abc886ad",
"text": "The presence of the 401K option means that your ability to contribute to an IRA will be limited, it doesn't matter if you contribute to the 401K or not. Unless your company allows you to roll over 401K money into an IRA while you are still an employee, your money in the 401K will remain there. Many 401K programs offer not just stock mutual funds, but bond mutual funds, and international funds. Many also have target date funds. You will have to look at the paperwork for the funds to determine if any of them meet your definition of low expense. Because any money you have in those 401K funds is going to remain in the 401K, you still need to look at your options and make the best choice. Very few companies allow employees to invest in individual stocks, but some do. You can ask your employer to research other options for the 401K. The are contracting with a investment company to make the plan. They may be able to switch to a different package from the same company or may need to switch companies. How much it will cost them is unknown. You will have to understand when their current contract is up for renewal. If you feel their current plan is poor, it may be making hiring new employees difficult, or ti may lead to some employees to leave in search of better options. It may also be a factor in the number of employees contributing and how much they contribute.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3d7ee3420c962c48e9922a2fe399011b",
"text": "The simple answer is: YES, the JP Morgan emerging markets equity fund is a mutual fund. A mutual fund is a pooling of money from investors to invest in stocks and bonds. Investors in mutual funds arrive there in different ways. Some get there via their company 401K, others by an IRA, still others as a taxable account. The fund can be sold by the company directly or through a broker. You can also have a fund of funds. So the investors are other funds. Some investors are only indirect investors. They are owed a pension by a past or current employer, and the pension fund has invested in a mutual fund.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "79ecb26ea9c0236996186ea69aed8152",
"text": "\"As you alluded to in your question, there is not one answer that will be true for all mutual funds. In fact, I would argue the question is not specific to mutual funds but can be applied to almost anyone who must make an investment decision: a mutual fund manager, hedge fund manager, or an individual investor. Even though money going into a company 401(k) retirement savings plan is typically automatically allocated to different funds as we have specified, this is generally not the case for other investment accounts. For example, I also have a Roth IRA in which I have some money from each paycheck direct deposited and it's up to me to decide whether to leave that money in cash or to invest it somewhere else. Every time you invest more money into a mutual fund, the fund manager has the same decision to make. There are two commonly used mutual fund figures that relate to your question: turnover rate, and cash reserves. Turnover rate measures the percent of a fund's portfolio that changes every year. For example, a turnover rate of 100% indicates that a fund replaces every asset it held at the beginning of the year with something else at the end of the year – funds with turnover rates greater than 100% average a holding period for a given asset of less than one year, and funds with turnover rates less than 100% average a holding period for a given asset of more than one year. Cash reserves simply measure the amount of money funds choose to keep as cash instead of investing in other assets. Another important distinction to make is between actively managed funds and passively managed funds. Passively managed funds are often referred to as \"\"index funds\"\" and have as their goal only to match the returns of a given index or some other benchmark. Actively managed funds on the other hand try to beat the market by exploiting so-called market inefficiencies; e.g. buying undervalued assets, selling overvalued assets, \"\"timing\"\" the market, etc. To answer your question for a specific fund, I would encourage you to look at the fund's prospectus. I take as one example of a passively managed fund the Vanguard 500 Index Fund (VFINX), a mutual fund that was created to track the S&P 500. In its prospectus, the fund states that, \"\"to track its target index as closely as possible, the Fund attempts to remain fully invested in stocks\"\". Furthermore, the prospectus states that \"\"the fund's daily cash balance may be invested in one or more Vanguard CMT Funds, which are very low-cost money market funds.\"\" Therefore, we would expect both this fund's turnover rate and cash reserves to be extremely low. When we look at its portfolio composition, we see this is true – it is currently at a 4.8% turnover rate and holds 0.0% in short term reserves. Therefore, we can assume this fund is regularly purchasing shares (similar to a dollar cost averaging strategy) instead of holding on to cash and purchasing shares together at a specific time. For actively managed funds, the picture will tend to look a little different. For example, if we look at the Magellan Fund's portfolio composition, we can see it has a turnover rate of 42%, and holds around .95% in cash/short term reserves. In this case, we can safely guess that trading activity may not be as regular as a passively managed fund, as an active manager attempts to time the market. You may find mutual funds that have much higher cash reserves – perhaps 10% or even more. Granted, it is impossible to know the exact trading strategy of a mutual fund, and for good reason – if we knew for example, that a fund purchases shares every day at 2:30PM in order to realign with the S&P 500, then sellers of S&P components could up the prices at that time to exploit the mutual fund's trade strategy. Large traders are constantly trying to find ways to conceal their actual trading activity in order to avoid these exact problems. Finally, I feel obligated to note that it is important to keep in mind that trade frequency is linked to transactions costs – in general, the more frequently an investment manager (whether it be you or a mutual fund manager) executes trades, the more that manager will lose in transactions costs.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f2ec640fa7f7a0b70da50dfc98da4ee5",
"text": "\"To add on to the other answers, in asking why funds have different price points one might be asking why stocks aren't normalized so a unit price of $196 in one stock can be directly compared to the same price in another stock. While this might not make sense with AAPL vs. GOOG (it would be like comparing apples to oranges, pun intended, not to mention how would two different companies ever come to such an agreement) it does seem like it would make more sense when tracking an index. And in fact less agreement between different funds would be required as some \"\"natural\"\" price points exist such as dividing by 100 (like some S&P funds do). However, there are a couple of reasons why two different funds might price their shares of the same underlying index differently. Demand - If there are a lot of people wanting the issue, more shares might be issued at a lower price. Or, there might be a lot of demand centered on a certain price range. Pricing - shares that are priced higher will find fewer buyers, because it makes it harder to buy round lots (100 shares at $100/share is $10,000 while at $10/share it's only $1000). While not everyone buys stock in lots, it's important if you do anything with (standardized) options on the stock because they are always acting on lots. In addition, even if you don't buy round lots a higher price makes it harder to buy in for a specific amount because each unit share has a greater chance to be further away from your target amount. Conversely, shares that are priced too low will also find fewer buyers, because some holders have minimum price requirements due to low price (e.g. penny) stocks tending to be more speculative and volatile. So, different funds tracking the same index might pick different price points to satisfy demand that is not being filled by other funds selling at a different price point.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4b42857be6483bfc99330b71862bd2f1",
"text": "It is not necessary that the mutual fund pays out the dividend. The money would be used to buy more shares of the same stock or of some other stock depending on overall policy goal of the fund and current allocation of funds. This would increase the NAV of the mutual fund and hence its indirectly comes to you once you sell the mutual fund. The dividend would not be taxable as its not directly paid out.",
"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": "1930c68a28a19e4e2979740472fa1ec1",
"text": "This situation, wanting desperately to have access to an investment vehicle in a 401K, but it not being available reminds me of two suggestions some make regarding retirement investing: This allows you the maximum flexibility in your retirement investing. I have never, in almost 30 years of 401K investing, seen a pure cash investment, is was always something that was at its core very short term bonds. The exception is one company that once you had a few thousand in the 401K, you could transfer it to a brokerage account. I have no idea if there was a way to invest in a money market fund via the brokerage, but I guess it was possible. You may have to look and see if the company running the 401K has other investment options that your employer didn't select. Or you will have to see if other 401K custodians have these types of investments. Then push for changes next year. Regarding external IRA/Roth IRA: You can buy a CD with FDIC protection from funds in an IRA/Roth IRA. My credit union with NCUA protection currently has CDs and even bump up CDs, minimum balance is $500, and the periods are from 6 months to 3 years.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "352ae26769c4ba7b9868bfb94afe8813",
"text": "\"You absolutely should consider expenses. Why do they matter when the \"\"sticker price\"\" already includes them? Because you can be much more certain about what the expense ratio will be in the future than you can about what the fund performance will be in the future. The \"\"sticker price\"\" mixes generalized economic growth (i.e., gains you could have gotten from other funds) with gains specific to the fund, but the expense ratio is completely fund-specific. In other words, when looking at the \"\"sticker price\"\" performance of a fund, it's difficult to determine how that performance will extend into the future. But the expense ratio will definitely carry into the future. It is rare for funds to drastically change their expense ratios, but common for funds to change their performance. Suppose you find a fund that has returned a net of 8% over some time period and has a 1% expense ratio, and another fund that has returned a net of 10% but has a 2% expense ratio. So the first fund returned 9%-1% = 8% and the second returned 12%-2%=10%. There are decent odds that, over some future time period, the first fund will return 10%-1%=9% while the second fund will return 10%-2%=8%. In order for the second fund to be better than the first, it has to reliably outperform it by 1%; this is harder than it may sound. Simply put, there is a lot of \"\"noise\"\" in the fund performance, but the expense ratio is \"\"all signal\"\". Of course, if you find a fund that will reliably return 20% after expenses of 3%, it would probably make sense to choose that over one that returns 10% after expenses of 1%. But \"\"will reliably return\"\" is not the same as \"\"has returned over the past N years\"\", and the difference between the two phrases becomes greater and greater the smaller N is. When you find a fund that seems to have performed staggeringly well over some time period, you should be cautious; there is a good chance that the future holds some regression to the mean, and the fund will not continue to be so stellar. You may want to take a look at this question which asked about Morningstar fund ratings, which are essentially a measure of past performance. My answer references a study done by Morningstar comparing its own star ratings vs. fund expenses as a predictor of overall results. I'll repeat here the take-home message: How often did it pay to heed expense ratios? Every time. How often did it pay to heed the star rating? Most of the time, with a few exceptions. How often did the star rating beat expenses as a predictor? Slightly less than half the time, taking into account funds that expired during the time period. In other words, Morningstar's own study showed that its own star ratings (that is, past fund performance) are not as good at predicting success as simply looking at the expense ratios of the funds.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
f5cb118c4b467a058dca55ea97a3f55e
|
Does Degiro charge per order or per transaction?
|
[
{
"docid": "4cdfa5eb579e2b1f99667e415dc13ca6",
"text": "An order is not a transaction. It is a request to make a transaction. If the transaction never occurs (e.g. because you cancel the order), then no fees should be charged. will I get the stamp duty back (the 0.5% tax I paid on the shares purchase) when I sell the shares? I'm not a UK tax expert, but accorging to this page is seems like you only pay stamp tax when you buy shares, and don't get it back when you sell (but may be responsible for capital gains taxes). That makes sense, because there's always a buyer and a seller, so if you got the tax back when you sold, the tax would effectively be transferred from the buyer to the seller, and the government would never collect anything.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "80519dc892a32a27903d0d13fdc93213",
"text": "It comes down to liability - if a fraudulent transaction takes place with a debit card, you are out $$ until it is resolved - while as with a credit card, the credit lender is out $$ - the credit lender does not like losing $$, and therefore would like to be paid extra $$ for assuming this risk, and they found the merchant as the one most willing to pay. Sometimes the merchant will pass on this cost to the consumer, but often times the credit card company has a contract with the merchant preventing such a fee, because then they would be at a price disadvantage when compared to debit.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b427ead79d6bc0ca641b104f8705fd3c",
"text": "I would presume this goes entirely through the credit card network rather than the banking network. I am guessing that it's essentially the same operation as if you had returned something purchased on a card to the store for credit, but I'm not sure whether it really looks like a vendor credit to the network or if it is marked as a different type of transaction.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "918130a1c8eeb5200beae8679af18034",
"text": "Reading the plan documentation, yes, that is what it means. Each purchase by bank debit, whether one-time or automatic, costs $2 plus $0.06 per share; so if you invested $50, you would get slightly less than $48 in stock as a result (depending on the per-share price). Schedule of Fees Purchases – A one-time $15.00 enrollment fee to establish a new account for a non-shareholder will be deducted from the purchase amount. – Dividend reinvestment: The Hershey Company pays the transaction fee and per share* fee on your behalf. – Each optional cash purchase by one-time online bank debit will entail a transaction fee of $2.00 plus $0.06 per share* purchased. – Each optional cash purchase by check will entail a transaction fee of $5.00 plus $0.06 per share* purchased. – If funds are automatically deducted from your checking or savings account, the transaction fee is $2.00 plus $0.06 per share* purchased. Funds will be withdrawn on the 10th of each month, or the preceding business day if the 10th is not a business day. – Fees will be deducted from the purchase amount. – Returned check and rejected ACH debit fee is $35.00.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4b1421909229fe6945dbe0cb1ff8c467",
"text": "\"Etiquette or not, it is hurting the seller. The transaction fees have usually minimums, so if the actual transaction is below the minimum - they'll pay larger fee on the transaction (relatively). As an example, assume minimum fee for a debit card swipe is 20 cents, or 2% of the transaction. For a transaction of $10 and above, the fee will be 2% of the transaction. But for $1.67, the fee becomes 12% of the transaction. 6 times more expensive for the seller. Basically, the sale was most likely at a loss for them (they usually have very low margins, especially for a \"\"dollar\"\" store). So take that into account as well.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "be77013d0fee1ef03a83383972fe04c5",
"text": "Is that really a surprise? Merchant fees are typically around 2-3% (article says 1-4%) of the transaction sometimes with per transaction fees too. However, if you are paying 4% get a new CC processor. I am paying 2.75% for swiped/chip transactions for almost no volume with Square (I don't sell much, have it for convenience just in case). https://squareup.com/pricing I would be willing to bet that the ratio of overdrafts compared to not overdrafts is very low. I know I can't use my visa debit card when there is no money in the bank, and really, how many people use checks anymore?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7f90bbdd90cafa17e1bed146d3546934",
"text": "In addition to paypal, Amazon also offers a payment processing service that has micropayment pricing: For Transactions < $10:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aa5888916091d16a9b14403dc22f162d",
"text": "They do. The $260 already accounts for fees, I just left that out as I didn't believe it necessary info for the question of how to solve for group B. Edit : Oh, you mean accounting for the 1.5% interchange for group A? Yeah, I didn't do that. For group A we weren't given a number for monthly spend but we were told that they carry an average monthly balance of $3000.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "abd4755517ae5ac8d79c1cb42bdf209a",
"text": "I think something you might want to look at is a service called Dwolla. They charge $0.25 per transaction, and are free for transactions under $10.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "42d67907fdf339a103597d004144c9be",
"text": "When my orders fill, I'll often see a 1000 shares go through over 4-6 transactions, with a few cents difference high to low, but totaling the transaction cost, it adds to one commission (say $10 for my broker). Are you sure a series of partial fills would result in as many as 20 commissions?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "11df2d48aade57748eb732849fd92870",
"text": "Most bank registers (where you write down entries) show deposits (+) to account as a CREDIT. Payments, fees, and withdrawals are DEBITs to your bank accounnt. On loans such as credit card accounts, a credit to your loan account is a payment or other reductions of the amount you owe. A charge to your account is a DEBIT to you loan account. They did this just to confuse us!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f3abf524688025b980ad223313b4ca8a",
"text": "\"Not every American credit card charges Foreign Currency conversion fees. I won't mention the specific one I know about as I'm not interested in shilling for them. However, if you Google \"\"No foreign transaction fee\"\" you will find a couple of options.\"",
"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": "464e3ae477e3950b605f238bc0de4589",
"text": "\"An order is your command to the broker to, say, \"\"sell 100 shares of AAPL\"\". An executed order (or partially executed order) is when all (or some) of that command is successfully completed. A transaction is an actual exchange of shares for money, and there may be one or more transactions per executed order. For example, the broker might perform all of the following 5 transactions in order to do what you asked: On the other hand, if the broker cannot execute your order, then 0 transactions have taken place. The fee schedule you quote is saying that no matter how many transactions the broker has to perform in order to fill your order -- and no matter what the share prices are -- they're only going to charge you $0.005 per share ($0.50 in this example of 100 shares), subject to certain limits. However, as it says at the top of the page you linked, Our Fixed pricing for stocks, ETFs (Exchange Traded Products, or ETPs) and warrants charges a fixed amount per share or a set percent of trade value, and includes all IB commissions, exchange and most regulatory fees with the exception of the transaction fees, which are passed through on all stock sales. certain transaction fees are passed through to the client. The transaction fee you included above is the SEC fee on sales. Many (but not all) transaction fees DO depend on the prices of the shares involved; as a result they cannot be called \"\"fixed\"\" fees. For example, if you sell 100 shares of AAPL at $150 each, But if you sell 100 shares of AMZN at $940 each, So the broker will charge you the same $0.50 on either of those orders, but the SEC will charge you more for the expensive AMZN shares than for the cheaper AAPL shares. The reason this specific SEC fee mentions aggregate sales rather than trade value is because this particular SEC fee applies only to the seller and not to the buyer. So they could have written aggregate trade value, but they probably wanted to highlight to the reader that the fee is only charged on sells.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "935f5ac442c79704da7ecf6c26687900",
"text": "With a paypal micropayment he pays 61k (6.1%) (5% of sale price + .05 cents per transaction) With a regular paypal he pays 95k (9.5%) (2.9% of sale price + .30 cents per transaction) In case anybody was wondering what the poster is talking about. Either way he got hosed by using PayPal. Note: I'm working off 220,000 units sold at 1 million dollars (which I know aren't the exact figures).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "50b54ee0f2d50fba4547d1c2c497b452",
"text": "A debit card takes the funds right from your account. There's no 'credit' issued along the way. The credit card facilitates a short term loan. If you are a pay-in-full customer, as I am, there's a cost to lend the money, but we're not paying it. It's part of the fee charged to the merchant. Thus the higher transaction cost.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
0d0c55afd3c07c108ec44e37a2cc86b0
|
30-year-old saved $30,000: what should I do with it?
|
[
{
"docid": "4ad9de9c22565df9c3a2f565e531a525",
"text": "\"First, two preliminaries, to address good points people made in comments. As AbraCadaver noted, before you move your $30k to something that might lose money, make sure you have enough cash to serve as an emergency fund in case you lose your income. Especially remember that big stock market crashes often go hand-in-hand with widespread layoffs. Also, you mentioned that you're maxed out in a 401k. As JoeTaxpayer hinted, this could very well already be invested in stocks, and, if it isn't, probably a big part of it should be. Regarding your $30k, you don't need to pay anybody. In general, fees and expenses can form a big drag on your investments, and it's good to avoid them as much as possible. In particular, especially with \"\"only\"\" $30k, it's unlikely that advisers can save you more than they cost. Also, all financial advisers have a cost: the \"\"free\"\" ones usually push you into investing in expensive funds that make them money at your expense. In that regard, keep in mind that, unlike a lawyer or a doctor, a financial adviser is not required by law to give advice that's in your best interest. When investing, there is a pretty short list of important considerations that you should keep in mind: (If anyone has any other points they think are similarly important, feel free to suggest an edit.) Practically speaking, I'd suggest investing in index funds. These are mutual funds that invest very broadly, in a \"\"passive\"\" way that doesn't spend a lot of effort (and money) trying to pick individual high-performing stocks or anything like that. Index funds provide a lot of diversification and tend to have low expense ratios. (Other, \"\"actively managed\"\" funds tend to be more expensive and often don't outperform index funds anyway.) If you're saving for retirement, there are even target date funds that are themselves composed of a small number of index funds (often domestic and international stocks and bonds), and will increase the proportion invested in bonds (safer) as they get closer to a target retirement date. See, for example the Vanguard Target Retirement 2045 fund. A fund like that one might be all you need if you are saving for retirement. Finally, you can invest online without paying any advisers. Not all companies are created equal, however; do your research. I personally highly recommend Vanguard, since they have a wide variety of no-load index funds and tend to have very low expense ratios. (No-load means you don't have to pay a fee to buy and sell.) Part of why they are inexpensive is that, unlike most financial companies, they are actually a cooperative owned by those who invest in their funds, so they don't need to try and milk a profit out of you. (Don't let that suggest that they're some \"\"small-potatoes hippie firm\"\", though: they're actually one of the largest.) I hope I helped. Keep posting if you have more questions!\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "26319fad3c7c2643b6c4d66d4084a2d5",
"text": "1) The risks are that you investing in financial markets and therefore should be prepared for volatility in the value of your holdings. 2) You should only ever invest in financial markets with capital that you can reasonably afford to put aside and not touch for 5-10 years (as an investor not a trader). Even then you should be prepared to write this capital off completely. No one can offer you a guarantee of what will happen in the future, only speculation from what has happened in the past. 3) Don't invest. It is simple. Keep your money in cash. However this is not without its risks. Interest rates rarely keep up with inflation so the spending power of cash investments quickly diminishes in real terms over time. So what to do? Extended your time horizon as you have mentioned to say 30 years, reinvest all dividends as these have been proven to make up the bulk of long term returns and drip feed your money into these markets over time. This will benefit you from what is known in as 'dollar cost averaging' and will negate the need for you to time the market.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d9dec73a23253f112c5ba37c1bca7d90",
"text": "I'd put the 20% down, close on the house, live in it for a year, and save the difference. If you find your cash flow is fine, run a calculation and start on a program of prepaying a bit of principal each month as an extra payment. If you study how amortization works, you'll understand that an extra payment of about 1/6 the amount due will knock off a full payment at the end. This is how a 30 year mortgage starts out. Meanwhile, you should keep in mind, it's easy to prepay the mortgage, but there's really no getting it back. So, before letting go of your money, I'd do a few things; I may be stating the obvious, but consider - No matter how low the payment on your mortgage, a payment is due each and every month until it's paid off. You put 80% down, take a 10 year mortgage, you still have payments for 10 years. You want to insure yourself against needing to sell in a hurry if you both lose your jobs, so whatever you put down, I'd recommend a healthy emergency account, 9-12 months worth of expenses.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3b0134576ad94f597841f155d16001d1",
"text": "Aside from what everyone else has said about your money (saving, investing, etc.), I'd like to comment on what else you could spend it on: Spend it all on small/stupid things that, while stupid, would make me happier. For example take taxis more often, eat often in nice restaurants, buy designer clothes, etc. I'll be young only one time. You could also put the money towards something more... productive? Like a home project. Convert a room in your living space into an office or a theater-like room. Install hardwood floors yourself. Renovate a bathroom. Plant a garden of things you would enjoy eating later. Something that you would enjoy having or doing and can look back at and be proud of putting your money towards something that you accomplished.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f71d19e6c9d2beac1ed6871b68dc4618",
"text": "Not 100% related, but the #1 thing you need to avoid is CREDIT CARD DEBT. Trust me on this one. I'm 31, and finally got out of credit card debt about eight months ago. For just about my entire 20s, I racked up credit card debt and saved zero. Invested zero. It pains me to realize that I basically wasted ten years of possible interest, and instead bought a lot of dumb things and paid 25% interest on it. So yes, put money into your 401k and an IRA. Max them out.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a4f311b8e9a415d3b78b0ada9a971e97",
"text": "First off, I'm very sorry for your loss. Depending on when the money comes in I would park it and give it some time. After that, one of the best investments is paying off debt. Right now your net worth is less than 30K and that is really not even accessible until retirement. If the money is there to pay off the house I would do that. If there isn't enough to pay off the house then I would pay off the automobile and put all or a sizable portion of the remainder into the house. Now you have very little risk in your life and most likely much more monthly income to invest in 401K, IRAs, college funds or any other investment. Life insurance is mostly to replace your income if there are people counting on that income (spouse, kids, etc). Normally this would be invested to hopefully replace that income with the growth of the money. In your case it doesn't sound like you were relying on your father's income, so this can go to clean up current debt. Finally, depending on your relationship, what kind of person your father was and how he was with financials, what do you think he would want you to do with it?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b36a0c5beca455949cf83821a90b2c93",
"text": "The best thing to do right now is track your spending. You know you're saving 1k a month, and you know you're spending 1k a month on rent. That's 24k so far. I presume you'll have some income tax taken out, let's assume it's another 6k to round us neatly up to 30k. Since you earn 80k and you've spent 30k so far, you have another 50k unaccounted for. If you're in the USA I'd recommend using mint.com or a similar service to automatically track your transactions, or even just a spreadsheet if you don't like handing out your bank details (and you shouldn't). After that, I agree with SoulsOpenSource's answer. Write a budget and try to figure out where the fat can be trimmed. When I started tracking I saw I was spending almost a hundred bucks every week on fast food, due to poor planning and laziness. I decided to cook more and plan better and now I'm spending less than half that - in the last year I've saved almost three thousand dollars! If you want to save up for your future (and good on you if you do!) then there'll be some choices to make ahead. If you're spending a few hundred bucks on going out drinking every weekend, or you grab two coffees every day, or you buy fifty blurays a month (do people still buy blurays?), you'll have to ask yourself: Will I be happier spending money here than saving for my future?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "810598d503a4143d26ca148267fdc063",
"text": "The average inflation rate in the US over the last 17 years is 2.17% per year. source So he has $30,000 now. If another 3 years go by and he doesnt invest it in anything whatsoever, he would have 30,000/(1.0217^3) = $28,128 equivalent buying power 3 years from now. I would not focus on how much money he is losing per year, but instead focus on the religious constraint of not gaining interest. What was the intent of the religious prophet or person who was discussing this issue? If he invested the money with a 1% interest rate, and split the profit down the middle, half of it for his savings and half of it given to a charity of his choice, would that be something that would be likely to change his behavior? Consider this approach if you're trying to help someone to understand the ramifications of a financial.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3fd2c4aac08a0eb253bbb662aec2ca98",
"text": "\"It's a good question, but it turns into a general 'how to invest' question. You see, the cliche of \"\"invest the difference\"\" simply point to the ripoff the other two answers discuss. And it doesn't specify how to invest, only that this money should be put to work as long term investments. The best answer is to find the asset allocation appropriate for your age and risk profile. It can be as simple as a low cost S&P ETF, or as complex at a dozen assets that include Stocks, both Domestic and Foreign, REITs, Commodities, etc. It's not as if the saved funds get segregated in a special account just for this purpose, although I suppose one can do this just as others have separate funds for retirement, emergency, vacation, college, etc.\"",
"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": "072e32c49d800eee114844c789d21f4e",
"text": "I would be very careful with annuity products. If you don't mind sharing, what are the terms for the annuity? Usually I would recommend not to use retirement account to pay off debt, mainly because of the penalty that comes from withdrawing prematurely. But in this case, First of all, stop contributing to the annuity account if you're not contractually obligated. Second, try to convert your annuity assets to more common equity/debt products. Thirdly, try to cut back on spending to pay off debt, assuming you stopped paying 2X on housing, since 30k debt shouldn't be that hard to pay off with 100k income. Lastly, if all of the above are impossible, you can withdraw from that account to pay off your debt.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "609df879e23f8bc656b9519af3778ac2",
"text": "Many people have provided very good answers to this question and all the answers provide sound advice and justification. Below are some of my thoughts on the questions that you have put forward. 1) The investment manager question: The returns on your capital for a half year has been quite low; having said that, some investments do take more than half year to show some growth. You could try talking to your investment manager and ask where your money has been deployed and why the returns are low. If there are no real explanation given forth (which would be more likely as you have mentioned your investment manager does not like to discuss your money with you) you should conside Xolorus & Pete's advice and forthwith take all your money from investment manager and park it in the bank till you figure out what to do next with it. 2) Finances are not my forte: At 22 finance is nobodies forte, it takes longer than that; however having said that, how do you know finance is actually not your forte? Being a computer science graduate you would be more than comfortable with the mathematics required for finance. You may not have looked seriously at finance till now (I assume by your statement). Once way to be certain about this would be self learning, some good books have been refered above and there are online information, courses and articles on the Internet, for example here. You could give some spare time and explore if finance interests you or not. 3) If finance interests you: Then consider the 30K as your seed fund and take a small portion of it say 2K and try out your hand at investing on your own in the instruments that you feel most comfortable and see how you fare, you are young enough to take the risk. Rest of the money you could put in other low risk instruments (that you have identified through self study) 4) If finance does not interest you: The probably you are better off with an investment manager, as observed above, it will take some time for you to identify him/her 5) On returns: As mentioned above different instruments produce returns differently, however, one question that is universally asked is how much return on an invetment shoule one expect (you were expecting more than $12 on your investment). It is a difficult question to answer as invetment returns and investment needs depend on a persons financial goals and risk taking profile. One way to have some measure is to take 15-20 years CAGR of the stock index return and reduce it by 2-3%, that is (in many cases, not all) a reasonable return expectation in medium-long term.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1d7a72fc20efe28acab0c88c7cfe516f",
"text": "You are making close to 200 K a year which is great. The aggressive payments on loans takes out around 30K which is good. The fact that you are not able to save is bad. Rather than pushing off your savings to later, scale down the lifestyle and push the upgrade to lifestyle for later",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "552cf0cf29a72c23f41e4ca40e19724a",
"text": "At this time there is one advantage of having a 30 year loan right now over a 15 year loan. The down side is you will be paying 1% higher interest rate. So the question is can you beat 1% on the money you save every month. So Lets say instead of going with 15 year mortgage I get a 30 and put the $200 monthly difference in lets say the DIA fund. Will I make more on that money than the interest I am losing? My answer is probably yes. Plus lets factor in inflation. If we have any high inflation for a few years in the middle of that 30 not only with the true value of what you owe go down but the interest you can make in the bank could be higher than the 4% you are paying for your 30 year loan. Just a risk reward thing I think more people should consider.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c79894c7fa372a0fc8b279eaf727db50",
"text": "\"In my opinion, you can't save too much for retirement. An extra $3120/yr invested at 8% for 30 years would give you $353K more at retirement. If your \"\"good amount in my 401k\"\" is a hint that you don't want us to go in that direction, then how about saving for the child's college education? 15 years' savings, again at 8% will return $85K, which feels like a low number even in today's dollars, 15 years of college inflation and it won't be much at all. Not sure why there's guilt around spending it. If one has no debt, good retirement savings level, and no pressing need to save for something else, enjoying one's money is an earned reward. Even so, if you want a riskless 'investment' just prepay the mortgage. You'll see an effective return of the mortgage rate, 4%(?) or so, vs the .001% banks are paying. Of course, this creates a monthly windfall once the mortgage is paid off, but it buys you time to make this ultimate decision. In the end, I'd respond that similar to Who can truly afford luxury cars?, one should produce a budget. I don't mean a set of constraints to limit spending in certain categories, but rather, a look back at where the money went last year and even the year before that. What will emerge are the things that are normal, the utility bills, tax bill, mortgage, etc, as well as the discretionary spending. If all your current saving is on track, the investment may be in experiences, not financial products.\"",
"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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
d11f651118ae7a550071b79f1f85105f
|
Buying under my bid price
|
[
{
"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": "8ac3f7737b4923500e318bf9888f039a",
"text": "Your assets are marked to market. If you buy at X, and the market is bidding at 99.9% * X then you've already lost 0.1%. This is a market value oriented way of looking at costs. You could always value your assets with mark to model, and maybe you do, but no one else will. Just because you think the stock is worth 2*X doesn't mean the rest of the world agrees, evidenced by the bid. You surely won't get any margin loans based upon mark to model. Your bankers won't be convinced of the valuation of your assets based upon mark to model. By strictly a market value oriented way of valuing assets, there is a bid/ask cost. more clarification Relative to littleadv, this is actually a good exposition between the differences between cash and accrual accounting. littleadv is focusing completely on the cash cost of the asset at the time of transaction and saying that there is no bid/ask cost. Through the lens of cash accounting, that is 100% correct. However, if one uses accrual accounting marking assets to market (as we all do with marketable assets like stocks, bonds, options, etc), there may be a bid/ask cost. At the time of transaction, the bids used to trade (one's own) are exhausted. According to exchange rules that are now practically uniform: the highest bid is given priority, and if two bids are bidding the exact same highest price then the oldest bid is given priority; therefore the oldest highest bid has been exhausted and removed at trade. At the time of transaction, the value of the asset cannot be one's own bid but the highest oldest bid leftover. If that highest oldest bid is lower than the price paid (even with liquid stocks this is usually the case) then one has accrued a bid/ask cost.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b9581148b6453c1697ee377b6f87be88",
"text": "The best ask is the lowest ask, and the best bid is the highest bid. If the ask was lower than the bid then they crossed, and that would be a crossed market and quickly resolved. So the bid will almost always be cheaper than the ask. A heuristic is that a bid is the revenue of the stock at any given time while the ask is the cost, so the market will only ever offer a profit to itself not to the liquidity seeker. If examining the book vertically, all orders are usually sorted descending. Since the best ask is the lowest ask, it is on the bottom of the asks, and vice versa for the best bid. The best bid & best ask will be those closest since that's the narrowest spread and price-time priority will promise that a bid that crosses the asks will hit the lowest ask, the best possible price for the bidder and vice versa for an ask that crosses the best bid.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "1248a3abfba9745922e9e97dc76f27ee",
"text": "Today SPY (The S&P ETF) trades at $128. The option to buy at $140 (this is a Jan '13 call) trades for $5. I buy the call, for $500 as they trade in 100 lots. The S&P skyrockets to 1500 and SPY to $150. The call trades for $11, as it still has a month or two before expiring, so I sell it, and get $1100. The S&P rose 17%, but I doubled my money. If it 'only' rose 9%, to less than $140, I'd lose my investment. No, I don't need to buy the SPY I can sell the call any time before expiration. In fact, most options are not exercised, they are sold between purchase and expiration date.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "9423efe84c7fc3bad04c93871b20eaf2",
"text": "\"I place a trade, a limit order on a thinly traded stock. I want to buy 1000 shares at $10. The current price is $10.50. Someone places a market order for 500 shares. Another trader has a limit order for $10.10 for 400 shares. His order fills, and I get 100 at my price. I wait another day to see if I get any more shares. This is just an example of how it can work. I can place my order as \"\"all or none\"\" if I wish to avoid this.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "885c2fe86964f417fb835bfe6bb68713",
"text": "How would this trade behave IRL? I don't know how the simulation handles limit orders and bid/ask spreads to know it's feasible, but buying at 4.04 when the current ask is 8.00 seems unlikely. That would mean that all other sell orders between 8.00 and 4.04 were fulfilled, which means that there were very few sellers or that sell pressure spiked, both of which seem unlikely. In reality, it seems more likely that your order would have sat there until the ask dropped to $4.04 (if it ever did), and then you'd have to wait until the bid rose to $7.89 in order to sell them at that price. However, that kind of swing in option prices in not unrealistic. Options near at-the-money tend to move in price at about 50% of the change in the underlying, so if amazon suddenly dropped by $5, the option price could drop by $2.60 (from 6.66 to $4.04), and then rise back to $7.89 if the price rose $8 (which would be 1% swing and not unheard of intra-day). But it sounds like you got very lucky (or the simulation doesn't handle option trading realistically) - I've traded options in the past and have had some breaks similar to yours. I've also had bad breaks where I lost my entire investment (the options expire out-of-the money). So it should be a very limited part of your portfolio, and probably only used for risk management (e.g. buying put options to lock in some gains but keeping some upside potential).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8dc3f76abf4ba8b89bfe560b6fe4ed1b",
"text": "\"It depends on many factors, but generally, the bid/ask spread will give you an idea. There are typically two ways to buy (or sell) a security: With a limit order, you would place a buy for 100 shares at $30-. Then it's easy, in the worst case you will get your 100 shares at $30 each exactly. You may get lucky and have the price fall, then you will pay less than $30. Of course if the price immediately goes up to say $35, nobody will sell at the $30 you want, so your broker will happily sit on his hands and rake in the commission while waiting on what is now a hail Mary ask. With a market order, you have the problem you mention: The ticker says $30, but say after you buy the first 5 shares at $30 the price shoots up and the rest are $32 each - you have now paid on average $31.9 per share. This could happen because there is a limit order for 5 at $30 and 200 at $32 (you would have filled only part of that 200). You would be able to see these in the order book (sometimes shown as bid/ask spread or market depth). However, the order book is not law. Just because there's an ask for 10k shares at $35 each for your $30 X stock, doesn't mean that by the time the price comes up to $35, the offer will still be up. The guy (or algorithm) who put it up may see the price going up and decide he now wants $40 each for his 10k shares. Also, people aren't obligated to put in their order: Maybe there's a trader who intends to trade a large volume when the price hits a certain level, like a limit order, but he elected to not put in a limit order and instead watch the ticker and react in real time. Then you will see a huge order suddenly come in out of nowhere. So while the order book is informative, what you are asking is actually fundamentally impossible to know fully, unless you can read the minds of every interested trader. As others said, in \"\"normal\"\" securities (meaning traded at a major exchange, especially those in the S&P500) you simply can't move the price, the market is too deep. You would need millions of dollars to budge the price, and if you had that much money, you wouldn't be asking here on a QA site, you would have a professional financial advisor (or even a team) that specializes in distributing your large transaction over a longer time to minimize the effect on the market. With crazier stocks, such as OTC and especially worthless penny stocks with market caps of $1 mil or less, what you say is a real problem (you can end up paying multiples of the last ticker if not careful) and you do have to be careful about it. Which is why you shouldn't trade penny stocks unless you know what you're doing (and if you're asking this question here, you don't).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "061794d07974822a5fc96e9755dfbc51",
"text": "\"Why would people sell below the current price, and not within the range of the bid/ask? There are many scenarios where this is deliberate but all of them boil down to the fact that the top level's bid doesn't support the quantity you're trying to sell (or is otherwise bogus[1]). One scenario as an example: You're day-trading both sides but at the end of the day you accumulated a rather substantial long position in a stock. You don't want to (or aren't allowed to[2]) be exposed overnight, however. What do you do? You place an order that is highly likely to go through altogether. There's several ways to achieve that but a very simple one is to look at the minimum bid level for which the bid side is willing to take all of your shares, then place a limit order for the total quantity at that price. If your position doesn't fit into the top level bid that price will well be lower than the \"\"current\"\" bid. Footnotes: [1] Keyword: quote stuffing [2] Keyword: overnight margin (aka positional margin, as opposed to intraday margin), this is highly broker dependent, exchanges don't usually distinguish between intraday and overnight margins, instead they use the collective term maintenance margin\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e85ca597f6ce4303a9379b005fa87d1a",
"text": "I can't say I know everything about the underlying details, but from what I understand, your limit buy adds to the bid side of open orders, and one possibility is that someone placed a market order to sell when the bid price for the stock fell to $10 which was matched to your open limit order. So using your terminology, I would say the spot bid price is what fell to $10, even if for a brief moment. Whether or not it is possible for your order to be filled when the limit buy price is deeper than the current bid price is beyond me. It may have something to do with lot sizes.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "84be8a7c538fae48665f33c5a50e9a99",
"text": "\"Most of the time* you're selling to other investors, not back to the company. The stock market is a collection of bid (buy offers) and asks (sell offers). When you sell your stock as a retail investor at the \"\"market\"\" price you're essentially just meeting whatever standing bid offers are on the market. For very liquid stocks (e.g. Apple), you can pretty much always get the displayed price because so many stocks are being traded. However during periods of very high volatility or for low-volume stocks, the quoted price may not be indicative of what you actually pay. As an example, let's say you have 5 stocks you're trying to sell and the bid-side order book is 2 stocks for $105, 2 for $100, and 5 for $95. In this scenario the quoted price will be $105 (the best bid price), but if you accept market price you'll settle 2 for 105, 2 for 100, and 1 for 95. After your sell order goes through, the new quoted price will be $95. For high volume stocks, there will usually be so many orders near the midpoint price ($105, in this case) that you won't see any price slippage for small orders. You can also post limit orders, which are essentially open orders waiting to be filled like in the above example. They ensure you get the price you want, but you have no way to guarantee they'll be filled or not. Edit: as a cool example, check out the bitcoin GDAX on coinbase for a live example of what the order book looks like for stocks. You'll see that the price of bitcoin will drift towards whichever direction has the less dense order book (e.g. price drifts upwards when there are far more bids than asks.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "4b24f69f03b345cf34ce1a673683d9fb",
"text": "If you are buying your order will be placed in Bid list. If you are selling your order will be placed in the Ask list. The highest Bid price will be placed at the top of the Bid list and the lowest Ask price will be placed at the top of the Ask list. When a Bid and Ask price are matched a transaction will take place and it will the last traded price. If you are looking to buy at a lower price, say $155.01, your Bid price will be placed 3rd in the Bid list, and unless the Ask prices fall to that level, your order will remain in the list until it trades, it expires or you cancel it. If prices don't fall to you Bid price you will not get a trade. If you wanted your trade to go through you could either place a limit buy order closer to the lowest Ask price (however this is still not a certainty), or to be certain place a market buy order which will trade at the lowest Ask price.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eaa4b02a06d08b9b1783a68a48a9d9e2",
"text": "\"Alrighty. So your question is, how confident are people that FB stock will close above a certain price at a certain time. A \"\"call\"\" option contract allows you to buy shares in the future at a certain price. FB calls are available for March of 2013. The number in the \"\"strike\"\" column is the price you can buy FB stock at on the given date. Let's take the \"\"33.00\"\" strike. This allows you to buy FB shares at $33 each next March. If at that time it turns out they're worth $50 each, you can buy them at $33, then immediately sell them on the open market for $50, making money. The person selling you the option knows that there's a chance the price will be above $33 in March, so he's going to charge you a few bucks to cover that possibility. In this case, he's charging you $5.30 (as of me writing this). So, you can have the option to buy FB shares at $33 each for $5.30. This means the guy selling you the option is reasonably confident that in March, FB stock will be at or under $38.50, otherwise he'd lose money when you exercised the option. Therefore, $38.50 is the option market's best guess as to the highest FB stock will be going for in March.\"",
"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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
406cf1bbead32a90b6a2c5ea35b1ce36
|
Feasibility of using long term pattern on short term investments
|
[
{
"docid": "5d9685b927b92b8d056c3264e56cf9e4",
"text": "\"When structures recur at different scales, they're called \"\"fractals\"\", and there is something called the \"\"fractal markets hypothesis\"\" which attempts to analyse stock market movements as fractals and in terms of (related) chaos theory. Whether you can profit from it I have no idea. If it was easy, everyone would be doing it. Many of the non-academic pages linked in the search results (previous link) remind me of technical analysis/chartist stuff (which - to me - always seems to be a lot better at explaining things after the event than actually predicting things).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f872a71d23c1c891d80c07b39da115a6",
"text": "Most patterns can be used on various time frames. For example you could use candle stick reversal patterns on monthly charts, weekly charts, daily charts or intra-day charts like one hour, or even one minute charts. Obviously if you are looking for longer term positions you would be looking at daily, weekly or monthly charts and if you are looking for shorter term positions you would be looking at intra-day to daily charts. You can also use a combination of time frames - for example, if you are trying to enter a trade over a long-term uptrend you could use a weekly chart to determine if the stock is currently uptrending and then use a daily chart to time your entry into the trade. Most patterns in general don't really determine how long you will be in the trade but instead usually can provide an entry trigger, a stop loss location and possibly a profit target. So in general a pattern which is being used to enter into longer term trades on weekly charts can also be used to enter shorter term trades on intra-day charts.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "464f8325d26e0675c5b7458a4f9fdcfa",
"text": "There are Patterns inside of Patterns. You will see short term patterns (flags / pennants) inside of long term patterns (trend lines, channels) and typically you want to trade those short term patterns in line with the direction of the long term pattern. Take a look at the attached chart of GPN. I would like to recommend two excellent books on Chart Patterns. Richard W. Schabacker book he wrote in the 1930's. It is the basis for modern technical pattern analysis. Technical Analysis and Stock Market Profits Peter Brandt Diary of a Professional Commodity Trader. He takes you through analysis and trades.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "92c9301f6148be2b3f14b088581243d3",
"text": "Just to clarify Short Team Goals & Long Term Goals... Long Term goals are for something in future, your retirement fund, Children’s education etc. Short Term goals are something in the near future, your down payment for car, house, and holiday being planned. First have both the long and short terms goals defined. Of Couse you would need to review both these goals on a ongoing basis... To meet the short term goals you would need to make short term investments. Having arrived at a short term goal value, you would now need to make a decision as to how much risk you are willing [also how much is required to take] to take in order to meet your goal. For example if you goal is to save Rs 100,000 by yearend for the car, and you can easily set aside Rs 8,000 every month, you don't really need to take a risk. A simple Term / Fixed Deposit would suffice you to meet your goal. On the other hand if you can only save Rs 6,000 a year, then you would need to invest this into something that would return you around 35%. You would now need to take a risk. Stocks market is one option, there are multiple types of trades [day trades, shorts, options, regular trades] that one can do ... however the risk can wipe out even your capital. As you don't know these types of investments, suggest you start with dummy investing using quite a few free websites, MoneyControl is one such site, you get pseudo money and can buy sell and see how things actually move. This should teach you something about making quick gains or losses without actually gaining or loosing real money. Once you reach some confidence level, you can start trading using real money by opening a trading account almost every other bank in India offers online trading linked to bank account. Never lose sight of risk appetite, and revise if every now and then. When you don't have dependents, you can easily risk money for potential bumper, however after you have other commitments, you may want to tone down... Edit: http://moneybhai.moneycontrol.com/moneybhai-rules.html is one such site, there are quite a few others as well that offer you to trade on virtual money. Try this for few months and you will understand whether you are making right decissions or not.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bbeb862496110b094cc1321832a0fff5",
"text": "\"IMO: If you look long and hard enough at your data you're going to bump into these kinds of \"\"patterns\"\". There is no \"\"curse of 7\"\". “Looking at the chart makes you want to hide under your desk when you see it, but remember this is only a sample size of 11, and the average performance is greatly skewed by big drops late in 1907, 1937, 1957, and 1987. Also, consider that 1907, 1937, and 1957 were all recessionary years, and equities had run up 40% for the year in August 1987, so a pullback was not surprising.\"\" [Quote](https://lplresearch.com/2017/08/11/the-curse-of-years-ending-in-7/)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1107626b9d56e20a0d0a6074e897b4d8",
"text": "If they are truly long term investments I would not put a stop loss on them. The recent market dive related to the Brexit vote is a prime example of why not to have one. That was a brief dive that may have stopped you out of any or all of your positions and it was quite short lived. You would likely have bought your positions back (or new positions entirely) and run the risk of experiencing a loss over what turned out to be a non event. That said, I would recommend evaluating your positions periodically to see if they still make sense and are performing the way you want.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0d849e6342a1478e971674313bc8184a",
"text": "\"TBF - Proshares short 20+ Year Treasury The TBF fund is designed to track (hopefully) 100 percent of the inverse daily returns of the Barclays Capital 20+ Year U.S. Treasury Index. there's some risk of tracking error, and also a compounding effect if it's down several days in a row. (invest with care) There's also a TBT fund, but the risks are even greater since it is leveraged, potentially you could make the right long term call, but lose a lot in the short term due to tracking error and effect of compounding) (that would tend to make this one more appropriate for short term 'bets' on interest rates, and less so for a long term investor) There are also quite a few floating rate closed-end funds (Click here, then click on \"\"loan participation funds\"\") that should do well in a rising rate environment. Just beware that these funds seem to incorporate a substantial amount of credit risk as well as floating interest rate exposure. Closed end funds trade a lot like securities, since the fund is closed, you have to buy shares from another owner that is selling (just like with stocks), that means the shares can sometimes trade above or below the underlying value of the actual assets held by the fund depending on buying/selling pressure and the relative liquidity of a given fund.\"",
"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": "c4146082e5f8044c92c427f46a333df1",
"text": "In India, as suggested above, short/long position can be taken either in F&O or Spot market. The F&O segment short/long can be kept open for appx. 3 months by taking position on the far contract. In intra-day/Spot market, usually the position has to be squared at the end of day or the broker will square it during expiry (forcibly). However, having said that, it is a broker specific feature, as per National Stock Exchange (NSE) or Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) any transaction has to be settled at the end of T+2 days (T being the trade day). Some brokers allow intra-day positions to be open for T+1 or T+2 days as long as the margin is provided. This is a broker specific discretion as the actual settlement is on T+2 (or in some cases as the exchange specifies). So, in general, to short a stock for a longer time, F&O segment should be used.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a657750c12ad24f753f130ba5bff9636",
"text": "For long periods of time a short ETF's performance will not match the negative of the long ETF, e.g. funding costs and the fact that they 'only' match daily returns will result in a suboptimal performance. If possible use other derivatives like a put on a long gold etf (fgriglesnickerseven)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0701647bcc7ed2194b069134c6b73b93",
"text": "Algorithmic trading essentially banks on the fact that a price will fluctuate in tiny amounts over short periods of time, meaning the volatility is high in that given time frame. As the time frame increases the efficiency of algorithmic trading decreases and proper investment strategies such as due diligence, stock screening, and technical analysis become the more efficient methods. Algorithms become less effective as the time frame increases due to the smoothing effect of volatility over time. Writing an algorithm that could predict future long-term prices would be an impossible feat because as the time frame is scaled up there are far less price fluctuations and trends (volatility smooths out) and so there is little to no benchmark for the formulas. An algorithm simply wouldn't make sense for a long-term position. A computer can't predict, say, the next quarter, an ousted CEO, a buyout, or anything else that could effect the price of the security, never mind the psychology behind it all. Vice versa, researching a company's fundamentals just to bank on a 0.25% daily swing would not be efficient. Tax advantages or not, it is the most efficient methods that are preferred for a given time-scale of trading.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ee81a90148d0f963fa707fa0e5631b6c",
"text": "\"The standard low-risk/gain very-short-term parking spot these days tends to be a money market account. However, you have only mentioned stock. For good balance, your portfolio should consider the bond market too. Consider adding a bond index fund to diversify the basic mix, taking up much of that 40%. This will also help stabilize your risk since bonds tend to move opposite stocks (prperhaps just because everyone else is also using them as the main alternative, though there are theoretical arguments why this should be so.) Eventually you may want to add a small amount of REIT fund to be mix, but that's back on the higher risk side. (By the way: Trying to guess when the next correction will occur is usually not a winning strategy; guesses tend to go wrong as often as they go right, even for pros. Rather than attempting to \"\"time the market\"\", pick a strategic mix of investments and rebalance periodically to maintain those ratios. There has been debate here about \"\"dollar-cost averaging\"\" -- see other answers -- but that idea may argue for investing and rebalancing in more small chunks rather than a few large ones. I generally actively rebalance once a year or so, and between those times let maintainng the balance suggest which fund(s) new money should go into -- minimal effort and it has worked quite well enough.,)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "95c440a3ea760230e65be9f6b8d00d70",
"text": "\"In general, yes. If interest rates go higher, then any existing fixed-rate bonds - and hence ETFs holding those bonds - become less valuable. The further each bond is from maturity, the larger the impact. As you suggest, once the bonds do mature, the fund can replace them at a market price, so the effect tails off. The bond market has a concept known as \"\"duration\"\" that helps reason about this effect. Roughly, it measures the average time from now to each payout of the bond, weighted by the payout. The longer the duration, the more the price will change for a given change in interest rates. The concept is just an approximation, and there are various slightly different ways of calculating it; but very roughly the price of a bond will reduce by a percentage equal to the duration times the increase in interest rates. So a bond with a duration of 5 years will lose 5% of its value for a 1% rise in interest rates (and of course vice-versa). For your second question, it really depends on what you're trying to achieve by diversifying - this might be best as a different question that gives more detail, as it's not very related to your first question. Short-term bonds are less risky. But both will lose value if the underlying company is in trouble. Gilts (government bonds) are less risky than corporate bonds.\"",
"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": "4dfed756f982e10aeba6622ffc054226",
"text": "Is that indicator can only be used for short-term trade? First of all, indicator works perfect during trends and oscillator works perfectly in the range market(or flat market). So, indicator can be used for long term, as well as short term. I mean if it is a range market, using this or any other indicator will not help much, so it you should consider market direction first. If it can be used to long-term trade, is there something I need to change from the parameters used? like, only using SMMA(5,8,13)? The parameters are there to change them. Of course you can change them based on your trading style. Considering my statement above does not mean that trading is very easy. I never use indicators alone to make trading decisions. It is always good to use oscillator to filter out bad trading signals.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "707b7a5a7259093c1d03ce2ee737eda1",
"text": "CFDs should not be used as a buy and hold strategy (which is risky enough doing with shares directly). However, with proper money and risk management and the proper use of stop losses, a medium term strategy is very plausible. I was using CFDs in the past over a short time period of usually between a couple of days to a couple is weeks, trying to catch small swings with very tight stops. I kept getting wipsawed due to my stops being too tight so had too many small loses for my few bigger wins. And yes I lost some money, almost $5k in one year. I have recently started a more medium term strategy with wider stops trying to catch trending stocks. I have only recently started this strategy and so far have 2 loses and 3 wins. Just remember that you do get charged a financing fee for holding long position overnight, buy for short position you actually get paid the funding fee for overnight positions. My broker charges the official interest rate + 2.5% for long positions and pays the official rate - 2.5% for short positions. So yes CFDs can be used for the longer term as long as you are implementing proper money and risk management and use stop losses. Just be aware of the implications of using margin and all the costs involved.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e147ee4363530039831bfe67c3df9573",
"text": "Yes though I'd likely put a caveat on that. If you take short-term investments and extrapolate the results to get an annual result this can be misleading. For example, if a stock goes up 10% in a month, assuming this will continue for the next 11 months may not be a great idea. Thus, beware of how much data do you have in making these calculations. When looking at long-term investments, the compound annual growth rate can be quite useful for comparison.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3d1babfc30d5ff74831c9c3ab4156b3c",
"text": "\"If you want to make a profit from long term trading (whatever \"\"long term\"\" means for you), the best strategy is to let the good performers in your portfolio run, and cull the bad ones. Of course that strategy is hard to follow, unless you have the perfect foresight to know exactly how long your best performing investments will continue to outperform the market, but markets don't always follow the assumption that perfect information is available to all participants, and hence \"\"momentum\"\" has a real-world effect on prices, whether or not some theorists have chosen to ignore it. But a fixed strategy of \"\"daily rebalancing\"\" does exactly the opposite of the above - it continuously reduces the holdings of good performers and increases the holdings of bad. If this type of rebalancing is done more frequently than the constituents of benchmark index are adjusted, it is very likely to underperform the index in the long term. Other issues in a \"\"real world\"\" market are the impact of increased dealing costs on smaller parcels of securities, and the buy/sell spreads incurred in the daily rebalancing trades. If the market is up and down 1% on alternate days with no long tern trend, quite likely the fund will be repeatedly buying and selling small parcels of the same stocks to do its daily balancing.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
fe2a1ce4f18b004e2bcced1c07ece8ea
|
Technical Analysis: the concepts of overbought / oversold don't make sense
|
[
{
"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": "fac9c2afeec9e875553e5d562890d340",
"text": "You are right that every transaction involves a seller and a buyer. The difference is the level of willingness from both parties. Overbought and oversold, as I understand them (particularly in the context of stocks), describe prolonged price increase (overbought, people are more willing to buy than sell, driving price up) and price decrease (oversold, people are more willing to sell than buy, driving price down).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e672e48be08da56391e77f6c10a69ca0",
"text": "\"Investopedia's explanation of overbought: An asset that has experienced sharp upward movements over a very short period of time is often deemed to be overbought. Determining the degree in which an asset is overbought is very subjective and can differ between investors. Technicians use indicators such as the relative strength index, the stochastic oscillator or the money flow index to identify securities that are becoming overbought. An overbought security is the opposite of one that is oversold. Something to consider is the \"\"potential buyers\"\" and \"\"potential sellers\"\" of a stock. In the case of overbought, there are many more buyers that have appeared and driven the price to a point that may be seen as \"\"unsustainably high\"\" and thus may well come down soon if one looks at the first explanation. For oversold, consider the flip side of this. A real life scenario here would be to consider airline tickets where a flight may be \"\"overbooked\"\" that could also be seen as \"\"oversold\"\" in that more tickets were sold than seats that are available and thus people will be bumped as not all tickets can be honored in this case. For a stock scenario of \"\"oversold\"\" consider how IPOs work where several buyers have to exist to buy the shares so the investment bank isn't stuck holding them which sends up the price since the amount wanted by the buyers may be more than what can be sold. The price shifts in bringing out more of one side than the other is the point you are missing. In shifting the price up, this attracts more sellers to satisfy the buyers. However, if there is a surge of buyers that flood the market, then there could be a perception that the security is overbought in the sense that there may be few buyers left for the security and thus the price may fall in the near term. If the price is coming down, this attracts more buyers to achieve the other side. The potential part is what you don't see and I wonder if you can imagine this part of the market. The airline example I give as an example as you don't seem to think either side of buying or selling can be overloaded. In the case of an oversold flight, there were more seats sold than available so yes it is possible. Stocks exist in finite quantities as there are only X shares of a company trading at any one time if you look into the concept of a float.\"",
"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": "f502cc83389aeb904354d24d6772f1f4",
"text": "\"Isn't this effectively saying that the market responds principally to itself, and not to either economic fundamentals, or the profitability of the underlying companies. If so, the market as a \"\"price discovery mechanism\"\" is broken, and investors would be wise to do their own research.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8731161a6898273a53243c67883b083f",
"text": "That's exactly what immunofort is saying, and it lines up with established financial theory (well, some of it). The general argument is that stocks are priced according to what risks they're exposed to. Several (although not all) of the major financial economics theories propose (and find empirical evidence for this) that the market as whole is a risk factor, so individual stocks would be priced in part based on how correlated they are with the market. Strictly speaking, the risk free rate is purely theoretical and can't be directly observed, but the US T-bill yield is usually considered to be a pretty good proxy for it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a2750c9f04e427d75763d6cd66272524",
"text": "\"@jidugger mostly got it right. It basically mean that past performance of a stock, or a basket of stocks, are not at all useful when trying to predict its future. There is no proven correlation between past and future performance. If there was such a correlation, that was \"\"proven\"\" or known, then investors would quickly exploit this correlation by buying or selling this stock, thus nullifying the prediction. It doesn't mean the specific individuals cannot predict the future stock market - hell, if I set up 2^100 different robots, where every robots gives a different series of answers to the 100 questions \"\"how will stock X do Y days from now\"\" (for 1<=Y<=100), then one of those robots would be perfectly correct. The problem is that an outside observer has no way of knowing which of the predictor robots is right. 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. To put it another way - you have $1000 now, and need to decide whether to invest in a particular stock, or a stock index. The \"\"memoryless\"\" property means that no matter how many earning reports you view ... by the time you see them, the stock price already accounts for them, so they're not useful to you. If the earning reports are positive, the stock is already \"\"too high\"\" because people bought it before you did. So on average, you can't use this information to predict the stock's future performance, and are better off investing in an index fund (unless you desire extra risk that doesn't come with more profitability).\"",
"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": "f0bae64c25e149c26be7133c595e6050",
"text": "What it is trying to describe is the psychology around the current price of the stock. In candlestick charts for example, if you get what is called a Bearish Engulfing Candle (where the open is higher than the previous day's close and the close is lower than the previous day's open) at the top of an uptrend, this could mean that the top may have been reached and the bears are taking over the bulls. A Bearish Engulfing candle is seen as a bearish reversal pattern, as the bulls start the day by opening the stock at a higher price than yesterday's close, but by the end of the day the bears have taken over as the price drops below yesterday's open. This reversal pattern can be even more pronounced and effective if it coincides with other chart indicators, such as an overbought momentum indicator. If you want to learn more look up about the Psychology of the market and Candlestick Charting.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9f383c5e1ec00c30abf2cc576ebce551",
"text": "Who's to say it wasn't priced into the markets, at least to some degree? Without any information on the behaviour of holders pre-expiry, no one can know if they've been shorting the stock in advance of selling on expiry day. And with the float being such a small proportion of the total issuance, there's always the risk of sudden fluctuations picking up big momentum - which could easily explain the 7% drop on expiry day. Add into all this uncertainty, the usual risks of shorting (e.g. limited upside, unlimited downside), and the observed phenomena aren't by any means killer blows of the Efficient Market Hypothesis. That's not to say that such evidence doesn't necessarily exist - just that this isn't it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "be8cc9df94ea427b68eba92216842cbc",
"text": "I find the higher estimates a bit unbelievable. A big part of my job is liability valuation and small assumption changes can have a huge impact on results. They may be right (future) dollar value wise but the proper way to think about this stuff is in present value terms. This could actually be a really interesting study - you all just gave me a great idea for a potential masters thesis :)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3d9a087db7ac36a435de1783db63916d",
"text": "\"What you are seeking is termed \"\"Alpha\"\", the mispricing in the market. Specifically, Alpha is the price error when compared to the market return and beta of the stock. Modern portfolio theory suggests that a portfolio with good Alpha will maximize profits for a given risk tolerance. The efficient market hypotheses suggests that Alpha is always zero. The EMH also suggests that taxes, human effort and information propagation delays don't exist (i.e. it is wrong). For someone who is right, the best specific answer to your question is presented Ben Graham's book \"\"The Intelligent Investor\"\" (starting on page 280). And even still, that book is better summarized by Warren Buffet (see Berkshire Hathaway Letters to Shareholders). In a great disservice to the geniuses above it can be summarized much further: closely follow the company to estimate its true earnings potential... and ignore the prices the market is quoting. ADDENDUM: And when you have earnings potential, calculate value with: NPV = sum(each income piece/(1+cost of capital)^time) Update: See http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2014/02/24/warren-buffett-berkshire-letter/ \"\"When Charlie Munger and I buy stocks...\"\" for these same ideas right from the horse's mouth\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bc8a62eba2e7e399e1295a6c80f1ee90",
"text": "\"Since doodle77 handled arbitrage, I'll take goodwill. Goodwill is an accounting term that acts much like a \"\"plug\"\" account: you add/subtract to it the amount that makes everything balance. In the case of goodwill, it generally only applies to mergers & acquisitions. The theory (and justification) is this: firms buy other firms at prices other than the market price (usually higher), and it is assumed that this is because the acquirer values its acquisition more than other people do. But whether you use historical prices or market prices when you add (subtract) assets and liabilities to to (from) your balance sheet, this will never add up, because you paid more (less) than the assets are worth in the market, so more (less) cash flowed out than assets flowed in. The difference goes into the goodwill account, so firms with a large goodwill account are ones that have made lots of acquisitions.\"",
"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": "4ce3a0dcaa87d08cb1d282d8675023fa",
"text": "It is known as the range or the price spread of the stock. You can read more about it here http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/range.asp",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9fd6b1bfb16e4b4349123fb95103e97c",
"text": "\"It means price movements in the past do not affect price movements in the future. Think of the situation of a coin, if you flip it once, and then you flip it a second time, the results are independent of each other. If the first time, you flipped a HEAD, it does not mean that the coin will remember it, and produce a TAIL the second time. This is the meaning of \"\"memoryless\"\". FYI, stock markets are clearly not memoryless. It is just an assumption for academic purposes.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0633a8f9a7f64459ddcbb18125935018",
"text": "\"I think that \"\"memoryless\"\" in this context of a given stock's performance is not a term of art. IMO, it's an anecdotal concept or cliche used to make a point about holding a stock. Sometimes people get stuck... they buy a stock or fund at 50, it goes down to 30, then hold onto it so they can \"\"get back to even\"\". By holding the loser stock for emotional reasons, the person potentially misses out on gains elsewhere.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "412af011c70132f78f47a1037f0fc2cd",
"text": "Nominal. What you say is true, but I'm guessing it would be too complicated to modelate. Plus, a shareholder of a very large company would not necessarily experience said loss if he/she sells the stock in small chunks at a time.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
56b085d2dbba21b16f7aecb29fbb81c9
|
How do I find a good mutual fund to invest 5K in with a moderately high amount of risk?
|
[
{
"docid": "9a6aeabf3784f272be864170a8e9f8d1",
"text": "Just find a low cost S&P 500 index fund, and spend your time reading The Great Mutual Fund Trap instead of wasting your time and money picking actively managed funds.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5bca170f15ded47fda9327e000cb5cbe",
"text": "\"The \"\"Money 70\"\" is a fine list: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/bestfunds/index.html Money magazine is usually more reasonable than the other ones (SmartMoney, Kiplinger's, etc. are in my opinion sillier). If you want a lot of depth, the Morningstar Analyst Picks are useful but you have to pay for a membership which is probably not worth it for now: http://www.morningstar.com/Cover/Funds.aspx (side note: Morningstar star ratings are not useful, I'd ignore those. analyst picks are pretty useful.) Vanguard is a can't-go-too-wrong suggestion. They don't have any house funds that are \"\"bad,\"\" while for example Fidelity has some good ones mixed with a bunch that aren't so much. Of course, some funds at Vanguard may be inappropriate for your situation. (Vanguard also sells third-party funds, I'm talking about their own branded funds.) If getting started with 5K I think you'd want to go with an all-in-one fund like a target date retirement fund or a balanced fund. Such a fund also handles rebalancing for you. There's a Vanguard target date fund and balanced fund (Wellington) in the Money 70 list. fwiw, I think it's more important to ask how much risk you need to take, rather than how much you are willing to take. I wrote this down at more length here: http://blog.ometer.com/2010/11/10/take-risks-in-life-for-savings-choose-a-balanced-fund/ First pick your desired asset allocation, then pick your fund after that to match. Good luck.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f733c669f45268778a0bccf62fb4aab9",
"text": "Vanguard has a lot of mutual fund offerings. (I have an account there.) Within the members' section they give indications of the level of risk/reward for each fund.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "576946d9e5b614b7760a6fa9ea847863",
"text": "3-5 years is long enough of a timeframe that I'd certainly invest it, assuming you have enough (which $10k is). Even conservatively you can guess at 4-5% annual growth; if you invest reasonably conservatively (60/40 mix of stocks/bonds, with both in large ETFs or similar) you should have a good chance to gain along those lines and still be reasonably safe in case the market tanks. Of course, the market could tank at any time and wipe out 20-30% of that or even more, even if you invest conservatively - so you need to think about that risk, and decide if it's worth it or not. But, particularly if your 3-5 year time frame is reasonably flexible (i.e., if in 2019 the market tanks, you can wait the 2-3 years it may take to come back up) you should be investing. And - as usual, the normal warnings apply. Past performance is not a guarantee of future performance, we are not your investment advisors, and you may lose 100% of your investment...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3b463b0f734e7d008506b1e57b6c5756",
"text": "\"(Congrats on earning/saving $3K and not wanting to blow it all on immediate gratification!) I currently have it invested in sector mutual funds but with the rise and fall of the stock market, is this really the best way to prepare long-term? Long-term? Yes! However... four years is not long term. It is, in fact, borderline short term. (When I was your age, that was incomprehensible too, but trust me: it's true.) The problem is that there's an inverse relationship between reward and risk: the higher the possible reward, the greater the risk that you'll lose a big chunk of it. I invest that middle-term money in a mix of junk high yield bond funds and \"\"high\"\" yield savings accounts at an online bank. My preferences are HYG purchased at Fidelity (EDIT: because it's commission-free and I buy a few hundred dollars worth every month), and Ally Bank.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "49db93a60acf8d9b2a5a8d5ef79c49e5",
"text": "\"I disagree with the IRA suggestion. Why IRA? You're a student, so probably won't get much tax benefits, so why locking the money for 40 years? You can do the same investments through any broker account as in IRA, but be able to cash out in need. 5 years is long enough term to put in a mutual fund or ETF and expect reasonable (>1.25%) gains. You can use the online \"\"analyst\"\" tools that brokers like ETrade or Sharebuilder provide to decide on how to spread your portfolio, 15K is enough for diversifying over several areas. If you want to keep it as cash - check the on-line savings accounts (like Capitol One, for example, or Ally, ING Direct that will merge with Capitol One and others) for better rates, brick and mortar banks can not possible compete with what you can get online.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c7b99052068ae7cb6abb83d7591cd932",
"text": "Theoretically there is limited demand for risky investments, so higher-risk asset classes should outperform lower-risk asset classes over sufficiently long time periods. In practice, I believe this is true, but it could be several decades before a risky portfolio starts to outperform a more conservative one. Stocks are considered more risky than most assets. Small-cap stocks and emerging market stocks are particularly high-risk. I would consider low-fee ETFs in these areas, like VB or VWO. If you want to seek out the absolute riskiest investments, you could pick individual stocks of companies in dire financial situations, as Bank of America was a couple years ago. Most importantly, if you don't expect to need the money soon, I would maximize your contribution to tax-advantaged accounts since they will grow exponentially faster than taxable accounts. Over 50 years, a 401(k) or IRA will generally grow at least 50% more than a taxable account, maybe more depending on the tax-efficiency of your investments. Try to contribute the maximum ($17,500 for most people in 2014) if you can. If you can save more than that, I'd suggest contributing a Roth 401k rather than a traditional 401(k) - since Roth contributions are post-tax, the effective contribution limit is higher. Also contribute to a Roth IRA (up to $5,500 in 2014), using a backdoor Roth if necessary.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4cfcba5b1e6747901d30d44efc2ff52f",
"text": "As weird as it seems, 5 years is not a long term investment. Furthermore investing is about accepting risk. Based on your criteria for the alternative to a down payment, I think your only choice is to make the larger down payment. If however, you were willing to invest that money for the long term (in a retirement account or an educational account for example) then I would definitely encourage you to invest. I think the chance that a long term investment in a diversified investment account will exceed 3.25% is pretty high. However, that is only my opinion, and I am not clairvoyant, so your let your personal tolerance to risk be your guide. But again, based on the way you asked it, down payment all the way. Your time frame means you are not an investor. Therefore your only option for risk free storage of money is an FDIC insured account, which might pay a little less than 1% for the next 5 years. A bigger down payment will have a 3.25% return in this case. In that order. #4 and #5 could be swapped if the interest rate on the loans is really low.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8abab3a7c58f602a64ee42553c53c2d9",
"text": "\"I don't think you have your head in the right space - you seem to be thinking of these lifecycle funds like they're an annuity or a pension, but they're not. They're an investment. Specifically, they're a mutual fund that will invest in a collection of other mutual funds, which in turn invest in stock and bonds. Stocks go up, and stocks go down. Bonds go up, and bonds go down. How much you'll have in this fund next year is unknowable, much less 32 years from now. What you can know, is that saving regularly over the next 32 years and investing it in a reasonable, and diversified way in a tax sheltered account like that Roth will mean you have a nice chunk of change sitting there when you retire. The lifecycle funds exist to help you with that \"\"reasonable\"\" and \"\"diversified\"\" bit.They're meant to be one stop shopping for a retirement portfolio. They put your money into a diversified portfolio, then \"\"age\"\" the portfolio allocations over time to make it go from a high risk, (potentially) high reward allocation now to a lower risk, lower reward portfolio as you approach retirement. The idea is is that you want to shoot for making lots of money now, but when you're older, you want to focus more on keeping the money you have. Incidentally, kudos for getting into seriously saving for retirement when you're young. One of the biggest positive effects you can have on how much you retire with is simply time. The more time your money can sit there, the better. At 26, if you're putting away 10 percent into a Roth, you're doing just fine. If that 5k is more than 10 percent, you'll do better than fine. (That's a rule of thumb, but it's based on a lot of things I've read where people have gamed out various scenarios, as well as my own, cruder calculations I've done in the past)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fe391156b6c7fcd72d28e3cbe7b1f35e",
"text": "A savings account is your best bet. You do not have the time frame to mitigate/absorb risks. The general guideline for investment is 5 years or more. As you state you are no where near close to that time frame.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4967fe2c74d0aeec195b34cb27b16a01",
"text": "\"First of all, \"\"going risky\"\" doesn't mean driving to Las Vegas and playing roulette. The real meaning is that you can afford higher risk/return ratio compared to a person who will retire in the following ten years. Higher return is very important since time works for you and even several extra percent annually will make a big difference in the long run because of compound interest effect. The key is that this requires the investment to not be too risky - if you invest in a single venture and it fails you lose all the money and that's worse that some conservative investment that could yield minimum income. So you still need the investment to be relatively safe. Next, as user Chris W. Rea mentions in the comment funds and ETFs can be very risky - depending on the investment policy they can invest into some very risky ventures or into some specific industry and that poses more risk that investing into \"\"blue chips\"\" for example. So a fund or an ETF can be a good fit for you if you choose a right one.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4fda254cec20712ceacf75cce9fa7bca",
"text": "You should talk to a financial fiduciary (make sure they are a fiduciary, not all planners are) about investing your money. Even ultra safe investments such as treasury bonds will beat the 1% interest rate offered by your savings account (the yield on the 5 year treasury is currently around 2%).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "edc0718cfe98e4cb618686f18277840e",
"text": "Easy. Start with 2 millions and lose only one. Jokes aside, if you want a million USD, you should be asking yourself how you can produce products or services worth $5 millions. (expect the extra to be eaten up by taxes, marketing, sales, workforce...) If by investment you mean making risky bets on the stock market, you might have a better time going to Las Vegas. On the other hand, if by investment you mean finding something that will produce $$$ and getting involved, it's a different matter.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f66d0e1fe62b5068d1117509d453bf15",
"text": "\"Are there still people who keep significant amounts of money in a bank savings account? You could get ~1% by just choosing the right bank. ING Direct, for example, gives 0.8%, 4 times more than your credit union, with the same FDIC insurance! If you do want to invest in something slightly more long-term, you can get a CD. At the same ING Direct, you can get a 5-year CD with 1% APR. Comes with the same FDIC insurance. Note that I mention ING Direct just because I accidentally had their site open right in front of me, their rates are definitely not the highest right now. If you want to give up the FDIC insurance and take some more risks, you can invest your money in municipal bonds or various kinds of \"\"low risk\"\" mutual funds, which may yield 3-5% a year. If you want to take even more risks - there's a whole stock market available for you, with ETF's, mutual funds and individual stocks. Whether you should - that only you can tell. But you can have a NO-RISK investment yielding 4-5 times more than what you have right now, just saying.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "655caf02c7a72345927269b3ff4e2b1a",
"text": "It's tough to borrow fixed and invest risk free. That said, there are still some interesting investment opportunities. A 4% loan will cost you 3% or less after tax, and the DVY (Dow high yielders) is at 3.36% but at a 15% favored rate, you net 2.76% if my math is right. So for .5%, you get the fruits of the potential rise in dividends as well as any cap gains. Is this failsafe? No. But I believe that long term, say 10 years or more, the risk is minimal.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "13128165d30cc96c7c6d770e39b8dc29",
"text": "When you are saving for money you need in 5 years or less the only real option is a savings account. I know the return is nothing at this point, but if you cannot take the risk of losing all of your money that's the only thing I would recommend. Now you could try a good growth stock mutual fund if, when you look up in 2 - 3 years and you have lost money you wait it out until it grows enough to get what you lost back then buy your house. I would not do the second option because I wouldn't want to be stuck renting while waiting for the account to recover, and actually thinking about it that way you have more risk. 3 years from now if you have lost money and don't yet have enough saved you will have to continue paying rent, and no mutual fund will out preform that.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "00d2deabad09eee0b1cac143d60f0dd5",
"text": "\"Assuming you can understand and emotionally handle the volatility, a good indeed fund would be wise. These are low fee funds which perform as well as our better than most managed investments and since they don't cost as much, they typically out perform most other investment vehicles. The S&P 500 is traded as SPDR. Another option is the Dow Jones Industrial Average, which trades as DIA. Average returns over the long term are 10-12%. If you expect to need the money in the short term (5-8 years), you have a non trivial chance of needing to pull the money out when the market is down, so if that's unacceptable to you, choose something with a guarantee. If you're terrified of losing money in the short term, don't think you can handle waiting for the market to go up, especially when every news caster is crying hysterically that the End of Economic Life on Earth is here, then consider a CD at your bank. CDs return much lower rates (around 2% right now) but do not go down in value ever. However, you need to lock your money into them for months to years at a time. Some people might tell you to buy a bond fund. That's horrible advice. Bond funds get lower returns AND have no guarantee that you won't lose money on them, unlike aactual bonds. As you're new to investing, I encourage you to read \"\"The Intelligent Investor\"\" by Benjamin Gramm.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d417b663cadb6892e2ecd6c42fd9ab36",
"text": "\"5-8 years is not quite long term. Until the naughts (the 2001-10 decade), advisors were known to say that the S&P was always positive given a 10 year holding period. Now, we're saying 15 years is always positive looking back. One can easily pull S&P return data which would let you run numbers showing the range of returns for the 5-8 yr period you have in mind. A bit of extra effort and you can include the dollar cost averaging factor. This wouldn't produce a guarantee, but a statistical range of expected returns over your time horizon. Then a decision like \"\"with a 1/4 chance of losing 25% of my money, should I stay with this plan?\"\" This is just an example. The numbers for 1900-2014 look like this - In any 5 year period, an average return of 69.2% (note 1.69 means a 69% gain). Of the 111 5 year periods, 14 were negative with the worst being a 46% loss. I maintain 5 years is not really long term, but the risk is relatively low of being in the red.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
fd381ce5a380821a19f23fd2d4179071
|
Taking Losses To Save On Tax
|
[
{
"docid": "54e0ff2c5558fea04519a7243a6722a4",
"text": "Tax questions require that you specify a jurisdiction. Assuming that this is the US, you owe Federal income tax (at the special long-term capital gains tax rate) on the net long-term capital gains (total long-term capital gains minus total long-term capital losses) and so, yes, if these two were your only transactions involving long-term holdings, you would pay long-term capital gains tax on $3000-$50 = $2950. Many States in the US don't tax long-term capital gains at special rates the way the Federal Government does, but you still pay taxes on the net long-term capital gains. I suspect that other countries have similar rules.",
"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": "2c84b819d643d7752d14fc9c0ed08e1e",
"text": "No, if you are taking a loss solely and purely to reduce the tax you have to pay, then it is not a good strategy, in fact it is a very bad strategy, no matter what country you are in. No investment choice should be made solely due to your tax consequeses. If you are paying tax that means you made a profit, if you made a loss just to save some tax then you are loosing money. The whole point of investing is to make money not lose it.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "943130ce93b4e51ffd1dd1b79a500bb6",
"text": "\"logically, yes. legally, no. any reasonable definition of an \"\"investment\"\" must include some types of gambling and insurance. lottery tickets specifically are really crappy high risk/high return investment. obviously most people try to avoid investments with a negative average expected future value, but from a purely semantic perspective anything with a potential future value is an investment. conversely, anyone with a gambling problem should not pretend they are not gambling when making focused investments in high volatility stock options. that said, the irs taxes gains and losses differently depending on whether they are classified as \"\"gambling\"\", or just \"\"crappy investing\"\". so you will not be able to deduct your gambling losses from your earned income (unlike investment losses which can be deducted up to 3k$ per year).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "937e178303c71f9a48e8980a920490ce",
"text": "This loss would be unrealized and, assuming you're a cash-basis tax-payer, you would not be able to take a loss on your 2014 tax return. This is similar to if you held a stock that lost 50% of its value. You wouldn't be able to claim this loss until you finally sold it. The link that User58220 posted may come into play if you converted your UAH back to USD.",
"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": "4ee5b35b0455e555d9c22058508cc985",
"text": "\"From Intuit: \"\"Yes, but there are limits. Losses on your investments are first used to offset capital gains of the same type. So short-term losses are first deducted against short-term gains, and long-term losses are deducted against long-term gains. Net losses of either type can then be deducted against the other kind of gain.\"\" \"\"If you have an overall net capital loss for the year, you can deduct up to $3,000 of that loss against other kinds of income, including your salary, for example, and interest income. Any excess net capital loss can be carried over to subsequent years to be deducted against capital gains and against up to $3,000 of other kinds of income.\"\" So in your case, take the loss now if you have short term gains. Also take it if you want to take a deduction on your salary (but this maxes at 3k, but you can keep using an additional 3k each year into the future until its all used up). There isn't really an advantage to a long term loss right now (since long term rates are LOWER than short term rates).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "182b561785b6dbb85ff8bf140ba84456",
"text": "\"If you only have to pay 23k federal taxes on 100k, that means you are in the long term capital gains tax rate, which is the lower of the tax rates available. First you get your federal income tax marginal tax rate, and then find the matching long term capital gains tax rate. For example, if your marginal federal income tax rate is 28%, your capital gains tax rate would be 15%. Or rather, if the amount of the gain would put you in the 28% rate, then your long term capital gains tax rate is 15%. You can reduce that by having more losses. If you have anything else invested anywhere that is taking a loss, then you can sell that this year and it will offset the other gains you have realized. The only note is that your losses have to be long term capital losses too. Tax loss harvesting takes this to an extreme where you sell something at a loss to lock in the tax loss, but you didn't really want to get rid of that investment, so then you buy a nearly identical investment. ie. if you owned shares of \"\"Direxion Tech Sector ETF\"\" and it was at a loss, you would sell that and then immediately buy \"\"ProShares Tech Sector ETF\"\", the competing product that does the exact same thing. Then there is charity. This still requires spending money and you not having it any longer. If you feel that a cause can use the money more directly than the US government, you can donate an appreciated asset to the charity - not report a gain and also take a charitable deduction.\"",
"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": "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": "58a27b9898fc1b6ef26969f3623b4ee2",
"text": "Ah, I did some more research and apparently Rental Income is considered Passive Income, and as such the IRS does not allow a net loss to exist, but you can carry the loss over into the next year. https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc425.html Generally, losses from passive activities that exceed the income from passive activities are disallowed for the current year. You can carry forward disallowed passive losses to the next taxable year. A similar rule applies to credits from passive activities. So in the event in a loss on my rental business activity, I simply pay no tax on it, and deduct the remainder in income in 2017 from taxes. I don't make any changes to my Consulting income at all.",
"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": "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": "1a5d7946255a0c9f37b42e4ec70d58ca",
"text": "First, I believe that you can't just divide the losses over a number of years. I know that would be ideal as it might let you use the losses to only offset 25% income. A loss that gets you below zero taxable income would carry forward to the next year. That said, I think it would be a great strategy to use the loss to offset a Roth conversion, in your case, from the traditional 401(k) to Roth 401(k). Keep in mind, as you've seen from using the 2016 tax year TurboTax, you should be able to make a fairly good estimate for your 2017 return. This could effectively use all of the loss to offset 25% income. I'd look at the current projection and convert say 75-80% of the target amount immediately, then in November when the 2017 software comes out, convert the rest to get as close to your goal as you can.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e8028417ab8882585d653989bfad1b06",
"text": "When you sell a stock that you own, you realize gains, or losses. Short-term gains, realized within a year of buying and selling an asset, are taxed at your maximum (or marginal) tax rate. Long term-gains, realized after a year, are taxed at a lower, preferential rate. The first thing to consider is losses. Losses can be cancelled against gains, reducing your tax liability. Losses can also be carried over to the next tax year and be redeemed against those gains. When you own a bunch of the same type of stock, bought at different times and prices, you can choose which shares to sell. This allows you to decide whether you realize short- or long-term gains (or losses). This is known as lot matching (or order matching). You want to sell the shares that lost value before selling the ones that gained value. Booking losses reduces your taxes; booking gains increases them. If faced with a choice between booking short term and long term losses, I'd go with the former. Since net short-term gains are taxed at a higher rate, I'd want to minimize the short-term tax liability before moving on to long-term tax liability. If my remaining shares had gains, I'd sell the ones purchased earliest since long-term gains are taxed at a lower rate, and delaying the booking of gains converts short-term gains into long-term ones. If there's a formula for this, I'd say it's (profit - loss) x (tax bracket) = tax paid",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2d258d9865dc769c64e985ecef06366c",
"text": "1: Gambling losses not in excess of gambling winnings can be deducted on Schedule A, line 28. See Pub 17 (p 201). Line 28 catches lots of deductions, and gambling losses are one of them. See Schedule A instructions. 2: If the Mississippi state tax withheld was an income tax (which I assume it was), then it goes on Schedule A, line 5a. In the unlikely event it was not a state or local tax on income, but some sort of excise on gambling, then it may be deductible on line 8 as another deductible tax. It probably is not a personal property tax, which is generally levied against the value of things like cars and other movable property but not on receipts of cash; line 7 probably is not appropriate. The most likely result, without researching Mississippi SALT, is that it was an income tax. See Sched A Instructions for more on the differences between the types of taxes paid. Just to be clear, these statements hold if you are not engaging in poker as a profession. If you are engaging in poker as a business, which can be difficult to establish in the IRS' eyes, then you would use Schedule C and also report business and travel expenses. But the IRS is aware that people want to reduce their gambling income by the cost of hotels and flights to casinos, so it's a relatively high hurdle to be considered a professional poker player.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "15a1feb3fc0c0c041bde517e1f7565d0",
"text": "\"I dug up an old article on Motley Fool and one approach they mention is to get the stock certificates and then sell them to a friend: If the company was liquidated, you should receive a 1099-DIV form at year's end showing a liquidating distribution. Treat this as if you sold the stock for the amount of the distribution. The date of \"\"sale\"\" is the date that the distribution took place. Using your original cost basis in the shares, you can now compute your loss. If the company hasn't actually been liquidated, you'll need to make sure it's totally worthless before you claim a loss. If you have worthless stock that's not worth the hassle of selling through your broker, you can sell it to a friend (or cousin, aunt, or uncle) for pennies. (However, you can't sell the stock to a spouse, siblings, parents, grandparents, or lineal descendants.) Here's one way to do it: Send the certificate to your stock-transfer agent. Explain that the shares have been sold, and ask to cancel the old shares and issue a new certificate to the new owner. Some brokerages will offer you a quicker alternative, by buying all of your shares of the stock for a penny. They do it to help out their customers; in addition, over time, some of the shares may actually become worth more than the penny the brokers paid for them. By selling the shares, you have a closed transaction with the stock and can declare a tax loss. Meanwhile, your friend, relative, or broker, for a pittance, has just bought a placemat or birdcage liner.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b650fc4e0e907668b3089ab88e802163",
"text": "Equal sized gains and losses in alternating years would lead to an unjust positive tax. On the contrary. If I can take my gains at the long term rate (15%) in even years, but take losses in odd years, up to $3000, or let them offset short term gains at ordinary rate, I've just gamed the system. What is the purpose of the wash sale rule? Respectfully, we here can do a fine job of explaining how a bit of tax code works. And we can suggest the implication of those code bits. But, I suspect that it's not easy to explain the history of particular rules. For wash sale, the simple intent is to not let someone take a loss without actually selling the stock for a time. You'd be right to say the +/- 30 days is arbitrary. I'd ask you to keep 2 things in mind if you continue to frequent this board -",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
4e8ee6917c58c609559aebd637b81026
|
Online resource to get expense ratios for mutual funds, index funds & ETFs?
|
[
{
"docid": "a5e5dbb140511e66e895c62be614c8e3",
"text": "\"If you want the answer from the horse's mouth, go to the website of the ETF or mutual find, and the expense ratio will be listed there, both on the \"\"Important Information\"\" part of the front page, as well as in the .pdf file that you click on to download the Prospectus. Oh wait, you don't want to go the fund's website at all, just to a query site where you type in something like VFINX. hit SEARCH, and out pops the expense ratio for the Vanguard S&P 500 Index Fund? Well, have you considered MorningStar?\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "5fda5d09dfa3620b45a28ae157bc5947",
"text": "In almost every circumstance high expense ratios are a bad idea. I would say every circumstance, but I don't want backlash from anyone. There are many other investment companies out there that offer mutual funds for FAR less than 1.5% ratio. I couldn't even imagine paying a 1% expense ratio for a mutual fund. Vanguard offers mutual funds that are significantly lower, on average, than the industry. Certainly MUCH lower than 1.5%, but then again I'm not sure what mutual funds you have, stock, bonds, etc. Here is a list of all Vanguard's mutual funds. I honestly like the company a lot, many people haven't heard of them because they don't spend nearly as much money on advertisements or a flashy website - but they have extremely low expense ratios. You can buy into many of their mutual funds with a 0.10%-0.20% expense ratio. Some are higher, but certainly not even close to 1.5%. I don't believe any of them are even half of that. Also, if you were referring to ETF's when you mentioned Index Fund (assuming that since you have ETFs in your tag), then 0.20% for ETF's is steep, check out some identical ETFs on Vanguard. I am not a Vanguard employee soliciting their service to you. I'm just trying to pass on good information to another investor. I believe you can buy vanguard funds through other investment companies, like Fidelity, for a good price, but I prefer to go through them.",
"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": "f9540286c4bcd9d9b76518407c6796ed",
"text": "The fund should be reporting returns net of expenses, so your interpretation is right; it made something like 0.42% (which sounds plausible, based on current yields on short-term securities), and the 0.05% is what's left after expenses. I've never seen a regular mutual fund report raw returns before expenses. If one does, the my personal opinion would be that they're trying to snooker you, as that number isn't actually representative of anybody's actual returns. If you look carefully, you should be able to find a table that reports several kinds of adjusted returns for the fund: As to what happens if a fund can't earn enough returns to cover its expenses, in that case the value of the fund shares will decrease. This happens from time to time with riskier funds. It shouldn't happen with a money market fund because both the returns and the expenses are fairly predictable, so the fund managers should be able to avoid it, unless they get caught up in a major crisis like the 2008 banking crisis. In ordinary times, a money market fund managers who couldn't keep expenses below income would find themselves looking for a new job fairly quickly. Finally, for what it's worth, 0.37% is a really high expense ratio for a money market fund. If you were to shop around, you could easily find comparable funds with expenses less than half that.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ebd2083d3c4dfd4d089cf638a06602e2",
"text": "One thing I would add to @littleadv (buy an ETF instead of doing your own) answer would be ensure that the dividend yield matches. Expense ratios aren't the only thing that eat you with mutual funds: the managers can hold on to a large percentage of the dividends that the stocks normally pay (for instance, if by holding onto the same stocks, you would normally receive 3% a year in dividends, but by having a mutual fund, you only receive .75%, that's an additional cost to you). If you tried to match the DJIA on your own, you would have an advantage of receiving the dividend yields on the stocks paying dividends. The downsides: distributing your investments to match and the costs of actual purchases.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f104aaaa262a368acdac8f46ddc2c436",
"text": "Index funds: Some of the funds listed by US SIF are index funds. ETFs: ETFdb has a list, though it's pretty short at the moment.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "be31b0d0a6d96cd68b06fdd5cbdf2958",
"text": "This is great. Thanks! So, just assuming a fund happened to average out to libor plus 50 for a given year, would applying that rate to the notional value of the index swaps provide a reasonable estimate of the drag an ETF investor would experience due to the cost associated with the index swaps? For instance, applying this to the hypothetical I linked to in the original question, they assumed fund assets of $100M with 2x leverage achieved through $85M of S&P500 stocks, $25M of S&P500 futures, and a notional value of the S&P500 swaps at $90M. So the true costs to an ETF investor would be: expense ratio + commissions on the $85M of S&P500 holdings + costs associated with $25M of futures contracts + costs associated with the $90M of swaps? And the costs associated with the $90M of swaps might be roughly libor plus 50?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cb3d0cd50e3bf62b1ac4e80401593dd2",
"text": "There's really no right or wrong answer here because you'll be fine either way. If you've investing amounts in the low 5 figures you're likely just getting started, and if your asset allocation is not optimal it's not that big a deal because you have a long time horizon to adjust it, and the expense ratio differences here won't add up to that much. A third option is Vanguard ETFs, which have the expense ratio of Admiral Shares but have lower minimums (i.e. the cost of a single share, typically on the order of $100). However, they are a bit more advanced than mutual funds in that they trade on the market and require you to place orders rather than just specifying the amount you want to buy. A downside here is you might end up with a small amount of cash that you can't invest, since you can initially only buy whole numbers of ETFs shares. So what I'd recommend is buying roughly the correct number of ETFs shares you want except for your largest allocation, then use the rest of your cash on Admiral Shares of that (if possible). For example, let's say you have $15k to invest and you want to be 2/3 U.S. stock, 1/6 international stock, and 1/6 U.S. bond. I would buy as many shares of VXUS (international stock ETF) and BND (U.S. bond ETF) as you can get for $2500 each, then whatever is left over (~$10k) put into VTSAX (U.S. stock Admiral Shares mutual fund).",
"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": "8c755610386012c509020b65c42c3891",
"text": "\"Yes, there is a very good Return vs Risk graph put out at riskgrades.com. Look at it soon, because it will be unavailable after 6-30-11. The RA (return analysis) graph is what I think you are looking for. The first graph shown is an \"\"Average Return\"\", which I was told was for a 3 year period. Three period returns of 3, 6 and 12 months, are also available. You can specify the ticker symbols of funds or stocks you want a display of. For funds, the return includes price and distributions (total return), but only price movement for stocks - per site webmaster. I've used the graphs for a few years, since Forbes identified it as a \"\"Best of the Web\"\" site. Initially, I found numerous problems with some of the data and was able to work with the webmaster to correct them. Lately though, they have NOT been correcting problems that I bring to their attention. For example, try the symbols MUTHX, EDITX, AWSHX and you'll see that the Risk Grades on the graphs are seriously in error, and compress the graph results and cause overwriting and poor readability. If anyone knows of a similar product, I'd like to know about it. Thanks, George\"",
"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": "9a71e54c51a33edaa86448edea5040c1",
"text": "Your link is pointing to managed funds where the fees are higher, you should look at their exchange traded funds; you will note that the management fees are much lower and better reflect the index fund strategy.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "61f292c177b78daa76fd032500f0bff7",
"text": "This is a Vanguard-specific difference in the sense that in the US, Vanguard is a leader in lowering management fees for the mutual funds that they offer. Of course, several US mutual fund companies have also been lowering the expense ratio of their mutual funds in recent years because more and more investors have been paying attention to this particular performance parameter, and opting for funds that have low expense ratios. But many US funds have not reduced their expense ratios very much and continue to have expense ratios of 1% or even higher. For example, American Funds Developing World Growth and Income Fund (DWGAX) charges a 1.39% expense ratio while their 2060 Retirement Fund (AANTX) charges 1.12% (the funds also have a 5.75% sales charge); Putnam Capital Opportunities Fund charges 1.91% for their Class C shares, and so on. Many funds with high expense ratios (and sometimes sales charges as well) show up as options in far too many 401(k) plans, especially 401(k) plans of small companies, because small companies do not enjoy economies of scale and do not have much negotiating power when dealing with 401(k) custodians and administrators.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f432e4202cba51201a47e1b5b6731005",
"text": "Should you care? From Vanguard: The long-term impact of investment costs on portfolio balances Assuming a starting balance of $100,000 and a yearly return of 6%, which is reinvested Check out this chart, reflecting the impact of relatively small expense ratios on your 30 year return: All else being equal you should very much care about expense ratios. You end up with a significantly smaller amount if your pre-expense return is the same. A 0.75% difference in ER compounds to 20% over 30 years. If so, how should I take them into consideration when comparing funds? I'm in the U.S. if that matters. If they track the same index, cheaper is better. The cases where higher expense ratios might be better are if you believe that index will outperform the market by enough to recoup the cost of the ER. There is significant research that most funds do not do this.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ed0ed68df5683cfbdc67e5ce8577bcd3",
"text": "Any ETF has expenses, including fees, and those are taken out of the assets of the fund as spelled out in the prospectus. Typically a fund has dividend income from its holdings, and it deducts the expenses from the that income, and only the net dividend is passed through to the ETF holder. In the case of QQQ, it certainly will have dividend income as it approximates a large stock index. The prospectus shows that it will adjust daily the reported Net Asset Value (NAV) to reflect accrued expenses, and the cash to pay them will come from the dividend cash. (If the dividend does not cover the expenses, the NAV will decline away from the modeled index.) Note that the NAV is not the ETF price found on the exchange, but is the underlying value. The price tends to track the NAV fairly closely, both because investors don't want to overpay for an ETF or get less than it is worth, and also because large institutions may buy or redeem a large block of shares (to profit) when the price is out of line. This will bring the price closer to that of the underlying asset (e.g. the NASDAQ 100 for QQQ) which is reflected by the NAV.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "efebd66b19b609175d94d25078c301d4",
"text": "Generally, the answer to the availability of holdings of a given mutual fund on a daily basis is no. Thus, an API is non-existent. The reasons for the lack of transparency on a daily basis is that it could/would impact the portfolio managers ability to trade. While this information would not necessarily permit individuals from front running the fund manager's trades, it does give insight in to the market outlook and strategy the fund is employing. The closest you'll be able to get to obtaining a list of holdings is by reading the most recent annual report and the quarterly filings each fund is required to file with the SEC.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
a11290744c3e6346d81003fb76444c23
|
Why do stocks gap up after a buyout is announced?
|
[
{
"docid": "be34b632b21a464f625e2f315d38beba",
"text": "The price gaps up because the offer is for a price above the current price. Therefore people want to buy now before the price jumps to the offer level. Of course it does depend on the tone of the announcement, which party is making the announcement, and are they announcing an offer or a deal. If the price is $10, and the offer is for $12; then the price may quickly jump. The early buyers will make the most quick money. They hope that the deal is done quickly, or if not the final price ends up higher. There are risks. The company could reject the offer. The due diligence could expose a problem. The regulators could reject the deal based on anti-trust issues. The deal could take many months to complete. Or the final deal could be for shares in the new company. The risks are one reason people sell after the deal/offer is announced. In other cases the seller finally is seeing a profit, or a smaller loss and wants out while they can.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4c0181979f92ee71a72352910947e00d",
"text": "\"The \"\"random walk\"\" that you describe reflects the nature of the information flow about the value of a stock. If the flow is just little bits of relatively unimportant information (including information about the broader market and the investor pool), you will get small and seemingly random moves, which may look like a meander. If an important bit of information comes out, like a merger, you will see a large and immediate move, which may not look as random. However, the idea that small moves are a meander of search and discovery and large moves are immediate agreements is incorrect. Both small moves and large moves are instantaneous agreements about the value of a stock in the form of a demand/supply equilibrium. As a rule, neither is predictable from the point of view of a single investor, but they are not actually random. They look different from each other only because of the size of the movement, not because of an underlying difference in how the consensus price is reached.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "aa8a751d2ab770960a9a404ff8225cf8",
"text": "The stock market is generally a long term investment platform. The share prices reflect more the companies potential to be profitable in the future rather than its actual value. Companies that have good potential can over perform their actual value. We saw this regularly in the early days of the internet prior to the .com bust. Companies would go up exponentially based on their idea's and potential. Investors learned from that and are demanding more these days. As a result companies that do not show growth potential go down. Companies that show growth and potential (apple and google for 2 easy examples) continue to go up. Many companies have specific days where employees can buy and sell stocks. there are minor ripples in the market on these days as the demand and supply are temporarily altered by a large segment of the owner base making trades. For this reason some companies have a closed pool that is only open to inside trades that then executes the orders over time so that the effect is minimized on the actual stock price. This is not happening with face book. Instead many of the investors are dumping their stock directly into the market. These are savvy investors and if there was potential for profit remaining you would not see the full scale exodus from the stock. The fact that it is visible is scaring off investors itself. I can not think of another instance that has gone like facebook, especially one that was called so accurately by many industry pundits.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8e0d392ac4a2a2360895cf6d0ba3cf28",
"text": "You can, in theory, have the stock price go up without any trading actually occurring. It depends on how the price is quoted. The stock price is not always quoted as the last price someone paid for it. It can also be quoted as the ask price, which is the price a seller is willing to sell at, and the price youd pay if you bought at market. If I am a seller, I can raise the asking price at any time. And if there are no other sellers, or at least none that are selling lower than me, it would look like the price is going up. Because it is, it now costs more to buy it. But no trading has actually occurred.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "672067a3a9979708817228320dc670ec",
"text": "The trades after that date were Ex-DIV, meaning after 5 pm Dec 12, new trades did not include the shares that were to be spun out. The process is very orderly, no one pays $60 without getting the spinoff, and no one pays $30 but still gets it. The real question is why there's that long delay nearly three weeks to make the spinoff shares available. I don't know. By the way, the stock options are adjusted as well. Someone owning a $50 put isn't suddenly in the money on 12/13. Edit - (I am not a hoarder. I started a fire last night and realized I had a few Barron's in the paper pile) This is how the ABT quote appeared in the 12/24 issue of Barron's. Both the original quote, and the WI (when issued) for the stock less the spin off company.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6d841e056b929642b5c6a6ecd27239fd",
"text": "Should go up because of a company is doing better than the market previously expected it to do, the implication is that it's undervalued at the current price and you buy now you're getting it for less than what it's worth. If Trump was wrong, then the stock would trade up for a bit before ultimately finishing up where it started when the market realises there's nothing in what he said.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7432ecb42e62b915bdadef23c4d37402",
"text": "I think it's because there are a lot of retail investors in this stock. They are the ones that tend to overreact on news cycles, so creating bad press or over-hyping bad press really makes the stock price swing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6a02db1438babc2f423868a9c0a75f42",
"text": "\"There's an old adage in the equities business - \"\"buy on rumor, sell on fact\"\". Sometimes the strategy is to buy as soon as the rumor is out about a potential merger and then sell off into the news when it is actually announced, since this is normally when the biggest bounce occurs as part of a merger. The other part of the analysis you should do is to understand which of the companies benefits most (or is hurt the worst) by the merger and then make your play accordingly. Sometimes the company being acquired will see a bounce while the acquiring firm takes a hit, which is an indication the experts think the acquisition will be a drag on the acquiring company (perhaps because it is taking on a great deal of debt to make the acquisition, or because the acquiring firm is paying too much of a premium for what it's getting in return). Other times the exact opposite is true, where the company being acquired takes a hit while the buyer bounces, and again, the reasons for this can vary widely. If you wait until the merger is actually announced then by the time you get in, most of the premium from the announcement will likely have already been realized, and you'll be buying near the top of the market for the stock. The key is to be ahead of the other sellers by seeing the opportunities before they do and then knowing when to get out before everyone else does. Not an easy thing to pull off when you're trying to anticipate the markets, but it can be done if you do the right research and have patience. Good luck!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6c0f4d3144474b9d0a1a7381620979cc",
"text": "It depends on the timing of the events. Sometimes the buying company announces their intention but the other company doesn't like the deal. It can go back and forth several times, before the deal is finalized. The specifics of the deal determine what happens to the stock: The deal will specify when the cutoff is. Some people want the cash, others want the shares. Some will speculate once the initial offer is announced where the final offer (if there is one) will end up. This can cause a spike in volume, and the price could go up or down. Regarding this particular deal I did find the following: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/expedia-to-acquire-orbitz-worldwide-for-12-per-share-in-cash-300035187.html Additional Information and Where to Find It Orbitz intends to file with the SEC a proxy statement as well as other relevant documents in connection with the proposed transaction with Expedia. The definitive proxy statement will be sent or given to the stockholders of Orbitz and will contain important information about the proposed transaction and related matters. SECURITY HOLDERS ARE URGED TO READ THE PROXY STATEMENT CAREFULLY WHEN IT BECOMES AVAILABLE AND ANY OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS FILED WITH THE SEC, AS WELL AS ANY AMENDMENTS OR SUPPLEMENTS TO THOSE DOCUMENTS, BECAUSE THEY WILL CONTAIN IMPORTANT INFORMATION. The proxy statement and other relevant materials (when they become available), and any other documents filed by Expedia or Orbitz with the SEC, may be obtained free of charge at the SEC's website, at www.sec.gov. In addition, security holders will be able to obtain free copies of the proxy statement from Orbitz by contacting Investor Relations by mail at ATTN: Corporate Secretary, Orbitz Worldwide, Inc., 500 W. Madison Street, Suite 1000, Chicago, Illinois 60661.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0e8d94c657d16106d3755564d7398b58",
"text": "\"As others have pointed out, there are often many factors that are contributing to a stock's movement other than the latest news. In particular, the overall market sentiment and price movement very often is the primary driver in any stock's change on a given day. But in this case, I'd say your anecdotal observation is correct: All else equal, announcements of layoffs tend to drive stock prices upwards. Here's why: To the public, layoffs are almost always a sign that a company is willing to do whatever is needed to fix an already known and serious problem. Mass layoffs are brutally hard decisions. Even at companies that go through cycles of them pretty regularly, they're still painful every time. There's a strong personal drain on the chain of executives that has to decide who loses their livelihood. And even if you think most execs don't care (and I think you'd be wrong) it's still incredibly distracting. The process takes many weeks, during which productivity plummets. And it's demoralizing to everyone when it happens. So companies very rarely do it until they think they have to. By that point, they are likely struggling with some very publicly known problems - usually contracting (or negative) margins. So, the market's view of the company at the time just before layoffs occur is almost always, \"\"this company has problems, but is unable or unwilling to solve them.\"\". Layoffs signal that both of those possibilities are incorrect. They suggest that the company believes that layoffs will fix the problem, and that they're willing to make hard calls to do so. And that's why they usually drive prices up.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "7bd84d772424b223ce8d4c1a696eb77c",
"text": "It might be clearer to think of it as price going up when a dividend is expected, since that's money you'll get right back. As the delay before the next dividend payment increases, that becomes less of a factor,",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e5c08b35cfcbd50dd86e92a143e7f99e",
"text": "Stock prices reflect future expectations of large groups of people, and may not be directly linked to traditional valuations for a number of reasons (not definitive). For example, a service like Twitter is so popular that even though it has no significant revenue and loses money, people are simply betting that it is deeply embedded enough that it will eventually find some way to make money. You can also see a number of cases of IPOs of various types of companies that do not even have a revenue model at all. Also, if there is rapid sales growth in A but B sales are flat, no one is likely to expect future profit growth in B such that the valuation will remain steady. If sales in A are accelerating, there may be anticipation that future profits will be high. Sometimes there are also other reasons, such as if A owns valuable proprietary assets, that will hold the values up. However, more information about these companies' financials is really needed in order to understand why this would be the case.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": ""
},
{
"docid": "6b0353eb5873769de175d7620734fdfe",
"text": "A stock's price does not move in a completely continuous fashion. It moves in discrete steps depending on who is buying/selling at given prices. I'm guessing that by opening bell the price for buying/selling a particular stock has changed based on information obtained overnight. A company's stock closes at $40. Overnight, news breaks that the company's top selling product has a massive defect. The next morning the market opens. Are there any buyers of the stock at $40? Probably not. The first trade of the stock takes place at $30 and is thus, not the same as the previous day's close.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a217cbaefeb85839cd9f343a46cad2d9",
"text": "\"The simple answer could be that one or more \"\"people\"\" decided to buy. By \"\"people,\"\" I don't mean individual buyers of 100 shares like you or me, but typically large institutional investors like Fidelity, who might buy millions of shares at a time. Or if you're talking about a human person, perhaps someone like Warren Buffett. In a \"\"thinly\"\" traded small cap stock that typically trades a few hundred shares in a day, an order for \"\"thousands\"\" could significantly move the price. This is one situation where more or less \"\"average\"\" people could move a single stock.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cbdedbf2a7a73dfb9dae5366bc38387f",
"text": "The other answer has some good points, to which I'll add this: I believe you're only considering a company's Initial Public Offering (IPO), when shares are first offered to the public. An IPO is the way most companies get a public listing on the stock market. However, companies often go to market again and again to issue/sell more shares, after their IPO. These secondary offerings don't make as many headlines as an IPO, but they are typical-enough occurrences in markets. When a company goes back to the market to raise additional funds (perhaps to fund expansion), the value of the company's existing shares that are being traded is a good indicator of what they may expect to get for a secondary offering of shares. A company about to raise money desires a higher share price, because that will permit them to issue less shares for the amount of money they need. If the share price drops, they would need to issue more shares for the same amount of money – and dilute existing owners' share of the overall equity further. Also, consider corporate acquisitions: When one company wants to buy another, instead of the transaction being entirely in cash (maybe they don't have that much in the bank!), there's often an equity component, which involves swapping shares of the company being acquired for new shares in the acquiring company or merged company. In that case, the values of the shares in the public marketplace also matter, to provide relative valuations for the companies, etc.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
dc4d12a130990b1a214122253b5823f1
|
Single investment across multiple accounts… good, bad, indifferent?
|
[
{
"docid": "530d6b402f725b2b02a2bd51388831bd",
"text": "The main restrictions you see with IRA's involve contributions, and not the actual investments themselves. I would be indifferent to having a single investment across multiple accounts. It might be a bit trickier to manage, especially if your strategy involves some specific asset allocation. Other than account management though, there's no big issue.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3f8322c9d7eca2e486c8147430074bb7",
"text": "One implication is the added fees if you are investing in something with a trading cost or commission, such as your stock purchase. If you pay low costs to trade (e.g. with a discount broker) and don't switch your investments often, then costs overall should remain reasonable .. but always be aware of your costs and seek to minimize them.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "70fe0764999874677236aa08c19b58b7",
"text": "The other issue you could run into is that each deferred account is going to be subject to its own RMD's (Required Minimum Distributions) when you've retired or hit 70.5 years of age. Roth's don't generally care about RMD's at first, but are still subject to them once the person that created the Roth has passed. Having fewer accounts will simplify the RMD stuff, but that's really only a factor in terms of being forced to sell 'something' in each account in order to make the RMD. Other than that, it's just a matter of remembering to check each account if you come to a decision that it's time to liquidate holdings in a given security, lest you sell some but forget about the rest of it in another account. (and perhaps as Chris pointed out, maybe having to pay fee's on each account for the sale) Where this really can come into play is if you choose to load up each individual account with a given kind of investment, instead of spreading them across the accounts. In that case RMD's could force you into selling something that is currently 'down' when you want to hold onto it, because that is your only choice in order to meet RMD's for account X. So if you have multiple accounts, it's a good idea to not 'silo' particular vehicles into a single account, but spread similar ivestments across multiple accounts, so you always have the choice in each account of what to sell in order to meet an RMD. If you have fewer accounts, it's thus a lot easier to avoid the siloing effect",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "495225d04ffeab031a08f801216b4612",
"text": "When you are starting out using a balanced fund can be quite advantageous. A balanced fund is represents a diversified portfolio in single fund. The primary advantage of using a balanced fund is that with it being a single fund it is easier to meet the initial investment minimum. Later once you have enough to transition to a portfolio of diversified funds you would sell the fund and buy the portfolio. With a custom portfolio, you will be better able to target your risk level and you might also be able to use lower cost funds. The other item to check is do any of the funds that you might be interested in for the diversified portfolio have lower initial investment option if you can commit to adding money on a specified basis (assuming that you are able to). Also there might be an ETF version of a mutual fund and for those the initial investment amount is just the share price. The one thing to be aware of is make sure that you can buy enough shares that you can rebalance (holding a single share makes it hard to sell some gain when rebalancing). I would stay away from individual stocks until you have a much larger portfolio, assuming that you want to invest with a diversified portfolio. The reason being that it takes a lot more money to create a diversified portfolio out of individual stocks since you have to buy whole shares. With a mutual fund or ETF, your underlying ownership of can be fractional with no issue as each fund share is going to map into a fraction of the various companies held and with mutual funds you can buy fractional shares of the fund itself.",
"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": "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": "6d27696136ba1887f2e334a643403052",
"text": "You question is very hard to answer as it is tough to put a value on how much bad your added investment in evil companies would cause and also how much value the charities add. However, there has been a bunch of really good work on socially responsible investing in general. This paper might be too technical for some but the conclusion section is very readable and clear. The big worry about socially responsible investing from a financial standpoint is that it will lower returns in the long run. The paper above and others show fairly clearly that as long as you only exclude a few classes of stocks and still have a fairly broad base that the expected returns are similar. The main issue though is some socially responsible funds have much higher fees. So the usual advice applies, do your research to make sure your investments are well diversified and have low fees. As long as the index is fairly broad you can consider the difference between the fees on the socially responsible index and investing in a more common index as the long run cost. Then you can balance that cost and having more money for charity against the benefits of not investing in evil companies.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "9680062e8d91759cbf38b661420710a6",
"text": "\"As with ANY investment the first answer is....do not invest in any that you do not fully understand. ETF's are very versatile and can be used for many different people for many different parts of their portfolio, so I don't think there can be a blanket statement of \"\"this\"\" one is good or bad for all.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1b9347ac1ca1b9a71fa177ea18a90912",
"text": "\"As other responders said, you can certainly roll over multiple 401(k) into a single account. An added benefit of such rollover (besides the ease of tracking) is that you can shop around for your Rollover IRA provider and find the one that gives you the specific mutual funds that you want to invest in, the lowest expenses, etc. - in short, find the best fit to your priorities. There are also \"\"lemon\"\" 401(k) plans and if you are in one of them, get out! And rollover is the way out. There is also one possibility to keep an eye on as it happens rarely, but it does happen - rolling a 401(k) over into another 401(k). I've done it once when I started a job at a company that had a great 401(k) with a good selection of low-cost mutual funds. I rolled the 401(k) from one previous job in to this 401(k) to take advantage of it. At the same time I kept a Rollover IRA, combining the 401(k) from all other jobs; it had more investment options and provided some flexibility.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "482a8447ca780fd0d73b3d7050add5e0",
"text": "\"If you just had one expense once a year of $1200, you would put in $100 a month. The average balance is going to be $600 in that case - the 0 and $1200 months average to $600, as do the $100 and $1100, the $200 and $1000, and so on. If you had one expense twice a year of $600 and put in $100 per month it will average to $300. You have a mix of 3/6/12 months - does 8 months seem reasonable as an \"\"average\"\" frequency? If so, there should be about a 4 month slush all the time. Now instead of one expense averaged over 12 months, imagine 12 accounts, each needing $100 a month. If you started at zero, you would put in $1200 the first month and immediately spend it. One account would go from +100 (its share of what you put in) to -1100 while the rest are all at +100. Overall your balance would be zero. Then the next month you would again deposit 1200 and spend 1200, bringing one account to -1000, one to -1100, and the rest to +200. You average to zero actually on deposit because some of the \"\"accounts\"\" have negative balances and some have positive. But aren't doing that. You \"\"caught up\"\" the months you were behind. So it would be like putting in $1200 for the first account, $1100 for the second, $1000 for the third and so on - a total of $7800. Then you take out $1200 and go down to 6600. The next month you put in $1200 and take out $1200 but you will always have that $6600 amount in there. All of the accounts will have positive balances - averaging $550 in this example.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "76e2f1493af491c6de3ccbfff6b5a825",
"text": "What you're looking for is the 'Transaction Report'. When you're looking at the report (it comes up empty), open the options and click on the first tab 'Accounts'. Here you can highlight multiple source accounts in the top pane, and filter by the Expense accounts that you are interested in the bottom pane. Here's an example that goes over the process (there are many examples online, I just included the first one that came up in a search).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4235c550d5320e788346bb69d057967b",
"text": "\"In general, I'd try to keep things as simple as possible. If your plan is to have a three-fund portfolio (like Total Market, Total International, and Bond), and keep those three funds in general, then having it separated now and adding them all as you invest more is fine. (And upgrade to Admiral Shares once you hit the threshold for it.) Likewise, just putting it all into Total Market as suggested in another answer, or into something like a Target Retirement fund, is just fine too for that amount. While I'm all in favor of as low expense ratios as possible, and it's the kind of question I might have worried about myself not that long ago, look at the actual dollar amount here. You're comparing 0.04% to 0.14% on $10,000. That 0.1% difference is $10 per year. Any amount of market fluctuation, or buying on an \"\"up\"\" day or selling on a \"\"down\"\" day, is going to pretty much dwarf that amount. By the time that difference in expense ratios actually amounts to something that's worth worrying about, you should have enough to get Admiral Shares in all or at least most of your funds. In the long run, the amount you manage to invest and your asset allocation is worth much much more than a 0.1% expense ratio difference. (Now, if you're going to talk about some crazy investment with a 2% expense ratio or something, that's another story, but it's hard to go wrong at Vanguard in that respect.)\"",
"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": "06751b2ebb3968321add81106b3b0186",
"text": "I don't think investing in only one industry, which you may know well, is very wise. You may want to invest in that industry but you should not restrict yourself from investing solely in that industry. There are many times when your chosen industry may not be performing very well and other industries are performing much better. If you restrict yourself to just one industry you may be either out of the market for long periods of time or your portfolio may show negative returns for extended periods of time. You may want to know an industry or a number of companies very well but do not fall in love with them. The worst thing you can do is get emotional about an investment, an investment is there to make you money not for you to get emotional about. Don't restrict yourself, instead look to maximise your returns with investments that are performing better at the time.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "77e655ae1c86c992ba418ffc070b4510",
"text": "I use two different brokerages, both well-known. I got a bit spooked during the financial crisis and didn't want to have all my eggs in one basket. The SIPC limits weren't so much a factor. At the time, I was more worried about the hassle of dealing with a Lehman-style meltdown. If one were to fail, the misery of waiting and filing and dealing with SIPC claims would be mitigated by having half of my money in another brokerage. In hindsight, I was perhaps a bit too paranoid. Dealing with two separate brokerages is not much of an inconvenience, though, and it's interesting to see how their web interfaces are slightly different and some things are easier to do with one vs the other. Overall, they're really similar and I can't say there's much advantage (other than my tin-foil hat tendencies) to splitting it up like that.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f7776d8529615f03d3a1ff066204e2e5",
"text": "I have a similar plan and a similar number of accounts. I think seeking a target asset allocation mix across all investment accounts is an excellent idea. I use excel to track where I am and then use it to adjust to get closer (but not exactly) to my target percentages. Until you have some larger balances, it may be prudent to use less categories or realize that you can't come exactly to your percentages, but can get close. I also simplify by primarily investing in various index funds. That means that in my portfolio, each category has 1 or 2 funds, not 10 or 20.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5685b1ded2c93079cd5e6b11fdc85535",
"text": "I found that an application already exists which does virtually everything I want to do with a reasonable interface. Its called My Personal Index. It has allowed me to look at my asset allocation all in one place. I'll have to enter: The features which solve my problems above include: Note - This is related to an earlier post I made regarding dollar cost averaging and determining rate of returns. (I finally got off my duff and did something about it)",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
e79c8af2abfd260317b708a1efa727cb
|
Where is my dividend?
|
[
{
"docid": "e9fae5b065d3896ebd048946f1926bb9",
"text": "Your dividend should show up in one of a few methods: (1) Cash in your trading account (2) A check mailed to you (3) A deposit to a linked bank account (4) As additional new shares in the stock, as the result of a DRIP setup.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "0162475cb71c9108de8af43ba39eadb1",
"text": "You can register with an online broker. You can usually join most online brokers for free and only have to fund your account if you decide to place a trade. You may also check out the website of the actual companies you are interested in. They will provide current and historic data of the company's financials. For BHP you can click on the link at the bottom of this webpage to get a PDF file of past dividends from 1984.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "69f86d7d7611185979300e0a12698f03",
"text": "I think the first step is to contact Carnival Investor Relations. They can give you information about what attempts they have made to pay dividends since the address has changed. There may be some hoops that you have to jump through to get the funds, but the simple answer is to call them and find out.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f197a8d1411990d7156e84dd84116a56",
"text": "Why does it take two weeks (from ex-date) for dividends to pay out? For logistical and accounting purposes. This article says on the payment date: This date is generally a week or more after the date of record so that the company has sufficient time to ensure that it accurately pays all those who are entitled. It is for the same reasons that there is a often a two-week period between the time an employee submits her time sheet and the employee's pay date. The company needs time to set and send the payment while minimizing accounting errors.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "03b5874b3cdae035a4a2bfba3261aedd",
"text": "Dividends indicate that a business is making more profit than it can effectively invest into expansion or needs to regulate cash-flow. This generally indicates that the business is well established and has stabilized in a dominant market position. This can be contrasted against businesses that: Dividends are also given preferential tax treatment. Specifically, if I buy a stock and sell it 30 days later, I will be taxed on the capital gains at the regular income rate (typically 25-33%), but the dividends would be taxed at the lower long-term capital gains rate (typically 15%).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9eed28190281a8d466c42a5a08934782",
"text": "Dividend is a payment which is paid by the company after getting profit or interest is plus paid amount which we get on our income.we can pick up the dividend as a form of interest on our investment",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ce25b1830452e713b8ff2b84a9d71f11",
"text": "\"Mutual funds generally make distributions once a year in December with the exact date (and the estimated amount) usually being made public in late October or November. Generally, the estimated amounts can get updated as time goes on, but the date does not change. Some funds (money market, bond funds, GNMA funds etc) distribute dividends on the last business day of each month, and the amounts are rarely made available beforehand. Capital gains are usually distributed once a year as per the general statement above. Some funds (e.g. S&P 500 index funds) distribute dividends towards the end of each quarter or on the last business day of the quarter, and capital gains once a year as per the general statement above. Some funds make semi-annual distributions but not necessarily at six-month intervals. Vanguard's Health Care Fund has distributed dividends and capital gains in March and December for as long as I have held it. VDIGX claims to make semi-annual distributions but made distributions three times in 2014 (March, June, December) and has made/will make two distributions this year already (March is done, June is pending -- the fund has gone ex-dividend with re-investment today and payment on 22nd). You can, as Chris Rea suggests, call the fund company directly, but in my experience, they are reluctant to divulge the date of the distribution (\"\"The fund manager has not made the date public as yet\"\") let alone an estimated amount. Even getting a \"\"Yes, the fund intends to make a distribution later this month\"\" was difficult to get from my \"\"Personal Representative\"\" in early March, and he had to put me on hold to talk to someone at the fund before he was willing to say so.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "95e09b8e6c59a059a245ca8502ba9ef4",
"text": "So My question is if I purchased the shares on 03-08-15 then will I get the dividend? Yes if you purchase on 3-Aug, the shares will actually get credited to your account on 5-Aug and hence you will hold the shares on 6-Aug, the record date.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "38bdbd4c2225ed3344f2d36eb24aa6d8",
"text": "You can use a tool like WikiInvest the advantage being it can pull data from most brokerages and you don't have to enter them manually. I do not know how well it handles dividends though.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "34e9eb559c461f6104848e1b2cd80ba7",
"text": "Indices such as SP500 are typically including dividends - the payment of dividends doesn't impact the value of the index. Where can I find data on these dividends? I found data on dividend yields, but these give me access only to the sum of dividends over the last year. This in turn can change either because there are new dividends being paid, or because you stop counting last year's dividends...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f23b2797867eb8b76bf95504624c9fbc",
"text": "\"A Bloomberg terminal connected to Excel provides the value correcting splits, dividends, etc. Problem is it cost around $25,000. Another one which is free and I think that takes care of corporate action is \"\"quandl.com\"\". See an example here.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fa637f92b78e3f90782a71e71c42b8a8",
"text": "What is a dividend? Essentially, for every share of a dividend stock that you own, you are paid a portion of the company’s earnings. You get paid simply for owning the stock! For example, let’s say Company X pays an annualized dividend of 20 cents per share. Most companies pay dividends quarterly (four times a year), meaning at the end of every business quarter, the company will send a check for 1/4 of 20 cents (or 5 cents) for each share you own. This may not seem like a lot, but when you have built your portfolio up to thousands of shares, and use those dividends to buy more stock in the company, you can make a lot of money over the years. The key is to reinvest those dividends! Source: http://www.dividend.com/dividend-investing-101/what-are-dividend-stocks/ What is an ex dividend date Once the company sets the record date, the ex-dividend date is set based on stock exchange rules. The ex-dividend date is usually set for stocks two business days before the record date. If you purchase a stock on its ex-dividend date or after, you will not receive the next dividend payment. Instead, the seller gets the dividend. If you purchase before the ex-dividend date, you get the dividend. Source: https://www.sec.gov/answers/dividen.htm That said, as long as you purchased the stock before 6/4/17 you are entitled to the next dividend. If not, you'll get the following one after that.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5f5707476dff29e1c64892d4c4ab68be",
"text": "Check out the NASDAQ and NYSE websites(the exchange in which the stock is listed) for detailed information. Most of the websites which collate dividend payments generally have cash payments history only e.g. Dividata. And because a company has given stock dividends in the past doesn't guarantee such in the future, I believe you already know that.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c8a432fd7f79bf4b261ed5115cd9b48f",
"text": "No, dividends are not included in earnings. Companies with no earnings sometimes choose to pay dividends. Paying the dividend does not decrease earnings. It does of course decrease cash and shows up on the balance sheet. Many companies choose to keep the dividend at a fixed rate even while the business goes through cycles of increased and decreased earnings.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d65e2d5329fa3d2f3b1c4b2a853847b7",
"text": "\"Yahoo Finance is definitely a good one, and its ultimately the source of the data that a lot of other places use (like the iOS Stocks app), because of their famous API. Another good dividend website is Dividata.com. It's a fairly simple website, free to use, which provides tons of dividend-specific info, including the highest-yield stocks, the upcoming ex-div dates, and the highest-rated stocks based on their 3-metric rating system. It's a great place to find new stocks to investigate, although you obviously don't want to stop there. It also shows dividend payment histories and \"\"years paying,\"\" so you can quickly get an idea of which stocks are long-established and which may just be flashes in the pan. For example: Lastly, I've got a couple of iOS apps that really help me with dividend investing: Compounder is a single-stock compound interest calculator, which automatically looks up a stock's info and calculates a simulated return for a given number of years, and Dividender allows you to input your entire portfolio and then calculates its growth over time as a whole. The former is great for researching potential stocks, running scenarios, and deciding how much to invest, while the latter is great for tracking your portfolio and making plans regarding your investments overall.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
e6a6826c5f739fe21070e586d4502958
|
What are “trailing 12-month total returns”?
|
[
{
"docid": "ec3d2ef054779dcb4a3ca4667c2cdb52",
"text": "( t2 / t1 ) - 1 Where t2 is the value today, t1 is the value 12 months ago. Be sure to include dividend payments, if there were any, to t2. That will give you total return over 12 months.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "36da6bde98ebe39b832a27c95b80a17e",
"text": "\"Total Return is the percent change in value (including andy dividends) of an instrument. The \"\"trailing 12-month\"\" means that your starting point is the value 12 months ago. So the formula is: where V is the value of the instrument on the reference date, V0 is the value of the instrument 12 months prior to the reference date, and D is the amount of dividends paid between the two dates.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "bc964ec49166d654ca6c7eb985c40ba0",
"text": "\"What exactly do you need explained? Short term returns show \"\"fat tails\"\" in their distribution. Long term returns converge towards a gaussian distribution. The authors think there's a connection between this and the \"\"long memory\"\" of volatility (i.e. that the autocorrelation of absolute volatilities also has a fat tail).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4cef894cebded926516253134c852d03",
"text": "For the period 1950 to 2009, if you adjust the S&P 500 for inflation and account for dividends, the average annual return comes out to exactly 7.0%. Source. Currently inflation is around 2%. So your 2% APY is a 0% real return where the stock market return is 7%. I.e. on average, stocks have a return that is higher by 7. If you mix in bonds, 70% stocks to 30% bonds, your real returns will drop to around 5.5%, but you are safer in individual years (bonds often have good years when stocks have bad years). We're making a bit of a false dichotomy here. We're talking about returns on stocks in retirement accounts versus returns on CDs in regular accounts. You can buy stocks in regular accounts and it is legally possible to have a CD in a retirement account. So you can get bankruptcy protection and tax advantages with a CD.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fae50c83913edd7f063607b16dfb1431",
"text": "While the S&P500 is not a total return index, there is an official total return S&P500 that includes reinvested dividends and which is typically used for benchmarking. For a long time it was not available for free, but it can currently be found on yahoo finance using the ticker ^SP500TR.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ebffd8bf1e0ea4a10737467e7d7903a0",
"text": "A quick Excel calculation tells me that, if you are earning a guaranteed post-tax return of 12% in a liquid investment, then it doesn't matter which one you pick. According to the following Excel formula: You would be able to invest ₹2,124 now at 12% interest, and you could withdraw ₹100 every month for 24 months. Which means that the ₹100/month option and the ₹2100/biennium option are essentially the same. This, of course, is depending on that 12% guaranteed return. Where I come from, this type of investment is unheard of. If I was sure I'd still be using the same service two years from now, I would choose the biennial payment option. You asked in the comments how to change the formula to account for risk in the investment. Risk is a hard thing to quantify. However, if you are certain that you will be using this service in two years from now, you are essentially achieving 13% in a guaranteed return by pre-paying your fee. In my experience, a 13% guaranteed return is worth taking. Trying to achieve any more than that in an investment is simply a gamble. That having been said, at the amount we are talking about, each percent difference in return is only about ₹22. The biggest risk here is the fact that you might want to change services before your term is up. If these amounts are relatively small for you, then if there is any chance at all that you will want to drop the service before the 2 years is up, just pay the monthly fee.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ba2ffd3d9a2721b4e06f7c2d830e42d3",
"text": "\"I was afraid of this. If you are using 12 P/Y and 12 C/Y, then your interest rate should not be divided by 12. Also, you should use \"\"END\"\" as this means monthly payments are made at the end of the month - a usual default.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "631c6e3f6efdc57d684f2b42448b65a5",
"text": "Yes those are really yields. A large portion of the world has negative yielding bonds in fact. This process has been in motion for the past 10 years for very specific reasons. So congratulations on discovering the bond market.",
"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": "1bd71d2b21416caa623fa525043c3812",
"text": "That's not 100% correct, as some leveraged vehicles choose to re-balance on a monthly basis making them less risky (but still risky). If I'm not mistaken the former oil ETN 'DXO' was a monthly re-balance before it was shut down by the 'man' Monthly leveraged vehicles will still suffer slippage, not saying they won't. But instead of re-balancing 250 times per year, they do it 12 times. In my book less iterations equals less decay. Basically you'll bleed, just not as much. I'd only swing trade something like this in a retirement account where I'd be prohibited from trading options. Seems like you can get higher leverage with less risk trading options, plus if you traded LEAPS, you could choose to re-balance only once per year.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fdbe399b50e8f270715d8522907f7202",
"text": "What you're missing is the continuous compounding computation doesn't work that way. If you compound over n periods of time and a rate of return of r, the formula is e^(r*n), as you have to multiply the returns together with a mulitplicative base of 1. Otherwise consider what 0 does to your formula. If I get a zero return, I have a zero result which doesn't make sense. However, in my formula I'd still get the 1 which is what I'm starting and thus the no effect is the intended result. Continuous compounding would give e^(-.20*12) = e^(-2.4) = .0907 which is a -91% return so for each $100 invested, the person ends up with $9.07 left at the end. It may help to picture that the function e^(-x) does asymptotically approach zero as x tends to infinity, but that is as bad as it can get, so one doesn't cross into the negative unless one wants to do returns in a Complex number system with imaginary numbers in here somehow. For those wanting the usual compounding, here would be that computation which is more brutal actually: For your case it would be (1-.20)^12=(0.8)^12=0.068719476736 which is to say that someone ends up with 6.87% in the end. For each $100 had in the beginning they would end with $6.87 in the end. Consider someone starting with $100 and take 20% off time and time again you'd see this as it would go down to $80 after the first month and then down to $64 the second month as the amount gets lower the amount taken off gets lower too. This can be continued for all 12 terms. Note that the second case isn't another $20 loss but only $16 though it is the same percentage overall. Some retail stores may do discounts on discounts so this can happen in reality. Take 50% off of something already marked down 50% and it isn't free, it is down 75% in total. Just to give a real world example where while you think a half and a half is a whole, taking half and then half of a half is only three fourths, sorry to say. You could do this with an apple or a pizza if you want a food example to consider. Alternatively, consider the classic up and down case where an investment goes up 10% and down 10%. On the surface, these should cancel and negate each other, right? No, in fact the total return is down 1% as the computation would be (1.1)(.9)=.99 which is slightly less than 1. Continuous compounding may be a bit exotic from a Mathematical concept but the idea of handling geometric means and how compounding returns comes together is something that is rather practical for people to consider.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f1a0bab43fe7bd385d1f5b7263d5969a",
"text": "It's not compound interest. It is internal rate of return. If you have access to Excel look up the XIRR built-in function.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "0d7c6928d9b2a253a08cf3b3a17e050e",
"text": "It looks like their three months ending and six months ending June 30, 2012 income statements are the same?? Did they start April1, 2012? Anyways, it looks bad though that was the first quarter. Hard to judge if that's the case",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0f77e97497f517ecfdc3c6972eb16b28",
"text": "\"The author is using an approximation to what you have exactly, which is called a \"\"true\"\" time-weighted rate of return. You have expressed the total time-weighted return for the period in question. In order to express this as an annual rate, you may annualize it by adding one, raising to the 1/y power, and subtracting one again, for a period of y years. The alternative to a time-weighted return is a money-weighted return, which is actually another name for the internal rate of return.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "beb7a3a32f47ea4177fca8697fac9a34",
"text": "Damn, helpful Harry above me. So, in general, when compounding the value of an investment, if you're seeing an annualized interest rate of 4%, and the interest compounds monthly (or n number of times per year), you're going to multiply the Principal P by the growth rate (the interest rate), adjusted for the number of periods that your investment grows in a year. P_end = P * (1 + 0.04/n)^(n * t), where n = number of periods, and t = number of years. If the interest compounds annually, you earn P *(1.04), if it compounds monthly, you earn (1 + 0.04/12)^(12 * 1). Apply this logic to discounting future cash flows to their net present value. When discounting future cash flows, you're essentially determing the opportunity cost of now being unable to put your investment elsewhere and earning that corresponding interest (discount) rate. Thus, you would discount $1000 by (1 + 0.08/12)^1, and $2000, $3000 in a similar fashion. Then, as icing on the cake, sum up to get your cumulative net present value. Please let me know if any portion of my explanation is unclear; I would be happy to elaborate!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "93272704c3255f614b4bc281253cb3a1",
"text": "The Telegraph had an interesting article recently going back 30 years for Mutual's in the UK that had beaten the market and trackers for both IT and UT http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/investing/11489789/The-funds-that-have-returned-more-than-12pc-per-year-for-THIRTY-years.html",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
fc9717ea5a2696089c08687e4f7e4805
|
Using Euros to buy and sell NASDAQ stocks
|
[
{
"docid": "65a80f2facea4fe99eb9be9f03da3d0d",
"text": "Does the Spanish market, or any other market in euroland, have the equivalent of ETF's? If so there ought to be one that is based on something like the US S&P500 or Russell 3000. Otherwise you might check for local offices of large mutual fund companies such as Vanguard, Schwab etc to see it they have funds for sale there in Spain that invest in the US markets. I know for example Schwab has something for Swiss residents to invest in the US market. Do bear in mind that while the US has a stated policy of a 'strong dollar', that's not really what we've seen in practice. So there is substantial 'currency risk' of the dollar falling vs the euro, which could result in a loss for you. (otoh, if the Euro falls out of bed, you'd be sitting pretty.) Guess it all depends on how good your crystal ball is.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b36c234151124c34fb9189a4356e13d3",
"text": "Either way you'll be converting to US Dollars somewhere along the line. You are seeking something that is very redundant",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7398abe8544fccf27a34b60e839f28b3",
"text": "You can check whether the company whose stock you want to buy is present on an european market. For instance this is the case for Apple at Frankfurt.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "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": "9440f6a0c8c21dafac732d0fc850d408",
"text": "It depends on the currency pair since it is much harder to move a liquid market like Fiber (EURUSD) or Cable (GBPUSD) than it is to move illiquid markets such as USDTRY, however, it will mostly be big banks and big hedge funds adjusting their positions or speculating (not just on the currency or market making but also speculating in foreign instruments). I once was involved in a one-off USD 56 million FX trade without which the hedge fund could not trade as its subscriptions were in a different currency to the fund currency. Although it was big by their standards it was small compared with the volumes we expected from other clients. Governments and big companies who need to pay costs in a foreign currency or receive income in one will also do this but less frequently and will almost always do this through a nominated bank (in the case of large firms). Because they need the foreign currency immediately; if you've ever tried to pay a bill in the US denominated in Dollars using Euros you'll know that they aren't widely accepted. So if I need to pay a large bill to a supplier in Dollars and all I have is Euros I may move the market. Similarly if I am trying to buy a large number of shares in a US company and all I have is Euros I'll lose the opportunity.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9c7b4c73d0cfa05f6db8ec14315332e2",
"text": "Suppose you're a European Company, selling say a software product to a US company. As much as you might want the US company to pay you in Euros they might insist (or you'll lose the contract) that you agree pricing in USD. The software is licensed on a yearly recurring amount, say 100K USD per year payable on the 1st January every year. In this example, you know that on the 1st Jan that 100K USD will arrive in your USD bank account. You will want to convert that to Euros and to remove uncertainty from your business you might take out an FX Forward today to remove your currency risk. If in the next 9 months the dollar strengthens against the Euro then notionally you'll have lost out by taking out the forward. Similarly, you've notionally gained if the USD weakens against the EURO. The forward gives you the certainty you need to plan your business.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f37da9c64177f790479271443715f132",
"text": "\"It is not clear to me why you believe you can lose more than you put in, without margin. It is difficult and the chances are virtually nil. However, I can think of a few ways. Lets say you are an American, and deposit $1000. Now lets say you think the Indian rupee is going to devalue relative to the Euro. So that means you want to go long EURINR. Going long EURINR, without margin, is still different than converting your INRs into Euros. Assume USDINR = 72. Whats actually happening is your broker is taking out a 72,000 rupee loan, and using it to buy Euros, with your $1000 acting as collateral. You will need to pay interest on this loan (about 7% annualized if I remember correctly). You will earn interest on the Euros you hold in the meantime (for simplicity lets say its 1%). The difference between interest you earn and interest you pay is called the cost of carry, or commonly referred to as 'swap'. So your annualized cost of carry is $60 ($10-$70). Lets say you have this position open for 1 year, and the exchange rate doesnt move. Your total equity is $940. Now lets say an asteroid destroys all of Europe, your Euros instantly become worthless. You now must repay the rupee loan to close the trade, the cost of which is $1000 but you only have $940 in your account. You have lost more than you deposited, using \"\"no margin\"\". I would actually say that all buying and selling of currency pairs is inherently using margin, because they all involve a short sale. I do note that depending on your broker, you can convert to another currency. But thats not what forex traders do most of the time.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4fdc05017bf72e9d071694448159aa6c",
"text": "If you prefer the stock rather than cash, you might find it easier to take the cash, report it, and then buy the same stock from within your own country.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "544eb1bcffeaaacdcebfcc13687c3d13",
"text": "I used to trade on Nasdaq using a US broker from the UK, you need a way to convert your money into US $s and have the cost of international money transfers. I don’t know if there are any laws in Turkey that will stop you using a US broker. You are also on your own if anything goes wrong, as the Turkish police will not be interested, and the US police will be very hard to deal with from Turkey. This all depends on Turkey not unplugging the internet on the day you wish to trade on!!! (I used tdameritrade, but it was a VERY long timer ago, as UK brokers are now as cheap, you should also consider UK based brokers as they will also let you trade outside of the USA.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "02c8e697d20dcb9d21f4bc92bce2ac16",
"text": "With $7 Million at stake I guess it would be prudent to take legal advise as well as advise from qualified CA. Forex trading for select currency pair [with one leg in INR] is allowed. Ex USDINR, EURINR, JPYINR, GBPINR. Forex trading for pairs without INR or not in the above list is NOT allowed.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5ae06451df0a095d66d02dd73776f07a",
"text": "\"Trading on specific ECNs is the easy part - you simply specify the order routing in advance. You are not buying or selling the *exact* same shares. Shares are fungible - so if I simultaneously buy one share and sell another share, my net share position is zero - even if those trades don't settle until T+3. PS \"\"The Nasdaq\"\" isn't really an exchange in the way that the CME, or other order-driven markets are. It's really just a venue to bring market makers together. It's almost like \"\"the internet,\"\" as in, when you buy something from Amazon, you're not buying it from \"\"the internet,\"\" but it was the internet that made your transaction with Amazon possible.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6ee5094a258ae0377d39f8cdcfb21087",
"text": "\"Tricky question, basically, you just want to first spread risk around, and then seek abnormal returns after you understand what portions of your portfolio are influenced by (and understand your own investment goals) For a relevant timely example: the German stock exchange and it's equity prices are reaching all time highs, while the Greek asset prices are reaching all time lows. If you just invested in \"\"Europe\"\" your portfolio will experience only the mean, while suffering from exchange rate changes. You will likely lose because you arbitrarily invested internationally, for the sake of being international, instead of targeting a key country or sector. Just boils down to more research for you, if you want to be a passive investor you will get passive investor returns. I'm not personally familiar with funds that are good at taking care of this part for you, in the international markets.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "20064feafb979b8e5119dc642d0de4de",
"text": "I don't quite understand the NYSE argument that the credit system helps NASDAQ undercut NYSE on pricing and force brokers to trade on NASDAQ. I thought if you were trading a stock listed on NASDAQ, you traded through them and if you were trading a stock listed on NYSE, you'd trade over there. The choice of exchange coming down to the stocks you want to trade more than anything. Are the exchanges also acting as endpoints on trades for securities listed on the other exchange?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "775ac18eb809a9fb312b7dc550e92aa8",
"text": "For question #1, at least some US-based online brokers do permit direct purchases of stocks on foreign exchanges. Depending on your circumstances, this might be more cost effective than purchasing US-listed ADRs. One such broker is Interactive Brokers, which allows US citizens to directly purchase shares on many different foreign exchanges using their online platform (including in France). For France, I believe their costs are currently 0.1% of the total trade value with a 4€ minimum. I should warn you that the IB platform is not particularly user-friendly, since they market themselves to traders and the learning curve is steep (although accounts are available to individual investors). IB also won't automatically convert currencies for you, so you also need to use their foreign exchange trading interface to acquire the foreign currency used to purchase a foreign stock, which has plusses and minuses. On the plus side, their F/X spread is very competitive, but the interface is, shall we say, not very intuitive. I can't answer question #2 with specific regards to US/France. At least in the case of IB, though, I believe any dividends from a EUR-denominated stock would continue to accumulate in your account in Euros until you decide to convert them to dollars (or you could reinvest in EUR if you so choose).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ffc8f0633f8b405fbcf04b373537fdbc",
"text": "Depending on your broker, you can buy these stocks directly at the most liquid local exchanges. For instance, if you are US resident and want to to buy German stocks (like RWE) you can trade these stocks over InteractiveBrokers (or other direct brokers in the US). They offer direct access to German Xetra and other local markets.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "ac121912dc1c747d695b32eb58af4f23",
"text": "\"The way I am trading this is: I am long the USD / EUR in cash. I also hold USD / EUR futures, which are traded on the Globex exchange. I am long US equities which have a low exposure to Europe and China (as I expect China to growth significantly slower if the European weakens). I would not short US equities because Europe-based investors (like me) are buying comparatively \"\"safe\"\" US equities to reduce their EUR exposure.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e6c723d9270816257b82bf1b4ecf93d7",
"text": "\"If I buy the one from NSY, is it the \"\"real\"\" Sinopec? No - you are buying an American Depository Receipt. Essentially some American bank or other entity holds a bunch of Sinopec stock and issues certificates to the American exchange that American investors can trade. This insulates the American investors from the cost of international transactions. The price of these ADRs should mimic the price of the underlying stock (including changes the currency exchange rate) otherwise an arbitrage opportunity would exist. Other than that, the main difference between holding the ADR and the actual stock is that ADRs do not have voting rights. So if that is not important to you then for all intents and purposes trading the ADR would be the same as trading the underlying stock.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
5c6a91ede89c0492c149b21c246dadd8
|
Pros and cons of bond ETF versus traditional bond mutual fund?
|
[
{
"docid": "793ccb71f403b6df10f6d9e5aeef7d72",
"text": "Bond ETFs are just another way to buy a bond mutual fund. An ETF lets you trade mutual fund shares the way you trade stocks, in small share-size increments. The content of this answer applies equally to both stock and bond funds. If you are intending to buy and hold these securities, your main concerns should be purchase fees and expense ratios. Different brokerages will charge you different amounts to purchase these securities. Some brokerages have their own mutual funds for which they charge no trading fees, but they charge trading fees for ETFs. Brokerage A will let you buy Brokerage A's mutual funds for no trading fee but will charge a fee if you purchase Brokerage B's mutual fund in your Brokerage A account. Some brokerages have multiple classes of the same mutual fund. For example, Vanguard for many of its mutual funds has an Investor class (minimum $3,000 initial investment), Admiral class (minimum $10,000 initial investment), and an ETF (share price as initial investment). Investor class has the highest expense ratio (ER). Admiral class and the ETF generally have much lower ER, usually the same number. For example, Vanguard's Total Bond Market Index mutual fund has Investor class (symbol VBMFX) with 0.16% ER, Admiral (symbol VBTLX) with 0.06% ER, and ETF (symbol BND) with 0.06% ER (same as Admiral). See Vanguard ETF/mutual fund comparison page. Note that you can initially buy Investor class shares with Vanguard and Vanguard will automatically convert them to the lower-ER Admiral class shares when your investment has grown to the Admiral threshold. Choosing your broker and your funds may end up being more important than choosing the form of mutual fund versus ETF. Some brokers charge very high purchase/redemption fees for mutual funds. Many brokers have no ETFs that they will trade for free. Between funds, index funds are passively managed and are just designed to track a certain index; they have lower ERs. Actively managed funds are run by managers who try to beat the market; they have higher ERs and tend to actually fall below the performance of index funds, a double whammy. See also Vanguard's explanation of mutual funds vs. ETFs at Vanguard. See also Investopedia's explanation of mutual funds vs. ETFs in general.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "fcc5c09042f1b8f94def4d09030f3687",
"text": "As keshlam said, an ETF holds various assets, but the level of diversification depends on the individual ETF. A bond ETF can focus on short term bonds, long term bonds, domestic bonds, foreign bonds, government bonds, corporate bonds, low risk, high risk, or a mixture of any of those. Vanguard Total International Bond ETF (BNDX) for instance tries to be geographically diverse.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9ba531704a6a6569d654bfcf27ce3fb7",
"text": "\"Morningstar is often considered a trusted industry standard when it comes to rating mutual funds and ETFs. They offer the same data-centric information for other investments as well, such as individual stocks and bonds. You can consult Morningstar directly if you like, but any established broker will usually provide you with Morningstar's ratings for the products it is trying to sell to you. Vanguard offers a few Emerging Markets stock and bond funds, some actively managed, some index funds. Other investment management companies (Fidelity, Schwab, etc.) presumably do as well. You could start by looking in Morningstar (or on the individual companies' websites) to find what the similarities and differences are among these funds. That can help answer some important questions: I personally just shove a certain percentage of my portfolio into non-US stocks and bonds, and of that allocation a certain fraction goes into \"\"established\"\" economies and a certain fraction into \"\"emerging\"\" ones. I do all this with just a few basic index funds, because the indices make sense (to me) and index funds cost very little.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "de4d908439a19fe8f5c4f2cbea1e82f2",
"text": "I'm assuming you are buying bond mutual funds or bond etfs here, not the actual bonds directly. There are a significant variety of different types of bond funds, reflecting the sort of bonds they invest in. For example, you can invest in risky, non-commercial grade bonds, also known as junk bonds. Or you can invest in short-term bonds, which are much safer but return much less. There's no such thing as the 'average bond'. So, let's go for somewhere in the middle. Let's go for 3% return, after fees. Now, it's fairly simple math. You want $3,000 a month, or $36,000 a year. To generate that sort of return, you'd need to invest $1,200,000. If we are more optimistic, we could go for a 4% return, after fees. That reduces your investment to $900,000. Note that it would almost certainly not make sense to invest all that money in bonds. Instead, you'd want to invest in a mix of stocks and bonds. This could likely reduce your risk while increasing your expected return.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3a16e38607c9d834e9d46ff63df423c5",
"text": "No I get that. But if you don’t want risk, then buy bonds. Long term an S&P Index has very low risk. On the other hand, actively managed funds have fees that take out a ton of the gain that could be had. I don’t have time to look for the study but I read recently that 97% of actively managed funds were outperformed by S&P Indexes after fees. Now I don’t know about you but I think the risk of not picking a top 3% fund is probably higher than the safe return of index’s.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5cff844c4aa3d9514ed094edddef9515",
"text": "Yes, you're absolutely right. For such small amounts and such large fees, almost any investment choice is pointless. Some brokers allow for commission free ETF trading. Seek them out. As you've noticed, bond interest rates are almost 0%. This is a far cry from the days of Benjamin Graham, where the USD acted more like gold, with much more frequent booms and busts. During Graham's heyday, one could sell one's bonds at super low interest rates and buy them back again when high. In his day, interest rates would be very high one year like in 2008 and next to nothing the next like in 2009, cycling back and forth, until the 1960s hit, and he didn't know what to do. Graham preferred to wait for the reversion to the mean, and act only when far from it. Those opportunities are few and far between now since fiat currencies are far better managed than they were then, the Fed-caused 2009 total destruction as an outlier to recent times. In your case, it's best to leave the bonds to the insurance companies and buy equities. If you want less volatility, buy a buy-write ETF. Bonds will surely disappoint unless one is lucky enough to hold bonds while interest rates fall from ~6% to ~3%, an eventuality that shouldn't be expected to occur again, as Bill Gross is painfully discovering.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a96d94c22d193385c82351f53d90af2a",
"text": "\"Your return from a bond fund corresponds to the return on the underlying bonds (minus fees) during your holding period. So you can buy AND sell at any time. Some funds charge a penalty of 2% or whatever if you sell your fund shares within 30 or 60 days of buying it. There are two basic ways to profit from a bond fund. 1) you get dividends from the interest paid on the bonds. 2) you have a capital gain (or loss) on the bonds themselves. 1) is likely to happen. MOST (not all) bonds pay interest on time, and on a regular basis. This component of returns is ALMOST guaranteed. 2) There are no guarantees on what the \"\"market\"\" will pay for bonds at any given time, so this component of bonds is NOT AT ALL guaranteed. Your \"\"total return is the sum of 1) and 2) (minus fees). Since 2) is uncertain, your \"\"total return\"\" is uncertain.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b962d0c6c11e5ca3e77f09acaddf793b",
"text": "Most bond ETFs have switched to monthly dividends paid on the first of each month, in an attempt to standardize across the market. For ETFs (but perhaps not bond mutual funds, as suggested in the above answer) interest does accrue in the NAV, so the price of the fund does drop on ex-date by an amount equal to the dividend paid. A great example of this dynamic can be seen in FLOT, a bond ETF holding floating rate corporate bonds. As you can see in this screenshot, the NAV has followed a sharp up and down pattern, almost like the teeth of a saw. This is explained by interest accruing in the NAV over the course of each month, until it is paid out in a dividend, dropping the NAV sharply in one day. The effect has been particularly pronounced recently because the floating coupon payments have increased significantly (benchmark interest rates are higher) and mark-to-market changes in credit spreads of the constituent bonds have been very muted.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a9dbe7f5f0b136736a208fcb32b3c391",
"text": "\"If you need less than $125k for the downpayment, I recommend you convert your mutual fund shares to their ETF counterparts tax-free: Can I convert conventional Vanguard mutual fund shares to Vanguard ETFs? Shareholders of Vanguard stock index funds that offer Vanguard ETFs may convert their conventional shares to Vanguard ETFs of the same fund. This conversion is generally tax-free, although some brokerage firms may be unable to convert fractional shares, which could result in a modest taxable gain. (Four of our bond ETFs—Total Bond Market, Short-Term Bond, Intermediate-Term Bond, and Long-Term Bond—do not allow the conversion of bond index fund shares to bond ETF shares of the same fund; the other eight Vanguard bond ETFs allow conversions.) There is no fee for Vanguard Brokerage clients to convert conventional shares to Vanguard ETFs of the same fund. Other brokerage providers may charge a fee for this service. For more information, contact your brokerage firm, or call 866-499-8473. Once you convert from conventional shares to Vanguard ETFs, you cannot convert back to conventional shares. Also, conventional shares held through a 401(k) account cannot be converted to Vanguard ETFs. https://personal.vanguard.com/us/content/Funds/FundsVIPERWhatAreVIPERSharesJSP.jsp Withdraw the money you need as a margin loan, buy the house, get a second mortgage of $125k, take the proceeds from the second mortgage and pay back the margin loan. Even if you have short term credit funds, it'd still be wiser to lever up the house completely as long as you're not overpaying or in a bubble area, considering your ample personal investments and the combined rate of return of the house and the funds exceeding the mortgage interest rate. Also, mortgage interest is tax deductible while margin interest isn't, pushing the net return even higher. $125k Generally, I recommend this figure to you because the biggest S&P collapse since the recession took off about 50% from the top. If you borrow $125k on margin, and the total value of the funds drop 50%, you shouldn't suffer margin calls. I assumed that you were more or less invested in the S&P on average (as most modern \"\"asset allocations\"\" basically recommend a back-door S&P as a mix of credit assets, managed futures, and small caps average the S&P). Second mortgage Yes, you will have two loans that you're paying interest on. You've traded having less invested in securities & a capital gains tax bill for more liabilities, interest payments, interest deductions, more invested in securities, a higher combined rate of return. If you have $500k set aside in securities and want $500k in real estate, this is more than safe for you as you will most likely have a combined rate of return of ~5% on $500k with interest on $500k at ~3.5%. If you're in small cap value, you'll probably be grossing ~15% on $500k. You definitely need to secure your labor income with supplementary insurance. Start a new question if you need a model for that. Secure real estate with securities A local bank would be more likely to do this than a major one, but if you secure the house with the investment account with special provisions like giving them copies of your monthly statements, etc, you might even get a lower rate on your mortgage considering how over-secured the loan would be. You might even be able to wrap it up without a down payment in one loan if it's still legal. Mortgage regulations have changed a lot since the housing crash.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "48c24049376a347959f8f744d9e66517",
"text": "Bond ETFs are traded like normal stock. It just so happens to be that the underlying fund (for which you own shares) is invested in bonds. Such funds will typically own many bonds and have them laddered so that they are constantly maturing. Such funds may also trade bonds on the OTC market. Note that with bond ETFs you're able to lose money as well as gain depending on the situation with the bond market. The issuer of the bond does not need to default in order for this to happen. The value of a bond (and thus the value of the bond fund which holds the bonds) is, much like a stock, determined based on factors like supply/demand, interest rates, credit ratings, news, etc.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1d233b4aaff599f1666c92147468e89e",
"text": "The mutual fund will price at day's end, while the ETF trades during the day, like a stock. If you decide at 10am, that some event will occur during the day that will send the market up, the ETF is preferable. Aside from that, the expenses are identical, a low .14%. No real difference especially in a Roth.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7603001dde6e6c0653694e7be8760a85",
"text": "Here is another choice I like, iShares JPMorgan USD Emerging Markets Bond (EMB) Here is the world ETFs",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2b0f50c6befa43aa0f99833600320dd9",
"text": "\"First, you don't state where you are and this is a rather global site. There are people from Canada, US, and many other countries here so \"\"mutual funds\"\" that mean one thing to you may be a bit different for someone in a foreign country for one point. Thanks for stating that point in a tag. Second, mutual funds are merely a type of investment vehicle, there is something to be said for what is in the fund which could be an investment company, trust or a few other possibilities. Within North America there are money market mutual funds, bond mutual funds, stock mutual funds, mutual funds of other mutual funds and funds that are a combination of any and all of the former choices. Thus, something like a money market mutual fund would be low risk but quite likely low return as well. Short-term bond funds would bring up the risk a tick though this depends on how you handle the volatility of the fund's NAV changing. There is also something to be said for open-end, ETF and closed-end funds that are a few types to consider as well. Third, taxes are something not even mentioned here which could impact which kinds of funds make sense as some funds may invest in instruments with favorable tax-treatment. Aside from funds, I'd look at CDs and Treasuries would be my suggestion. With a rather short time frame, stocks could be quite dangerous to my mind. I'd only suggest stocks if you are investing for at least 5 years. In 2 years there is a lot that can happen with stocks where if you look at history there was a record of stocks going down about 1 in every 4 years on average. Something to consider is what kind of downside would you accept here? Are you OK if what you save gets cut in half? This is what can happen with some growth funds in the short-term which is what a 2 year time horizon looks like. If you do with a stock mutual fund, it would be a gamble to my mind. Don't forget that if the fund goes down 10% and then comes up 10%, you're still down 1% since the down will take more.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0293c56e8290ecce3606fdb9ca285fe9",
"text": "http://www.efficientfrontier.com/ef/104/stupid.htm would have some data though a bit old about open-end funds vs an ETF that would be one point. Secondly, do you know that the Math on your ETF will always work out to whole numbers of shares or do you plan on using brokers that would allow fractional shares easily? This is a factor as $3,000 of an open-end fund will automatically go into fractional shares that isn't necessarily the case of an ETF where you have to specify a number of shares when you purchase as well as consider are you doing a market or limit order? These are a couple of things to keep in mind here. Lastly, what if the broker you use charges account maintenance fees for your account? In buying the mutual fund from the fund company directly, there may be a lower likelihood of having such fees. I don't know of any way to buy shares in the ETF directly without using a broker.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2b49a84cc6307004df52a8092a033866",
"text": "\"You are asking multiple questions here, pieces of which may have been addressed in other questions. A bond (I'm using US Government bonds in this example, and making the 'zero risk of default' assumption) will be priced based on today's interest rate. This is true whether it's a 10% bond with 10 years left (say rates were 10% on the 30 yr bond 20 years ago) a 2% bond with 10 years, or a new 3% 10 year bond. The rate I use above is the 'coupon' rate, i.e. the amount the bond will pay each year in interest. What's the same for each bond is called the \"\"Yield to Maturity.\"\" The price adjusts, by the market, so the return over the next ten years is the same. A bond fund simply contains a mix of bonds, but in aggregate, has a yield as well as a duration, the time-and-interest-weighted maturity. When rates rise, the bond fund will drop in value based on this factor (duration). Does this begin to answer your question?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e78c47a389e622bbb8e5b811e788ed9d",
"text": "\"According to US News, renter's insurance does cover liability as well as your own belongings. They list this as one of four \"\"myths\"\" often promulgated about renter's insurance. This is backed up by esurance.com, which explicitly mentions \"\"Property damage to others\"\" as covered. Nationwide Insurance says that renter's insurance covers \"\"Personal liability insurance for renters\"\" and \"\"Personal umbrella liability insurance\"\". Those were the first three working links for \"\"what does renters insurance cover\"\" on Google. In short, while it is possible that you currently have a different kind of coverage, this is not a limitation of renter's insurance per se. It could be a limitation in your current coverage. You may be able to simply change your coverage with your current provider. Or switch providers. Or you may already be covered. Note that renter's insurance does not cover the building against general damage, e.g. tornado or a fire spreading from an adjacent building. It is specific to covering things that you caused. This may be the cause of the confusion, as some sources say that it doesn't cover anything in the building. That's generally not true. It usually covers all your liability except for specific exceptions (e.g. waterbed insurance is often extra).\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
637e0e8771b70e33c0127bcf0339b5c3
|
Estimating the impact of tax-loss harvesting
|
[
{
"docid": "e8028417ab8882585d653989bfad1b06",
"text": "When you sell a stock that you own, you realize gains, or losses. Short-term gains, realized within a year of buying and selling an asset, are taxed at your maximum (or marginal) tax rate. Long term-gains, realized after a year, are taxed at a lower, preferential rate. The first thing to consider is losses. Losses can be cancelled against gains, reducing your tax liability. Losses can also be carried over to the next tax year and be redeemed against those gains. When you own a bunch of the same type of stock, bought at different times and prices, you can choose which shares to sell. This allows you to decide whether you realize short- or long-term gains (or losses). This is known as lot matching (or order matching). You want to sell the shares that lost value before selling the ones that gained value. Booking losses reduces your taxes; booking gains increases them. If faced with a choice between booking short term and long term losses, I'd go with the former. Since net short-term gains are taxed at a higher rate, I'd want to minimize the short-term tax liability before moving on to long-term tax liability. If my remaining shares had gains, I'd sell the ones purchased earliest since long-term gains are taxed at a lower rate, and delaying the booking of gains converts short-term gains into long-term ones. If there's a formula for this, I'd say it's (profit - loss) x (tax bracket) = tax paid",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "538da02b9cbfb6a9472db2e0cb3bf217",
"text": "I think it's safe to say that removing the deduction will do a lot more than hurt the housing market. Consumer discretionary income will decrease and most likely hamper the growth in the economy we have seen since 2008. Seems like shitty policy to move when republicans are also trying to cut corporate taxes.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2285e494799ac5c925329e0178beab88",
"text": "I had a question about this but it apparently wasn’t formed in the right way as I got no explanations and only downvotes, so let me try again. Given the massive amount of info you gave, I tried to go through and find the data I was asking for- data behind the projections of such a loss. Perhaps since I’m not a professional economist, It was not immediately apparent to me how to find the data behind the projections. Would you mind demonstrating how any of these sources provide the data behind how such projections are made? Or do you have any other advice as to how I could find an answer?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "937e178303c71f9a48e8980a920490ce",
"text": "This loss would be unrealized and, assuming you're a cash-basis tax-payer, you would not be able to take a loss on your 2014 tax return. This is similar to if you held a stock that lost 50% of its value. You wouldn't be able to claim this loss until you finally sold it. The link that User58220 posted may come into play if you converted your UAH back to USD.",
"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": "56f607bca64522b8754268ef2dbe932a",
"text": "Once the business is shut down, you'll need to show that the corporation is in bankruptcy and the amounts are unrecoverable. You can then report it as investment loss. I suggest talking to a tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State), and maybe an attorney, on what the specific technical details are.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4dbdf89938a9c68787e86059f64a90c5",
"text": "I do not quite understand your point.. Say you repeal a tax, without reducing public spending. Then if you analyze the economic impact, that does not fairly represent the impact of the tax, now does it? Just think of it this way: Increasing the wealth tax and increasing government spending =- Reducing the wealth tax and -reducing government spending- What do you think?",
"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": "e5d3f0e0a1b880afa3dcb267594e6ea3",
"text": "Assuming the US, if a human assessor audited you, could you show a future profit motive or will they conclude you are expensing a hobby? If you answer yes, you are likely to only be deducting limited expenses this year, carrying forward losses to your profitable years. See the examples in pub 535: http://www.irs.gov/publications/p535/ch01.html#en_US_2014_publink1000208633",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "473b89d88dbe46c26fc30c3a059e5370",
"text": "In no ways. Both will be reported to the members on their K1 in the respective categories (or if it is a single member LLC - directly to the individual tax return). The capital gains will flow to your personal Schedule D, and the business loss to your personal Schedule C. On your individual tax return you can deduct up to 3K of capital losses from any other income. Business loss is included in the income if it is active business, for passive businesses (like rental) there are limitations.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "717f43c7751a5879ddb6803c81749945",
"text": "The business may not have paid any direct tax towards profit. However it would have paid tons of indirect tax like Sales tax / Service tax on the goods / services rendered. The raw material that he has purchased from vendors [leading to demand] would have been taxed. The salary he has paid [hence employees paying personal tax] So essentially even from a loss making venture, the Govt has received enough tax money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "72fc221a5286a78c5614557cc9d80340",
"text": "The harvested losses are capital losses. See this IRS page: Generally, realized capital losses are first offset against realized capital gains. Any excess losses can be deducted against ordinary income up to $3,000 ($1,500 if married filing separately) on line 13 of Form 1040. Losses in excess of this limit can be carried forward to later years to reduce capital gains or ordinary income until the balance of these losses is used up. This means that your harvested losses can be used to offset ordinary income --- up to $3000 in a single year, and with extra losses carried forward to future years. It is pretty close to a free lunch, provided that you have some losses somewhere in your portfolio. This free lunch is available to anyone, but for a human, it can be quite a chore to decide when to sell what, keep track of the losses, and avoid the wash sale rules. The advantage of robo-advisors is that they eat that kind of bookkeeping for breakfast, so they can take advantage of tax loss harvesting opportunities that would be too cumbersome for a human to bother with.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4c63bf814d5fbb4cc00f26a93771acf2",
"text": "You add the wash sale loss to your cost basis for the other transaction so you would have two entries in your schedule d reporting 1.) Listing the $2000 loss as a wash 2.) The cost basis for your second transaction is thus $1000+$2000 = $3000 so when it was sold for $2000 you now have a reportable loss of $1000. For more information see here.... http://www.ehow.com/how_5313540_calculate-wash-sale.html",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3fa31b1975e0d7a3e9f65372d31635a5",
"text": "Capital losses do mirror capital gains within their holding periods. An asset or investment this is certainly held for a year into the day or less, and sold at a loss, will create a short-term capital loss. A sale of any asset held for over a year to your day, and sold at a loss, will create a loss that is long-term. When capital gains and losses are reported from the tax return, the taxpayer must first categorize all gains and losses between long and short term, and then aggregate the sum total amounts for every single regarding the four categories. Then the gains that are long-term losses are netted against each other, therefore the same is done for short-term gains and losses. Then your net gain that is long-term loss is netted against the net short-term gain or loss. This final net number is then reported on Form 1040. Example Frank has the following gains and losses from his stock trading for the year: Short-term gains - $6,000 Long-term gains - $4,000 Short-term losses - $2,000 Long-term losses - $5,000 Net short-term gain/loss - $4,000 ST gain ($6,000 ST gain - $2,000 ST loss) Net long-term gain/loss - $1,000 LT loss ($4,000 LT gain - $5,000 LT loss) Final net gain/loss - $3,000 short-term gain ($4,000 ST gain - $1,000 LT loss) Again, Frank can only deduct $3,000 of final net short- or long-term losses against other types of income for that year and must carry forward any remaining balance.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d02bb6df67310819e9dfe2d81a0cfe9c",
"text": "The focus of this article isn't on tax revenue. The author is discussing income disparity. The laffer curve doesn't tell the whole story. You are correct, a higher tax rate does not imply higher tax revenue, and a lower tax rate does not imply less revenue. Changing tax rates isn't going to significantly affect tax revenue. However, there are a broad range of other effects when changing tax rates. In evaluating adjustments to tax rates, our focus needs to be on these secondary effects. We are taxed on *income* not *revenue*. When I sell you a $10 widget that I paid a worker $2 to produce from $5 of materials, I pay taxes on the $3 net income, not the $10 revenue I received from you. The main way businesses avoid high marginal tax rates is by increasing deductible expenses, such that their net income after these expenses keeps them below their desired tax bracket. It is far better to spend that money on something that can benefit the business than simply give it to the government. Any businessman would rather keep his earnings if possible. If that is not possible, he'd prefer to spend them on something that can help him, rather than squandering it on junk or giving it away to the government. For most businesses, the largest deductible expense is payroll. Any decent employer would prefer to pay out a Christmas bonus instead of giving that same amount to Uncle Sam. Any businessman would prefer to pay for additional advertising, or a charitable donation to a worthy cause, rather than paying the IRS. Run up the top-tier tax rate and suddenly, businessmen feel a compelling need to lower their prices and pay their workers more. Run up the tax rate, and income disparity shrinks. Run up the tax rate, and you put more money in the hands of consumers.",
"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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
b6a62b18a0434fb035436f5d461c6fde
|
Relationship between liquidity and an efficient market
|
[
{
"docid": "378a8aa17592069e3d996cbbe7225ca8",
"text": "\"Liquidity is highly correlated to efficiency primarily because if an asset's price is not sampled during the time of a trade, it's price is unknown therefore inefficient. Past prices can be referenced, but they are not the price of the present. Prices of substitutes are even worse. SPY is extremely efficient for an equity. If permitted, it could easily trade with much lower ticks and still have potential for a locked market. Ideal exchange An ideal exchange has no public restrictions on trade. This is not to say that private restrictions would need to be put in place for various reasons, but one would only do that if it were responsible for its own survival instead of being too big to fail. In this market, trades would be approximately continuous for the largest securities and almost always locked because of continuous exchange fee competition with ever dropping minimum ticks. A market that can provide continuous locked orders with infinite precision is perfectly efficient from the point of view of the investor because the value of one's holdings are always known. EMH In terms of the theory the Efficient Market Hypothesis this is irrelevant to the rational investor. The rational investor will invest in the market at large of a given asset class, only increasing risk as wealth increases thus moving to more volatile asset classes when the volatility can be absorbed by excess wealth. Here, liquidity is also helpful, the \"\"two heads are better than one\"\" way of thinking. The more invested in an asset class, the lower the class's variance and vice versa. Bonds, the least variant, dwarf equities which dwarf options, all in order of the least variance. Believe it or not, there was a day when bonds were almost as risky as equities. For those concerned with EMH, liquidity is also believed to increase efficiency in some forms because liquidity is proportional to the number of individuals invested thus reducing the likelihood of an insufficient number of participants. External inefficiency In the case of ETFs that do not perfectly track their underlying index less costs at all times between index changes, this is because they are forbidden from directly trading in the market on their own behalf. If they were allowed and honest, the price would always be perfect and much more liquid than it otherwise should be since the combined frequency of all index members is much higher than any one alone. If one was dishonest, it would try to defraud with higher or lower numbers; however, if insider trading were permitted, both would fail due to the prisoner's dilemma that there is no honor among thieves. Here, the market would detect the problem much sooner because the insiders would arbitrage the false price away. Indirect internal efficiency Taking emerging market ETFs as an example, the markets that those are invested into are heavily restricted, so their ETF to underlying price inefficiencies are more pronounced even though the ETFs are actually working to make those underlying markets more efficient because a price for them altogether is known.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "0f4ac385f7644ab2dc73f205d9ff41c2",
"text": "Timing the market and by extension the efficient market hypothesis is one of the most hotly debated subjects in finance academia. If you are to believe the majority of finance professors and PHD's out there chances of timing a market like the NYSE, NASDAQ or LSE is not possible. If you are to take into account the huge amount of hedge funds and money managers who make it their job to prove the efficient market hypothesis wrong then you may have a chance. My opinion is that the EMH is true and that timing a highly efficient market like the NYSE is very difficult or impossible even for those who spend their whole lives trying to beat it. For someone whose primary job isn’t in investments I would put the idea of timing the markets out of your head.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "941e4c31e610802777991a4fdf1999e2",
"text": "\"If markets are efficient they will be unpredictable. If all past information is already priced into a stock then movement will only occur when new information is introduced. Since no one can predict future events stocks will move in an unpredictable way. If markets are inefficient in the short term, people should be able to figure out the long-term price movements. This doesn't seem to be the case. This is why the authoritative book on market efficiency is called \"\"A **Random** Walk Down Wall Street\"\".\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eb87135e92e9f9687b5bcd31ce84598b",
"text": "Option liquidity and underlying liquidity tend to go hand in hand. According to regulation, what kinds of issues can have options even trading are restricted by volume and cost due to registration with the authorities. Studies have shown that the introduction of option trading causes a spike in underlying trading. Market makers and the like can provide more option liquidity if there is more underlying and option liquidity, a reflexive relationship. The cost to provide liquidity is directly related to the cost for liquidity providers to hedge, as evidenced by the bid ask spread. Liquidity providers in option markets prefer to hedge mostly with other options, hedging residual greeks with other assets such as the underlying, volatility, time, interest rates, etc because trading costs are lower since the two offsetting options hedge most of each other out, requiring less trading in the other assets.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f40c475fb249c3e0a57175f3693ac6eb",
"text": "It's not about moving the market or liquidity the non current months have reduced liquidity, checking today. ES_F June today the most recent 5 min bar has 809 volume. while the september has 10616 volume on the same bar. 2. Commision p/l should be subtracted as actual actual. I'm not necessarily worried about moving the market or liquidity im more or less worried about slippage. As some good strategies can decay very fast due to it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5671482527712efcef940b6b31d2b8fb",
"text": "I'd think that liquidity and speed are prioritized (even over retail brokers and in come cases over PoP) for institutional traders who by default have large positions. When the going gets tough, these guys are out and the small guys - trading through average retail brokers - are the ones left holding the empty bag.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "991a7bff6d74666b8e4d83d5eb0c32d6",
"text": "Depends on how you measure liquidity. There's papers out there that approach this very question. Measured in order book spreads for a consolidated $100m trade, I'd say the second biggest market is FX swaps, followed or par'd by the money market (government bonds). If you disallow OTC venues, it's most definitely exchange listed government bonds. If, however, you happen to think in terms of sheer volume per time, the most liquid market phase could be considered the NYSE closing auction, as you can move billions in a matter of minutes, or expressed in speed terms: several m$/s (million dollars per second). You should pick a definition and we can provide you with a more accurate list of candidates and actual data.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c4c7c31d92616a46d5995d00c6fcea8c",
"text": "You will tend to find as options get closer to expiry (within 2 months of expiry) they tend to be traded more. Also the closer they are to being in the money they more they are traded. So there tends to be more demand for these options than long dated ones that are far out of the money. When there is this higher demand there is less need for a market maker to step in to assure liquidity, thus there should be no effect on the underlying stock price due to the high demand for options. I would say that market makers would mainly get involved in providing liquidity for options way out of the money and with long periods until expiry (6+ months), where there is little demand to start with and open interest is usually quite low.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6e6390bc4bd318df463271b969ab2ba9",
"text": "This has never really adequately explained it for me, and I've tried reading up on it all over the place. For a long time I thought that in a trade, the market maker pockets the spread *for that trade*, but that's not the case. The only sensible explanation I've found (which I'm not going to give in full...) is that the market maker will provide liquidity by buying and selling trades they have no actual view on (short or long), and if the spread is higher, that contributes directly to the amount they make over time when they open and close positions they've made. It would be great to see a single definitive example somewhere that shows how a market maker makes money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "61dda950b48e704bbd339e847c67df77",
"text": "Stock prices are indeed proportional to supply and demand. The greater the demand for a stock, the greater the price. If they are, would this mean that stock prices completely depend on HOW the public FEELS/THINKS about the stock instead of what it is actually worth? This is a question people have argued for decades. Literature in behavioral finance suggests that investors are not rational and thus markets are subject to wild fluctuation based on investor sentiment. The efficient market theory (EMT) argues that the stock market is efficient and that a stock's price is an accurate reflection of its underlying or intrinsic value. This philosophy took birth with Harry Markovitz's efficient frontier, and Eugene Fama is generally seen as the champion of EMT in the 1960's and onward. Most investors today would agree that the markets are not perfectly efficient, and that a stock's price does not always reflect its value. The renowned professor Benjamin Graham once wrote: In the short run, the market is a voting machine but in the long run it is a weighing machine. This suggests that prices in the short term are mainly influenced by how people feel about the stock, while in the long run the price reflects what it's actually worth. For example, people are really big fans of tech stocks right now, which suggests why LinkedIn (stock: LNKD) has such a high share price despite its modest earnings (relative to valuation). People feel really good about it, and the price might sustain if LinkedIn becomes more and more profitable, but it's also possible that their results won't be absolutely stellar, so the stock price will fall until it reflects the company's fundamentals.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1c8be22845f9a82bb3b4eba4039e5b34",
"text": "The relationship is not linear, and depends on a lot of factors. The term you're looking for is efficient frontier, the optimal rate of return for a given level of risk. The goal is to be on the efficient frontier, meaning that for the given level of risk, you're receiving the greatest possible rate of return (reward). http://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/efficientfrontier.asp",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1952d2b085cf270d970a76ae8fbcbdaa",
"text": "\"No one can claim markets are perfectly efficient. The Grossman-Stiglitz paradox explains one reason why it is impossible for the market to be perfectly effecient, and there are plenty of investors that show it is practically possible to consistently beat the market (e.g. \"\"The Superinvestors of Graham-and-Doddsville\"\" or RenTec's Medallion Fund). However, even if you accept as true that prices behave strangely around round numbers, that isn't a refutation of the efficient market hypothesis. The efficient market hypothesis says that price reflect all available information, so the expected price tomorrow is just the price today (not taking into account the time value of money). The efficient market hypothesis says nothing about how prices are distributed. Historically, a random walk has been used, but that is neither a consequence of the EMH nor a required assumption. You could say that prices are more volatile the nearer they are to a round number or new high, but that doesn't necessarily give you an edge in making money off the stock.\"",
"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": "ad09378d1394aae7143bce3a6899abd0",
"text": "Investors already can trade their assets - simply tokenizing a bond is unlikely to make it more liquid. The key to liquidity is having a willing counterparty who wants to buy/sell what you are looking to sell/buy. Because debt can be structured in a myriad of ways, markets for some bonds will be extremely thin, with limited buyers and sellers. I don't see how tokenization will solve that problem.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "94d2490c97d88ed2dc63b9efb26711fb",
"text": "\"You are right, if by \"\"a lot of time\"\" you mean a lot of occasions lasting a few milliseconds each. This is one of the oldest arbitrages in the book, and there's plenty of people constantly on the lookout for such situations, hence they are rare and don't last very long. Most of the time the relationship is satisfied to within the accuracy set by the bid-ask spread. What you write as an equality should actually be a set of inequalities. Continuing with your example, suppose 1 GBP ~ 2 USD, where the market price to buy GBP (the offer) is $2.01 and to sell GBP (the bid) is $1.99. Suppose further that 1 USD ~ 2 EUR, and the market price to buy USD is EUR2.01 and to sell USD is EUR1.99. Then converting your GBP to EUR in this way requires selling for USD (receive $1.99), then sell the USD for EUR (receive EUR3.9601). Going the other way, converting EUR to GBP, it will cost you EUR4.0401 to buy 1 GBP. Hence, so long as the posted prices for direct conversion are within these bounds, there is no arbitrage.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "30f7be6de6cadc6e1fe210bd12f5a0cf",
"text": "I agree. My biggest disagreement with the article is the stigma against the rebates offered by exchanges. These are offered for providing liquidity to the markets, and are an added incentive to both market makers and institutional (and now retail) clients to post orders and provide liquidity for other participants to interact with. We have some market making strategies that make very little in gross P&L (i.e., capturing the spread), but net P&L is much higher due to the rebates we get for maintaining quotes and providing liquidity throughout the day, especially in illiquid/small cap names where spreads would be wide if they relied purely on retail/institutional flow. I'm surprised the author didn't talk about inverted exchanges (Bats Y, Edge A) where participants receive rebates for taking liquidity instead of providing it. Those models essentially reward people who need immediate execution - does he see a problem with those or should they be exempt?",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
a3b1a4c1559ff134e03f0d11eb6a70fd
|
What is the opposite of a hedge?
|
[
{
"docid": "ffd3b0992f0f04b52f518f5941354e39",
"text": "The opposite of a hedge is leverage (aka gearing). A hedge is where you spend money to reduce your exposure. Leverage is where you spend money to increase your exposure. Spread bets are a form of leverage - that's what makes them such an effective way to lose all your money, quickly.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a4fec76dba1c60a221c6dc87a3037197",
"text": "The opposite of a hedge is nothing. Because if you don't want to hedge you bets, you don't, therefore you merely have the original bet. The opposite state of being hedged, is being unhedged.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1b0871b2fe01a0bb4d88877eabf6bcbf",
"text": "I guess the opposite of being hedged is being unhedged. Typically, a hedge is an additional position that you would take on in order to mitigate the potential for losses on another position. I'll give an example: Say that I purchase 100 shares of stock XYZ at $10 per share because I believe its price will increase in the future. At that point, my full investment of $1000 is at risk, so the position is not hedged. If the price of XYZ decreases to $8, then I've lost $200. If the price of XYZ increases to $12, then I've gained $200; the profit/loss curve has a linear relationship to the future stock price. Suppose that I decide to hedge my XYZ position by purchasing a put option. I purchase a single option contract (corresponding to my 100 shares) with a strike price of $10 and an expiration date in January 2013 for a price of $0.50/share. This means that until the contract expires, I can always sell my XYZ shares for a minimum of $10. Therefore, if the price of XYZ decreases to $8, then I've only lost $50 (the price of the option contract), compared to the $200 that I would have lost if the position was unhedged. Likewise, however, if the price increases to $12, then I've only gained a net total of $150 due to the money I spent on the hedge. (the details of how much money you would actually lose in the hedged scenario are simplified out above; even out-of-the-money options retain some value before expiration, but pricing of options is outside of the scope of this post) So, as a more pointed answer to your question, I would say that the hedged/unhedged status of a position can be characterized by its potential for loss. If you don't have any other assets that will increase in value to offset losses on your position of interest, I would call it unhedged.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1d32ef3f5a5bdd379a2ec4dff98318a8",
"text": "\"There is no opposite of a hedge, except not having a hedge at all. A \"\"hedge\"\" isn't directional. If you are short, you hedge by having something that minimizes your losses if you are wrong. If you are long, you hedge by having something that minimizes your losses if it decreases in value. If you own a house, you hedge by having insurance. There are \"\"hedged bets\"\" and \"\"unhedged bets\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9feb3b7674d2e90e21edb01d70da252e",
"text": "I'd say the opposite of hedging is speculating. If you are convinced an asset will appreciate in value, or rather the probability of gains is enough to induce you to hold the asset, you are a speculator. There are lots of ways of speculating, including holding risky assets without hedging that risk and possibly magnifying that risk and return via leverage or the embedded leverage in a derivative contract. Generally speaking, if in expectation you are paying to reduce your risk, you are a hedger. If you are (in expectation) being paid to bear the risk that otherwise someone else would bear, you are a speculator. The word speculation has been tainted by politicians and others trying to vilify the practice, but at the end of the day it's what we are all doing when we buy stock or any other risky asset.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "4e12fb004b3b91dab2ba5c2d3ee16f03",
"text": "For a cheaper hedge , you can try a call spread. e.g if you shorted a stock at 40 but are worried that it can get bought out for 60. then buy a 50-60 bull call spread with appropriate number of contracts or even 50-55. this is better than just buying a 50 call as it will be expensive. Also the other option is not to short but buy a debit bear put spread 40-30 near the money and then buy an out of money call spread ( 55-60).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1ae039aea7714568d67f3e0b4aeb5fd1",
"text": "\"Whoever is not \"\"anti trump\"\" is a either being conned, an idiot or someone very untrustworthy. Take it from an unbiased European. However, we agree on one thing. This article is a bit to loosely related to economics to be in this sub, at least IMO.\"",
"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": "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": "360199722b7757b67c64d9a4b3e15b61",
"text": "Headwinds in an economic situation represent events or conditions e.g. a credit crisis, rising costs, natural disasters, etc, that slow down the growth of an economy. So headwinds are negative. Tailwinds are the opposite and help to increase growth of an economy.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a2ae964b744bb4861e1d2b3d43a79867",
"text": "Roll it into another put with a lower strike and hope it keeps going down. At the very least it will defray the cost of the long position. Ps I think you're looking for the word hedge not lever.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eb57e35cac0725642c3b934b87608ad1",
"text": "\"I saw that an answer hasn't been accepted for this yet: Being bearish is a good hedging strategy. But being hedged is a better hedging strategy. The point being that not everything in investments is so binary (up, and down). A lot of effective hedges can have many more variables than simply \"\"stock go up, stock go down\"\" As such, there are many ways to be bearish and profit from a decline in market values without subjecting yourself to the unlimited risk of short selling. Buying puts against your long equity position is one example. Being long an ETF that is based on short positions is another example.\"",
"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": "3438c85b0532c954bb9cb3a7a0e22d5d",
"text": "Yah, I haven't played in this space very much. My only exposure was visiting a weather insurance company who wanted the fund I was at to take the other side of their bets - paying us a fixed amount and having us cover them whenever their losses were over a certain amount for the month. It looked like a pretty bad deal, but apparently some multi-strat hedge-fund eventually went with it for the uncorrelated beta.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8a5ec08ff4502d32945ad123e3b86821",
"text": "There is no evidence that QE had a negative effect on hedge fund alpha. If you claim, that hedge funds are not able to deliver positive risk adjusted return in up markets - this is wrong assumption. It's been proven, that with the leverage they get, hedge funds can perform better in bullish markets. We recently investigated the performance of 180 Danish funds in the past two decades. We found no evidence that they could outperform their relative benchmarks. Not even that, but we also assumed zero costs for investor, where in reality costs can range from 2 to 5%. Danish funds not only fail in term of positive risk adjusted return, but they also struggle to cover their costs. TL:DR The lover the cost - the higher the return. Evidence says - Go passive!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1f3c94eb9318ee3c0535996a187ef739",
"text": "Mythos Hedgefonds. Einblick in die Charkateristika, Bedeutung und Strategien von Hedgefonds. In der heutigen Zeit hört man immer öfters von der Macht der Hedgefonds. Beinahe täglich prangern die Medien Hedgefonds als sogenannte Sündenböcke an. Dabei nützten diese gezielt die falschen Vorstellungen oder das Nichtwissen der Menschen über diese Materie aus. Diese Homepage soll einem einen ersten Einblick in das Gebiet der Hedgefondsindustrie gewähren. Denn erst nachdem man selbst ein Grundverständnis von der Materie besitzt, kann man darüber urteilen.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "89dda066ba2eec4f675e094aaa531a4e",
"text": "\"First off, the jargon you are looking for is a hedge. A hedge is \"\"an investment position intended to offset potential losses/gains that may be incurred by a companion investment\"\" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedge_(finance)) The other answers which point out that put options are frequently used as a hedge are correct. However there are other hedging instruments used by financial professionals to mitigate risk. For example, suppose you would really prefer that Foo Corporation not go bankrupt -- perhaps because they own you money (because you're a bondholder) or perhaps because you own them (because you're a stockholder), or maybe you have some other reason for wanting Foo Corp to do well. To mitigate the risk of loss due to bankruptcy of Foo Corp you can buy a Credit Default Swap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_default_swap). A CDS is essentially a bet that pays off if Foo Corp goes bankrupt, just as insurance on your house is a bet that pays off if your house burns down. Finally, don't ever forget that all insurance is not just a bet that the bad thing you're insuring against is going to happen, it is also a bet that the insurer is going to pay you if that happens. If the insurer goes bankrupt at the same time as the thing you are insuring goes bad, you're potentially in big trouble.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b039c0643c11917eb408c8c03a2fe1d3",
"text": "Let's start with a definition: A Collar is a protective strategy for a position in the underlying instrument created by purchasing a put and selling a call to partially pay for the put option purchased or vice versa. Based on that definition, there are two different types of collars. Each is a combination of two simpler strategies: References Multi-Leg Options Orders",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fdc4bec833f6668910eaae4a1fc0b2ba",
"text": "VXX VZX XVIZ and there are plenty others correlated to market volatility if you want the wildest hedge, use VXX, it is also the most liquid",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f43694d6b791a3c2cd5acf2302cdeffa",
"text": "Investopedia does have tutorials about investments in different asset classes. Have you read them ? If you had heard of CFA, you can read their material if you can get hold of it or register for CFA. Their material is quite extensive and primarily designed for newbies. This is one helluva book and advice coming from persons who have showed and proved their tricks. And the good part is loads of advice in one single volume. And what they would suggest is probably opposite of what you would be doing in a hedge fund. And you can always trust google to fish out resources at the click of a button.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
28cfbfba09e7a5a71793450287f2432b
|
At what price are dividends re-invested?
|
[
{
"docid": "a0e2a2f41d82ff2d75e030d004646764",
"text": "Keep in mind the ex-dividend date is different from the payable date (the day the dividend is paid). That means the market price will already have adjusted lower due to the dividend. Short answer: you get the lower price when reinvesting. So here's Vanguard's policy, it should be similar to most brokers: When reinvesting dividends, Vanguard Brokerage Services combines the cash distributions from the accounts of all clients who have requested reinvestment in the same security, and then uses that combined total to purchase additional shares of the security in the open market. Vanguard Brokerage will attempt to purchase the reinvestment shares by entering a market order at the market opening on the payable date. The new shares are divided proportionately among the clients' accounts, in whole and fractional shares rounded to three decimal places. If the total purchase can't be completed in one trade, clients will receive shares purchased at the weighted average price paid by Vanguard Brokerage Services.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "188c35f2cf0a3c4db73b1b2821dc442b",
"text": "\"If a stock is trading for $11 per share just before a $1 per share dividend is declared, then the share price drops to $10 per share immediately following the declaration. If you owned 100 shares (valued at $1100) before the dividend was declared, then you still own 100 shares (now valued at $1000). Generally, if the dividend is paid today, only the owners of shares as of yesterday evening (or the day before maybe) get paid the dividend. If you bought those 100 shares only this morning, the dividend gets paid to the seller (who owned the stock until yesterday evening), not to you. You just \"\"bought a dividend:\"\" paying $1100 for 100 shares that are worth only $1000 at the end of the day, whereas if you had just been a little less eager to purchase right now, you could have bought those 100 shares for only $1000. But, looking at the bright side, if you bought the shares earlier than yesterday, you get paid the dividend. So, assuming that you bought the shares in timely fashion, your holdings just lost value and are worth only $1000. What you do have is the promise that in a couple of days time, you will be paid $100 as the dividend, thus restoring the asset value back to what it was earlier. Now, if you had asked your broker to re-invest the dividend back into the same stock, then, assuming that the stock price did not change in the interim due to normal market fluctuations, you would get another 10 shares for that $100 dividend making the value of your investment $1100 again (110 shares at $10 each), exactly what it was before the dividend was paid. If you didn't choose to reinvest the dividend, you would still have the 100 shares (worth $1000) plus $100 cash. So, regardless of what other investors choose to do, your asset value does not change as a result of the dividend. What does change is your net worth because that dividend amount is taxable (regardless of whether you chose to reinvest or not) and so your (tax) liability just increased.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "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": "e699a0816100fcf20f7554246ab75094",
"text": "Dividends are actually a very stable portion of equity returns, the Great recession and Great Depression notwithstanding: However, dividends, with lower variance have lower returns. Most of the return is due to the more variant price: So while dividends fell by 25% during the worst drop since the Great Depression, prices fell almost by 2/3. If one can accumulate enough wealth to live only off of dividend income, the price risk becomes much more manageable. This is the ideal circumstance for retirement.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "95bd051eec913747fac08c2007034758",
"text": "\"Dividends can also be automatically reinvested in your stock holding through a DRIP plan (see the wikipedia link for further details, wiki_DRIP). Rather than receiving the dividend money, you \"\"buy\"\" additional stock shares your with dividend money. The value in the DRIP strategy is twofold. 1) your number of shares increases without paying transaction fees, 2) you increase the value of your holding by increasing number of shares. In the end, the RIO can be quite substantial due to the law of compounding interest (though here in the form of dividends). Talk with your broker (brokerage service provider) to enroll your dividend receiving stocks in a DRIP.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9c0a6a7b35ac9112eed32eb54bc897d7",
"text": "Ex-Dividend Price Behavior of Common Stocks would be a study from the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis and University of Minnesota if you want a source for some data. Abstract This study examines common stock prices around ex-dividend dates. Such price data usually contain a mixture of observations - some with and some without arbitrageurs and/or dividend capturers active. Our theory predicts such mixing will result in a nonlinear relation between percentage price drop and dividend yield - not the commonly assumed linear relation. This prediction and another important prediction of theory are supported empirically. In a variety of tests, marginal price drop is not significantly different from the dividend amount. Thus, over the last several decades, one-for-one marginal price drop have been an excellent (average) rule of thumb.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b4fd3346b362b43bc4afa5ecfc367ae3",
"text": "\"I'd agree that this can seem a little unfair, but it's an unavoidable consequence of the necessary practicality of paying out dividends periodically (rather than continuously), and differential taxation of income and capital gains. To see more clearly what's going on here, consider buying stock in a company with extremely simple economics: it generates a certain, constant earnings stream equivalent to $10 per share per annum, and redistributes all of that profit as periodic dividends (let's say once annually). Assume there's no intrinsic growth, and that the firm's instrinsic value (which we'll say is $90 per share) is completely neutral to any other market factors. Under these economics, this stock price will show a \"\"sawtooth\"\" evolution, accruing from $90 to $100 over the course of a year, and resetting back down to $90 after each dividend payment. Now, if I am invested in this stock for some period of time, the fair outcome would be that I receive an appropriately time-weighted share of the $10 annual earnings per share, less my tax. If I am invested for an exact calendar year, this works as I'd expect: the stock price on any given day in the year will be the same as it was exactly one year earlier, so I'll realise zero capital gain, but I'll have collected a $10 taxed dividend along the way. On the other hand, what if I am invested for exactly half a year, spanning a dividend payment? I receive a dividend payment of $10 less tax, but I make a capital loss of -$5. Overall, pre-tax, I'm up $5 per share as expected. However, the respective tax treatment of the dividend payment (which is classed as income) and the capital gains is likely to be different. In particular, to benefit from the \"\"negative\"\" taxation of the capital loss I need to have some positive capital gain elsewhere to offset it - if I can't do that, I'm much worse off compared to half the full-year return. Further, even if I can offset against a gain elsewhere the effective taxation rates are likely to be different - but note that this could work for or against me (if my capital gains rate is greater than my income tax rate I'd actually benefit). And if I'm invested for half a year, but not spanning a dividend, I make $5 of pure capital gains, and realise a different effective taxation rate again. In an ideal world I'd agree that the effective taxation rate wouldn't depend on the exact timing of my transactions like this, but in reality it's unavoidable in the interests of practicality. And so long as the rules are clear, I wouldn't say it's unfair per se, it just adds a bit of complexity.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8b9bfb10de69c54f7c139930dad20943",
"text": ".INX (the S&P 500 index itself) does not include reinvested dividens. You can figure total return by going to Yahoo finance, historical data. Choose the start year, and end year. You should find that data for SPY (going back to 1993) will show an adjusted close, and takes dividends into account. This isn't perfect as SPY has a .09% expense ratio, but it's better than just the S&P index. One of the more popular Dow ETF is DIA, this will let you similarly track the Dow while accounting for dividends.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "289270da721e0e136ede814135c932bf",
"text": "\"Re. question 2 If I buy 20 shares every year, how do I get proper IRR? ... (I would have multiple purchase dates) Use the money-weighted return calculation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rate_of_return#Internal_rate_of_return where t is the fraction of the time period and Ct is the cash flow at that time period. For the treatment of dividends, if they are reinvested then there should not be an external cash flow for the dividend. They are included in the final value and the return is termed \"\"total return\"\". If the dividends are taken in cash, the return based on the final value is \"\"net return\"\". The money-weighted return for question 2, with reinvested dividends, can be found by solving for r, the rate for the whole 431 day period, in the NPV summation. Now annualising And in Excel\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d14fb27da79fc6cbf91391e62d5f4610",
"text": "Ok so I used Excel solver for this but it's on the right track. Latest price = $77.19 Latest div = $1.50 3-yr div growth = 28% g = ??? rs = 14% So we'll grow out the dividend 3 years @ 28%, and then capitalize them into perpetuity using a cap rate of [rs - g], and take the NPV using the rs of 14%. We can set it up and then solve g assuming an NPV of the current share price of $77.19. So it should be: NPV = $77.19 = [$1.50 / (1+0.14)^0 ] + [$1.50 x (1+0.28)^1 / (1+0.14)^1 ] + ... + [$1.50 x (1+0.28)^3 / (1+0.14)^3 ] + [$1.50 x (1+0.28)^3 x (1+g) / (0.14-g) / (1+0.14)^4 ] Which gives an implied g of a little under 9%. Let me know if this makes sense, and definitely check the work...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1c0db525e29b179ccc16e47e332b7f84",
"text": "Numerous studies have actually shown that companies who pay dividends are much more reckless financially with returning capital to shareholders because they want to save face and maintain/grow the dividend. Buybacks are much more flexible and probably lead to better capital allocation decisions, in my opinion.",
"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": "1af8f838d7041ba6c1066ea564d306ff",
"text": "\"In the case of mutual funds, Net Asset Value (NAV) is the price used to buy and sell shares. NAV is just the value of the underlying assets (which are in turn valued by their underlying holdings and future earnings). So if a fund hands out a billion dollars, it stands to reason their NAV*shares (market cap?) is a billion dollars less. Shareholder's net worth is equal in either scenario, but after the dividend is paid they are more liquid. For people who need investment income to live on, dividends are a cheap way to hold stocks and get regular payments, versus having to sell part of your portfolio every month. But for people who want to hold their investment in the market for a long long time, dividends only increase the rate at which you have to buy. For mutual funds this isn't a problem: you buy the funds and tell them to reinvest for free. So because of that, it's a prohibited practice to \"\"sell\"\" dividends to clients.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e9d1f9f5a85ec48476c0dbfa5eef30e1",
"text": "There is a basis for that if you consider the power of compounding. So, the sooner you re-invest the dividends the sooner the time will give you results (through compounding). There is also the case of the commissions, if they are paid with a percentage of the amount invested they automatically gain more from you. Just my 2cents, though the other answers are probably more complete.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7553ec5eb20542eb4373ca7b51a490fa",
"text": "Edit: I a in the United States, seek advice from someone who is also in Australia. I am getting about 5.5% per year by investing in a fund (ticker:PGF) that, in turn, buys preferred stock in banks. Preferred stock acts a bit like a bond and a bit like a stock. The price is very stable. However, a bank account is FDIC insured (in the USA) and an investment is not. I use the Reinvestment program at Scottrade so that the monthly dividends are automatically reinvested with no commission. However I do not know if this is available outside of the United States. Investing yealds greater returns but exposes you to greater risk. You have to know your risk tolerance.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cc596ab411b839e7fddc66f3efd63334",
"text": "Various types of corporate actions will precipitate a price adjustment. In the case of dividends, the cash that will be paid out as a dividend to share holders forms part of a company's equity. Once the company pays a dividend, that cash is no longer part of the company's equity and the share price is adjusted accordingly. For example, if Apple is trading at $101 per share at the close of business on the day prior to going ex-dividend, and a dividend of $1 per share has been declared, then the closing price will be adjusted by $1 to give a closing quote of $100. Although the dividend is not paid out until the dividend pay date, the share price is adjusted at the close of business on the day prior to the ex-dividend date since any new purchases on or after the ex-dividend date are not entitled to receive the dividend distribution, so in effect new purchases are buying on the basis of a reduced equity. It will be the exchange providing the quote that performs the price adjustment, not Google or Yahoo. The exchange will perform the adjustment at the close prior to each ex-dividend date, so when you are looking at historical data you are looking at price data that includes each adjustment.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b91c2a5e1ef4d44ef284683e67465e84",
"text": "Yes, as long as you write a call against your stock with a strike price greater than or equal to the previous day's closing price, with 30 or more days till experation there will be no effect on the holding period of your stock. Like you mentioned, unqualified covered calls suspend the holding period of your stock. For example you sell a deep in the money call (sometimes called the last write) on a stock you have held for 5 years, the covered call is classified as unqualified, the holding period is suspened and the gain or loss on the stock will be treated as short-term. Selling out of the money calls or trading in an IRA account keeps things simple. The details below have been summarized from an article I found at investorsguide.com. The article also talks about the implications of rolling a call forward and tax situations where it may be advantageous to write unqualified covered calls (basically when you have a large deferred long term loss). http://www.investorguide.com/article/12618/qualified-covered-calls-special-rules-wo/ Two criterion must be met for a covered call to be considered a qualified covered call (QCC). 1) days to expiration must be greater than 30 2) strike price must be greater than or equal to the first available in the money strike price below the previous day's closing price for a particular stock. Additionally, if the previous day's closing price is $25 or less, the strike price of the call being sold must be greater than 85% of yesterday's closing price. 2a) If the previous day's closing price is greater than 60.01 and less than or equal to $150, days to experation is between 60-90, as long as the strike price of the call is greater than 85% of the previous days close and less than 10 points in the money, you can write a covered call two strikes in the money 2c) If the previous day's closing price is greater than $150 and days till expiration is greater than 90, you can write a covered call two strikes in the money.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
f7a3baf4494b9de4f8d8306d3c9721c1
|
How can foreign investor (residing outside US) invest in US company stocks?
|
[
{
"docid": "d1a109c26a029ec8504ceeeeb3d37240",
"text": "As other people have said they should register with a broker in the country they reside in that can deal in US stocks, then fill out a W8-BEN form. I have personally done this as I am from the Uk, it's not a very complicated process. I would assume that most US brokers don't allow foreign customers due to the person having to pay tax where they reside and the US brokers don't want to have to keep approximately 200 different tax codes in track.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5ee9f8d91bf9c6edf84fc8a1577ed745",
"text": "Instead of SSN, foreign person should get a ITIN from the IRS. Instead of W9 a foreigner should fill W8-BEN. Foreigner might also be required to file 1040NR/NR-EZ tax report, and depending on tax treaties also be liable for US taxes.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ccd605b3bc6a3e996150716450fc9cee",
"text": "\"(Note: out of my depth here, but in case this helps...) While not a direct answer to your question, I'll point out that in the inverse situation - a U.S. investor who wants to buy individual stocks of companies headquartered outside US - you would buy ADRs, which are $-denominated \"\"wrapper\"\" stocks. They can be listed with one or multiple brokerages. One alternative I'd offer the person in my example would be, \"\"Are you really sure you want to directly buy individual stocks?\"\" One less targeted approach available in the US is to buy ETFs targeted for a given country (or region). Maybe there's something similar there in Asia that would eliminate the (somewhat) higher fees associated with trading foreign stocks.\"",
"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": "e072f9e55760952032e81ca17b881059",
"text": "\"The (U.S) \"\"accredited investor\"\" laws apply to investments in the U.S. Foreign countries may or may not have their own laws regarding investment in startups, and if so, the foreign laws apply. One way around the net worth minimum is to be a member of the management team. \"\"Active\"\" (management) investors don't need to be accredited because they can see what's going on on a day to day basis. The accredited investor laws apply to the target companies, not to the investors. Basically, a start-up company can't take \"\"other people's money\"\" from a non-accredited investor. But you can invest \"\"your own\"\" money in it if you are a manager.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e3e7ece285f3bda48d59461cff75e626",
"text": "it looks like using an ADR is the way to go here. michelin has an ADR listed OTC as MGDDY. since it is an ADR it is technically a US company that just happens to be a shell company holding only shares of michelin. as such, there should not be any odd tax or currency implications. while it is an OTC stock, it should settle in the US just like any other US OTC. obviously, you are exposing yourself to exchange rate fluctuations, but since michelin derives much of it's income from the US, it should perform similarly to other multinational companies. notes on brokers: most US brokers should be able to sell you OTC stocks using their regular rates (e.g. etrade, tradeking). however, it looks like robinhood.com does not offer this option (yet). in particular, i confirmed directly from tradeking that the 75$ foreign settlement fee does not apply to MGDDY because it is an ADR, and not a (non-ADR) foreign security.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ffc8f0633f8b405fbcf04b373537fdbc",
"text": "Depending on your broker, you can buy these stocks directly at the most liquid local exchanges. For instance, if you are US resident and want to to buy German stocks (like RWE) you can trade these stocks over InteractiveBrokers (or other direct brokers in the US). They offer direct access to German Xetra and other local markets.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "b7b84c856eb772803ebfa337eef126f3",
"text": "\"Yes, you're still exposed to currency risk when you purchase the stock on company B's exchange. I'm assuming you're buying the shares on B's stock exchange through an ADR, GDR, or similar instrument. The risk occurs as a result of the process through which the ADR is created. In its simplest form, the process works like this: I'll illustrate this with an example. I've separated the conversion rate into the exchange rate and a generic \"\"ADR conversion rate\"\" which includes all other factors the bank takes into account when deciding how many ADR shares to sell. The fact that the units line up is a nice check to make sure the calculation is logically correct. My example starts with these assumptions: I made up the generic ADR conversion rate; it will remain constant throughout this example. This is the simplified version of the calculation of the ADR share price from the European share price: Let's assume that the euro appreciates against the US dollar, and is now worth 1.4 USD (this is a major appreciation, but it makes a good example): The currency appreciation alone raised the share price of the ADR, even though the price of the share on the European exchange was unchanged. Now let's look at what happens if the euro appreciates further to 1.5 USD/EUR, but the company's share price on the European exchange falls: Even though the euro appreciated, the decline in the share price on the European exchange offset the currency risk in this case, leaving the ADR's share price on the US exchange unchanged. Finally, what happens if the euro experiences a major depreciation and the company's share price decreases significantly in the European market? This is a realistic situation that has occurred several times during the European sovereign debt crisis. Assuming this occurred immediately after the first example, European shareholders in the company experienced a (43.50 - 50) / 50 = -13% return, but American holders of the ADR experienced a (15.95 - 21.5093) / 21.5093 = -25.9% return. The currency shock was the primary cause of this magnified loss. Another point to keep in mind is that the foreign company itself may be exposed to currency risk if it conducts a lot of business in market with different currencies. Ideally the company has hedged against this, but if you invest in a foreign company through an ADR (or a GDR or another similar instrument), you may take on whatever risk the company hasn't hedged in addition to the currency risk that's present in the ADR/GDR conversion process. Here are a few articles that discuss currency risk specifically in the context of ADR's: (1), (2). Nestle, a Swiss company that is traded on US exchanges through an ADR, even addresses this issue in their FAQ for investors. There are other risks associated with instruments like ADR's and cross-listed companies, but normally arbitrageurs will remove these discontinuities quickly. Especially for cross-listed companies, this should keep the prices of highly liquid securities relatively synchronized.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "90da52d0db0ff30eb04f78eb18a7a3d0",
"text": "While most all Canadian brokers allow us access to all the US stocks, the reverse is not true. But some US brokers DO allow trading on foreign exchanges. (e.g. Interactive Brokers at which I have an account). You have to look and be prepared to switch brokers. Americans cannot use Canadian brokers (and vice versa). Trading of shares happens where-ever two people get together - hence the pink sheets. These work well for Americans who want to buy-sell foreign stocks using USD without the hassle of FX conversions. You get the same economic exposure as if the actual stock were bought. But the exchanges are barely policed, and liquidity can dry up, and FX moves are not necessarily arbitraged away by 'the market'. You don't have the same safety as ADRs because there is no bank holding any stash of 'actual' stocks to backstop those traded on the pink sheets.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "21b890429ad52c9daf27275afc511a82",
"text": "I personally am from Canada and use my local bank to trade stocks. Contact your local bank and they will tell you how to do it, since rules depend on country of residency. If you are not close to a bank, e-mail the major bank in the country of your residence.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "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": "c3d239c130b81bd9fa913591c6178870",
"text": "The thing you get wrong is that you think the LLC doesn't pay taxes on gains when it sells assets. It does. In fact, in many countries LLC are considered separate entities for tax properties and you have double taxation - the LLC pays its own taxes, and then when you withdraw the money from the LLC to your own account (i.e.: take dividends) - you pay income tax on the withdrawal again. Corporate entities usually do not have preferential tax treatment for investments. In the US, LLC is a pass-though entity (unless explicitly chosen to be taxed as a corporation, and then the above scenario happens). Pass-through entities (LLCs and partnerships) don't pay taxes, but instead report the gains to the owners, which then pay taxes as if the transaction was their personal one. So if you're in the US - investing under LLC would have no effect whatsoever on your taxes, or adverse effect if you chose to treat it as a corporation. In any case, investing in stocks is not a deductible expense, and as such doesn't reduce profits.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a52e73e219dcfd7a6e17e5b7e12f19f2",
"text": "You have left out the most important piece of information: are you an American citizen? If you are, then PFIC rules mean you need to be very careful not to invest in any foreign index funds/ETFs. That means it will probably be easiest for you to just leave the money in the US and continue to invest it there. If you do not have US citizenship, and have never had a green card, then you will qualify for non-resident alien status after you've been gone for 3 years. Once that happens, you won't owe US capital gains tax (though you will owe it in AUS). You will owe 30% tax on dividends, though. Much more at Investopedia.",
"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": "0083a0071bdbada470fe2420ca35fc63",
"text": "Who offered who what? You're pretending industries are fungible. They aren't. Apple and Microsoft are not related to the MIC or big oil. Energy is a demonstrated input in every other sector in the world. Why not include (for example) agriculture in your math? It's 100% dependent on energy costs. You're isolating individual industries as if they exist outside of the greater supply/manufacturing chain and pretending that they can be swapped for one another based on the single metric of market size. Apples and oranges. Except in this case the world runs on oranges.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3aec6e0c5f5a7296ba02421277b8b053",
"text": "Make a menu of 15 (or more) things you like to eat. Write a grocery list for what it takes. Divide that list into perishable and non-perishable. Put those items into a calendar and try to stick to it. Depending on the amount of storage space you have, once a week fulfill your perishable list. Use coupons and shop the sales to keep your prices down. On your way home, stop at the grocery store and buy only the perishables you will need that night for cooking. I personally chose recipes that didn't always need fresh stuff (like canned tomatoes being good enough.) You spend more on the nightly stuff, but you make up some savings with the long term shopping. Just count on going to the store for 10 minutes a night a part of your cooking routine. I used to just look at the wall, but with an app like Evernote this would be pretty easy.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
e8a89bf881babf80269ec9afaac972ce
|
How splits and dividends affect option prices
|
[
{
"docid": "596ccc6f83cb1004dfffd242654aa1da",
"text": "\"Investopedia explains how a stock split impacts the stock's options: Each option contract is typically in control of 100 shares of an underlying security at a predetermined strike price. To find the new coverage of the option, take the split ratio and multiply by the old coverage (normally 100 shares). To find the new strike price, take the old strike price and divide by the split ratio. Say, for example, you own a call for 100 shares of XYZ with a strike price of $75. Now, if XYZ had a stock split of 2 for 1, then the option would now be for 200 shares with a strike price of $37.50. If, on the other hand, the stock split was 3 for 2, then the option would be for 150 shares with a strike price of $50. So, yes, a 2 for 1 stock split would halve the option strike prices. Also, in case the Investopedia article isn't clear, after a split the options still control 100 shares per contract. Regarding how a dividend affects option prices, I found an article with a good explanation: As mentioned above, dividends payment could reduce the price of a stock due to reduction of the company's assets. It becomes intuitive to know that if a stock is expected to go down, its call options will drop in extrinsic value while its put options will gain in extrinsic value before it happens. Indeed, dividends deflate the extrinsic value of call options and inflate the extrinsic value of put options weeks or even months before an expected dividend payment. Extrinsic value of Call Options are deflated due to dividends not only because of an expected reduction in the price of the stock but also due to the fact that call options buyers do not get paid the dividends that the stock buyers do. This makes call options of dividend paying stocks less attractive to own than the stocks itself, thereby depressing its extrinsic value. How much the value of call options drop due to dividends is really a function of its moneyness. In the money call options with high delta would be expected to drop the most on ex-date while out of the money call options with lower delta would be least affected. If a stock is expected to drop by a certain amount, that drop would already have been priced into the extrinsic value of its put options way beforehand. This is what happens to put options of dividend paying stocks. This effect is again a function of options moneyness but this time, in the money put options raise in extrinsic value more than out of the money put options. This is because in the money put options with delta of close to -1 would gain almost dollar or dollar on the drop of a stock. As such, in the money put options would rise in extrinsic value almost as much as the dividend rate itself while out of the money put options may not experience any changes since the dividend effect may not be strong enough to bring the stock down to take those out of the money put options in the money. So, no, a dividend of $1 will not necessarily decrease an option's price by $1 on the ex-dividend date. It depends on whether it's a call or put option, and whether the option is \"\"in the money\"\" or \"\"out of the money\"\" and by how much.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "dbefd691fe01fda159ed6044bff5b448",
"text": "Here is what I could find on the net: http://education.wallstreetsurvivor.com/options-symbol-changes-coming-february-12th-2010 So it sounds like it does not affect how you invest in options but only how you look them up. I remember using a Bloomberg terminal and it wasn't clear what the expiry date of the option you were looking at was. It looks like the new quote system addresses this. HTH.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3905d2c2904e354193891754dc85ccd1",
"text": "It will be similar to what you have said -- the options price will adjust accordingly following a stock split - Here's a good reference on different scenarios - Splits, Mergers, Spinoffs & Bankruptcies also if you have time to read Characteristics & Risks of Standardized Options",
"title": ""
},
{
"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": "d80050a6bd73daa905840127c9a38dd5",
"text": "For all stocks, expected Dividends are a part of the price it is traded for - consider that originally, the whole idea of stocks was to participate in the earnings of the company = get dividends. The day the dividend is paid, that expectation is of course removed, and thereby the stock value reduced by just the amount of dividend paid. You will see that behavior for all stocks, everywhere. The dividend in your example is just uncommonly high relative to the stock price; but that is a company decision - they can decide whatever amount they want as a dividend. In other words, the day before dividend payments, investors value the stock at ~14 $, plus an expected dividend payment of 12 $, which adds to 26 $. The day after the dividend payment, investors still value the stock at ~14 $, plus no more dividend payment = 0 $. Nothing changed really in the valuation.",
"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": "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": "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": "13264e24e496419687e087bd348bef42",
"text": "I believe this depends on the broker's policies. For example, here is Vanguard's policy (from https://personal.vanguard.com/us/whatweoffer/stocksbondscds/brokeragedividendprogram): Does selling shares affect a distribution? If you sell the entire position two days or more before the dividend-payable date, your distribution will be paid in cash. If, however, you sell an entire position within the two day time frame of the security's payable date, the dividend will be reinvested, resulting in additional shares. Selling these subsequent shares will require another sell order, which will incur additional commission charges. Dividends which would have been reinvested into less than one whole share will be automatically liquidated into cash. If you want to guarantee you receive no fractional shares, I'd call your broker and ask whether selling stock ABC on a particular date will result in the dividend being paid in shares.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "28c28ea3946f1c2d86b340183c8db50f",
"text": "No, the expense ratio would be something you wouldn't be charged. If you bought shares of the ETF long, then the dividends are usually reduced by the expense ratio if you wanted to know where to find that charge in general. You would have to make up for any dividends the underlying stocks as part of general shorting since the idea is that once you buy to put back the shares, it has to appear as if they weren't missing in the first place. No, the authorized participant would handle changes to the underlying structure if needed.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "b48f6c8c1f4bcf06e99385b9b00f8cc9",
"text": "The price of a share of a mutual fund is its Net Asset Value (nav). Before the payout of dividends and capital gain distribution, the fund was holding both stock shares and cash that resulted from dividends and capital gains. After the payout, a share only holds the stock. Therefore once the cash is paid out the NAV must drop by the same amount as was paid out per share. Thus of course assumes no other activity or valuation changes of the underlying assets. Regular market activity will obscure what the payout does to the NAV.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3b9d51d78fc361b76ac4c53ebdb00e57",
"text": "Scrip dividends are similar to stock splits. With a stock split, 100 shares can turn into 200 shares; with scrip dividends they might turn into 105 shares.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d0635c74f875d15a57b2671500a2f318",
"text": "Most corporations have a limit on the number of shares that they can issue, which is written into their corporate charter. They usually sell a number that is fewer than the maximum authorized number so that they have a reserve for secondary offerings, employee incentives, etc. In a scrip dividend, the company is distributing authorized shares that were not previously issued. This reduces the number of shares that it has to sell in the future to raise capital, so it reduces the assets of the company. In a split, every share (including the authorized shares that haven't been distributed) are divided. This results in more total shares (which then trade at a price that's roughly proportional to the split), but it does not reduce the assets of the company.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8a8c4a856d3e41d819f65e69170148d0",
"text": "It depends how deep in the money it is, compared to the dividend. Even an in the money call has some time premium. As the call holder, if I exercise instead of selling the call, I am trading the potential for a dividend, which I won't receive, for getting that time premium back by selling. Given the above, you'll notice a slight distortion in options pricing as a dividend date approaches, as the option will reflect not just the time premium, but the fact that exercising with grab the dividend. Edit to address your comment - $10 stock, $9 strike, 50 cent div. If the option price is high, say $2, because there's a year till expiration, exercising makes no sense. If it's just $1.10, I gain 40 cents by exercising and selling after the dividend.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3923c963dd1ef3e1bea249001af5c433",
"text": "\"If I held stock in these companies yesterday, would I have profited by these gains? No. For DZSI, your 5 shares at $1.10 would now be 1 share at $5.50, so you would have the same total amount. For SGY, they closed at $6.95, and opened at $32.80, so your five shares at $6.95 would now be one share at $32.80, so you would have actually lost money (not purely because of the split, but because the \"\"new\"\" shares are trading lower then the expected 1:5 split price). A split in general does not affect market cap (how much your total shares are worth) but there may be residual effects that cause the market value to fluctuate after a split that affect the price.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
7efab009e1da914a230ea0e042c9a16d
|
On what dates do the U.S. and Canada release their respective federal budgets?
|
[
{
"docid": "133464c876056ea6f006d3b68d5352cd",
"text": "In the US there is no set date. If all goes well there are multiple dates of importance. If it doesn't go well the budget process also may include continuing resolutions, shutdowns, and sequestrations.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f25194adc202671a1e3417243c0e5329",
"text": "Canada does not have a set date on which a (Federal) budget plan is unveiled. In 2011 it was June 6th. In 2012 it was March 29th and in 2013 it was 21st March.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cd729e27c7e1b5e6764191d66f7b2989",
"text": "To the best of my knowledge, there's no firm date requirement. The fiscal year for the US Federal Government starts on October 01, but if my memory serves me right, last time a budget was approved before the fiscal year started was during the Clinton administration.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "a02042a8eb168692455334226a2f2b69",
"text": "This chart is full of shit. Iraq War costs barely register a blip. [From NYT article](http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/us/politics/20budget.html) *WASHINGTON — For his first annual budget next week, President Obama has banned four accounting gimmicks that President George W. Bush used to make deficit projections look smaller. The price of more honest bookkeeping: A budget that is $2.7 trillion deeper in the red over the next decade than it would otherwise appear, according to administration officials.*",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0a14a5e419b64b3ae3fdb48d719a9cd2",
"text": "His statement is false, for two reasons. First, you don't want to compare month-to-month numbers. The seasonality overwhelms and substantive changes. It's like saying a retailer is growing strongly because December sales are much higher than November. You need to compare with the previous December. Second, 2017 is Obama's budget. Trump didn't set taxes or expenditures.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ba960eb7f7436e5f3824be9fad756a02",
"text": "If you're willing to use OFX or QIF files, most Canadian banks can spit output more data than 90 days. The files are typically used to import into Quicken-like local programs, but can be easily parsed for your webapp, I imagine.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e7e27751dba88a72cd630751ffa52621",
"text": "I know some companies or entities have large incomes or expenses at certain times of the year, and like to close their books after these large events. For example where I work, the primary seasonal income comes after summer, so our fiscal year ends at the last days of October. This gives the accountants enough time to collect all the funds, reconcile whatever they have to, pay off whatever they have to and get working on a budget for the next year sooner than a calendar year would. There also might be tax reasons. To get all of your income at the beginning of your fiscal year, even if that is in the middle of the calendar year would allow a company to plan large deductible investments with more certainty. I am not to sure of the tax reasons.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "065475f898aa9b5dc117c58149a7a8b6",
"text": "Im gonna make up some numbers for this teaching moment. 2011: $60,000 2012: $50,000 2013: $100,000 2014: $70,000 2015: $60,000 2016: $75,000 2017: $90,000 2017 is the highest number since 2013. But before we had 2017 data, we only had up to 2016 data. In 2016, 2016 was the highest number since 2013. We couldn't say the same about 2015 though. In 2015, 2014 was the highest number since 2013. Such short timetables are kinda ridiculous to even claim. This type of number is only meaningful if its a big number of years like biggest deficit since 1953 (60ish years ago)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a071d6e3e0b14da2a3a72b374d496658",
"text": "\"Are you sure you're using the same date range? If you're using Max, then you're not, as ^FTMC goes back to 12/1/1985 while ^GDAXI only goes back to 11/1/1990. If I enter a custom date range of 11/1/1990 through 10/24/2015, I get: and: which, other than the dates it chose to use as labels on the x-axes, look identical. (I tried to add the URLs of the charts, but it looks like the Yahoo! URLs don't include the comparison symbol, which makes them useless for this answer. They're easy enough to construct though, just add the secondary symbol using the Comparison button and set the date range using the calendar button.) On your PS, I don't know, as you can see by my charts it even chose different labels when the date ranges were identical (although at least it didn't scale different dates differently), so maybe it's trying to be \"\"smart\"\" and choose dates based on the total amount of data available for the primary symbol, which is different in the two cases.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dc8fdf6bcac77214fec7114b7698d509",
"text": "Citizenship matter for US reporting, but not for Canadian taxes. If you are an American resident then you need only worry about US taxes and rules. s",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0e3910bdedb13168f2ffdd70684983f9",
"text": "Doesn't matter. What concerns me is the potential, since it is very plausible that at some time in the near future the Feds will need to be violently fought by the citizens of the USA in order to correct the deviation of their allegiance.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c7925c388a4ae383d3f58c8a67ecb5e9",
"text": "Maybe it's just because of the foundation date. If I start a company on August 1st, I would like its FY starts on that date too, in order to track my first whole year. Would be quite useless to finish my year on December, after just five months. I want to have data of my first year after a twelve months activity.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "26188002114bcf36a8d736a76a6639a9",
"text": "Yes, it's good the economy is doing well. Hopefully it helps the many dissatisfied Trump voters. It would be nice to see some of the anger dampen in the country. The truth is that this data still *mostly* for Obama's economy. Trump's budget didn't start until Oct, after Q3 finished. So this report is for the time when the federal government was operating under budgets passed during the Obama era. Economies have enormous momentum, and this one is still following its long established trajectory. You probably should give Trump credit for regulatory changes, bully pulpit leadership, and those sorts of things. So he definitely should get *some* credit, it's hard to know how much. The stock market rally is very likely in response to expected tax cuts from a GOP government (although if you draw a line for the stock market starting in 2009, we're still on the trend).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "296a9ef0fe614daa0f69631c91d326d5",
"text": "I'm a bot, *bleep*, *bloop*. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit: - [/r/metacanada] [Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Invests US$400 Million in WME│IMG](https://np.reddit.com/r/metacanada/comments/6sdk52/canada_pension_plan_investment_board_invests/) [](#footer)*^(If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads.) ^\\([Info](/r/TotesMessenger) ^/ ^[Contact](/message/compose?to=/r/TotesMessenger))* [](#bot)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ed2ed8ddb40fdd2ab9e302b396164759",
"text": "Yes, I am currently an undergrad student majoring in Finance. I have a strong interest in Accounting and Economics (Macro). I have learned earlier today that due to the fact that people now live longer, our government spending increases (Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc). But unfortunately, the funding that it draws from does not increase at a similar rate so the funding for other major aspects such as R&D, Education, etc are being cut to offset the increase in government transfers. Granted the Feds never spent much on education, why is it that the funding for R&D in terms of percentage is so minuscule? Would it not be in each government's best interest to funnel money towards education, infrastructure, research & development, etc? I'm sorry, when I learn one thing, about twenty billion other questions pop up (could be related or unrelated to what I had just learned)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c522e1e5a10c5380d40f06148f473874",
"text": "In addition to the company-specific annual business cycle reasons and company-specific historical reasons mentioned in the other answers, there is another reason. Accounting firms tend to be very busy during January (and February and March) when most companies are closing and auditing their calendar-year books. If a company chooses its fiscal year to end at a different time of year, the accounting firms are more available, and the auditing costs might be lower.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5f4c85a0ec524834a22e73607839809b",
"text": "I wrote a small Excel-based bookkeeping system that handles three things: income, expenses, and tax (including VAT, which you Americans can rename GST). Download it here.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3bfca67c5764c321162f28e2f725a737",
"text": "The picture talks is about assets on the Fed's balance sheet, which is very different than US government debt. Nor is there anything in the picture about corporate bottom lines, just US equities. The implication of the picture is that the Fed's QE program is propping up US equity prices, and it is not a comment on the US debt or corporate earnings. You're reading things that simply aren't there.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
725deb20cbb6525fe53b8a8f77437506
|
Are founders of a company paid dividends?
|
[
{
"docid": "6b197fde811ce81c3d417db1ae47b52d",
"text": "Depends on if the stock pays a dividend or not. Some companies in their early years may choose to not pay dividends. Your calculations are off as the dividend stated is annual that you'd have to divide by 4 to get what the quarterly amount would be and there can be variances as Ellison's compensation package may well include options so that the number of shares he owns could fluctuate over the course of a year.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "6fa5093457c8b15134862c643a077791",
"text": "I guess. I just think it's stupid to think there's no difference between a corporation and it's owners. Once an organization of any kind reaches a certain size it becomes bigger than any shareholders, and consumes different types of public goods than any individual would. Kleenex uses different public goods than if all the shareholders just owned paper mills and paper stores in local towns, so it has a different kind of public contribution obligation. I understand that principle that corporate income and dividends are theoretically the same thing, so shouldn't be taxed twice. I get the concept. But it just seems like another excuse to shift more income to people who own, rather than people who work. I support more money going to people who work for a living, not invest.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a54ab3600332e3294bc610b9c6703e4c",
"text": "\"Yes, you would pay no taxes at the time of purchase. In fact, this is not uncommon. Many early employees of startup companies are offered stock options that can be \"\"early-exercised\"\" (exercised before they vest). In such a case, an employee who exercises immediately upon grant (and assuming the exercise price of the option is the FMV at the time of grant) purchases the stock at FMV, and there no no tax paid when filing 83(b) election.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3657167e43d1c4e588fe82cd759ef78f",
"text": "If a company is public, and they record a 2016 profit of 100mil. Say there is shareholder A and shareholder B who are both wealthy and own 25% each of the company. Say the remaining 50% of shares are owned by a number of funds/small time investors. So 2016 profits are 100mil, lets say there is a dividend. Can the company still award a larger share of profits to the two big shareholders? I.e. say 50 mil of the profits go into dividend payments and another 20 mil as retained earnings to be reinvested into future projects, can the remaining 30 mil of profits be split and given to shareholders A and B?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b9a82cc5ffdef264b2df11525bdba9a3",
"text": "Dividends are not fixed. A profitable company which is rapidly expanding, and thus cash-strapped may very well skip dividends, yet that same fast growth makes it valuable. When markets saturate, and expansion stops, the same company may now have a large free cash flow so it can pay dividends.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "71e70c6c3d426e2f03e616d2b9f7092d",
"text": "\"Let me provide a general answer, that might be helpful to others, without addressing those specific stocks. Dividends are simply corporate payouts made to the shareholders of the company. A company often decides to pay dividends because they have excess cash on hand and choose to return it to shareholders by quarterly payouts instead of stock buy backs or using the money to invest in new projects. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by \"\"dividend yield traps.\"\" If a company has declared an dividend for the upcoming quarter they will almost always pay. There are exceptions, like what happened with BP, but these exceptions are rare. Just because a company promises to pay a dividend in the approaching quarter does not mean that it will continue to pay a dividend in the future. If the company continues to pay a dividend in the future, it may be at a (significantly) different amount. Some companies are structured where nearly all of there corporate profits flow through to shareholders via dividends. These companies may have \"\"unusually\"\" high dividends, but this is simply a result of the corporate structure. Let me provide a quick example: Certain ETFs that track bonds pay a dividend as a way to pass through interest payments from the underlying bonds back to the shareholder of the ETF. There is no company that will continue to pay their dividend at the present rate with 100% certainty. Even large companies like General Electric slashed its dividend during the most recent financial crisis. So, to evaluate whether a company will keep paying a dividend you should look at the following: Update: In regards to one the first stock you mentioned, this sentence from the companies of Yahoo! finance explains the \"\"unusually\"\" dividend: The company has elected to be treated as a REIT for federal income tax purposes and would not be subject to income tax, if it distributes at least 90% of its REIT taxable income to its share holders.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "af4679f4a8afd4be7e354e3d1b5d4410",
"text": "Small companies need not pay out heft dividends. It makes much more sense to invest it directly in to the company to build a stronger company and produce future results. For example just say Mike see's a company called Milk Inc. Milk inc is doing very well and for the last three year's the amount the profits are increasing by has been going up by 10% the company is still small and doesn't do dividends. Mike see's opportunity and snatches up 1000 at 2.20 , He knows this company does not pay dividends. 10 years pass and this company is absolutely booming profits are still going up the company has decided to start paying hefty dividends as it no longer needs as much money to invest in it's growth. Shares are now valued at 6.80 . Mike banks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f0a0740c1b6d3078decfcc0ed1551c3a",
"text": "No, just as the profits from the bank do not go to their personal accounts and instead go to the banks coffers, where they are paid out as a dividend. If your company makes a mistake and loses money, do they draw it from your account?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b9c2c0c7b002d89409c6869f93afb653",
"text": "\"It's called \"\"dilution\"\". Usually it is done to attract more investors, and yes - the existing share holders will get diluted and their share of ownership shrinks. As a shareholder you can affect the board decisions (depends on your stake of ownership), but usually you'll want to attract more investors to keep the company running, so not much you can do to avoid it. The initial investors/employees in a startup company are almost always diluted out. Look at what happened to Steve Jobs at Apple, as an example.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ef34014ce4364ee818940477c94f3703",
"text": "Specifically I was wondering, how can the founder determine an appropriate valuation and distribution of shares; ie- the amount of equity to make available for public vs how much to reserve for him/herself. This is an art more than science. If markets believe it to be worth x; one will get. This is not a direct correlation of the revenue a start up makes. It is more an estimated revenue it would make in some point in time in future. There are investment firms that can size up the opportunity and advise; however it is based on their experience and may not always be true reflection of value.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "85b1a08cb97369960f092c4dede5bb8d",
"text": "Dividends are a form of passive income.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "da9ecf6147e0082b20047381cdb41141",
"text": "\"There are no dividends from S-Corp. There are distributions. Big difference. S-Corps fill form 1120S and schedule K-1 per shareholder. In the schedule all the income of your S-Corp will be assigned to various categories that you will later copy to your personal tax return as your personal income. It is not dividend income. The reason people prefer to take distributions from their S-Corps instead of salary is because you don't pay SE taxes on the distributions. That is also the reason why the IRS forces you to pay yourself a reasonable salary. But the tax rate on the income, all of it, is your regular income tax rate, unless the S-Corp income is categorized in a preferred category. The fact that its an S-Corp income doesn't, by itself, allow any preferential treatment. If you're learning the stuff as you go - you should probably get in touch with a tax professional to advise you. All the S-Corp income must be distributed. Its not a matter of \"\"avoiding paying the tax\"\", its the matter of \"\"you must do it\"\". Not a choice. My answer was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used by any taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer (circ 230 disclaimer).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6b26c6ae27d69eeeec92b4c8b16ce259",
"text": "Yes the company can still pay dividends even if they aren't making a profit. 1) If the firm has been around, it might have made profits in the past years, which it might be still carrying (check for retained earnings in the financial statements). 2) Some firms in the past have had taken up debt to return the money to shareholders as dividends. 3) It might sell a part of it's assets and return the gain as dividends. 4) They might be bought by some other firm, which returns cash to shareholders to keep them happy. It pays to keep an eye on the financial statements of the company to check how much liquid money they might be carrying around to pay shareholders as dividends. They can stop paying dividends whenever they want. Apple didn't pay a dividend while Steve Jobs was around, even though they were making billions in profits. Many companies don't pay dividends because they find it more beneficial to continue investing in their business rather than returning money to shareholders.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e7e01f4693da28ecd3ef88fbcc7b66c1",
"text": "\"Not normally, for a limited liability company anyway. In extreme circumstances a court may \"\"lift the veil\"\" of incorporation and treat shareholders as if they were partners. If you are an office bearer or a director that is found to have breached duties/responsibiities then that is another matter. Dim views can be taken of shonky arrangents for companies formed for activites not of a bona fide business nature too.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "746b1deb3994ce68a7894aa7dc8937f7",
"text": "What do you think of the argument that corporations shouldn't pay any tax, since investors pay tax on the dividends, and if the corporations paid too, that would be double taxation? Of course, not all corporate income goes to pay dividends. Much of the rest is deducted as business expense. Is there some corporate income which should properly be taxed?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f05b04dbdee2800959ba5e2b45fefad8",
"text": "An employee can still be fired. A founder, in a company which took investment unwisely (which sadly is most of them, because it's so freaking complicated), can also be fired. A founder in a company which took no investment or took investment EXCEEDINGLY carefully, cannot be fired. That is the difference.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
fbfb7a1d3741833266d63040bfa4c53b
|
Are BID and ASK the minimum and maximum?
|
[
{
"docid": "5158f026ede7c9b5abeba327ca1c33c0",
"text": "So in your screenshot, someone or some group of someones is willing to buy 3,000 shares at $3.45, and someone or some group of someones is willing to sell 2,000 shares at 3.88. Without getting in to the specific mechanics, you can place a market buy order for 10 (or whatever number) shares and it will probably transact at $3.88 per share because that's the lowest price for which someone will currently sell their shares. As a small fish, you can generally ignore the volume notations in the bid/ask quotes.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"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": "ae4e14c0cb5e0aaa699d1711f8503bce",
"text": "This is copying my own answer to another question, but this is definitely relevant for you: A bid is an offer to buy something on an order book, so for example you may post an offer to buy one share, at $5. An ask is an offer to sell something on an order book, at a set price. For example you may post an offer to sell shares at $6. A trade happens when there are bids/asks that overlap each other, or are at the same price, so there is always a spread of at least one of the smallest currency unit the exchange allows. Betting that the price of an asset will go down, traditionally by borrowing some of that asset and then selling it, hoping to buy it back at a lower price and pocket the difference (minus interest). Going long, as you may have guessed, is the opposite of going short. Instead of betting that the price will go down, you buy shares in the hope that the price will go up. So, let's say as per your example you borrow 100 shares of company 'X', expecting the price of them to go down. You take your shares to the market and sell them - you make a market sell order (a market 'ask'). This matches against a bid and you receive a price of $5 per share. Now, let's pretend that you change your mind and you think the price is going to go up, you instantly regret your decision. In order to pay back the shares, you now need to buy back your shares as $6 - which is the price off the ask offers on the order book. Similarly, the same is true in the reverse if you are going long. Because of this spread, you have lost money. You sold at a low price and bought at a high price, meaning it costs you more money to repay your borrowed shares. So, when you are shorting you need the spread to be as tight as possible.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aba856be4280e28f88d44a0ed5966ced",
"text": "A bid is an offer to buy something on an order book, so for example you may post an offer to buy one share, at $5. An ask is an offer to sell something on an order book, at a set price. For example you may post an offer to sell shares at $6. A trade happens when there are bids/asks that overlap each other, or are at the same price, so there is always a spread of at least one of the smallest currency unit the exchange allows. Betting that the price of an asset will go down, traditionally by borrowing some of that asset and then selling it, hoping to buy it back at a lower price and pocket the difference (minus interest). So, let's say as per your example you borrow 100 shares of company 'X', expecting the price of them to go down. You take your shares to the market and sell them - you make a market sell order (a market 'ask'). This matches against a bid and you receive a price of $5 per share. Now, let's pretend that you change your mind and you think the price is going to go up, you instantly regret your decision. In order to pay back the shares, you now need to buy back your shares as $6 - which is the price off the ask offers on the order book. Because of this spread, you have lost money. You sold at a low price and bought at a high price, meaning it costs you more money to repay your borrowed shares. So, when you are shorting you need the spread to be as tight as possible.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f4b8f5d68c2f735007219a77e1cb00ca",
"text": "Yes, but also note each exchange have rules that states various conditions when the market maker can enlarge the bid-ask (e.g. for situations such as freely falling markets, etc.) and when the market makers need to give a normal bid-ask. In normal markets, the bid-asks are usually within exchange dictated bounds. MM's price spread can be larger than bid-ask spread only when there are multiple market makers and different market makers are providing different bid-asks. As long as the MM under question gives bid and ask within exchange's rules, it can be fine. These are usually rare situations. One advice: please carefully check the time-stamps. I have seen many occasions when tick data time-stamps between different vendors are mismatched in databases whereas in real life it isn't. MM's profits not just from spreads, but also from short term mean-reversion (fading). If a large order comes in suddenly, the MM increases the prices in one direction, takes the opposite side, and once the order is done, the prices comes down and the MM off-loads his imbalance at lower prices, etc.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6b4b297233e4a9ae8bad770474442913",
"text": "Limit orders are generally safer than market orders. Market orders take whatever most-favorable price is being offered. This can be especially dangerous in highly volatile stocks which have a significant spread between the bid and ask. That being said, you want to be very careful that you enter the price you intend into a limit order. It is better to be a bit slower at entering your orders than it is to make a terrible mistake like the one you mention in your question.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ceff2523ef9b58fc70187ffe1da8b544",
"text": "As others have stated, the current price is simply the last price at which the security traded. For any given tick, however, there are many bid-ask prices because securities can trade on multiple exchanges and between many agents on a single exchange. This is true for both types of exchanges that Chris mentioned in his answer. Chris' answer is pretty thorough in explaining how the two types of exchanges work, so I'll just add some minor details. In exchanges like NASDAQ, there are multiple market makers for most relatively liquid securities, which theoretically introduces competition between them and therefore lowers the bid-ask spreads that traders face. Although this results in the market makers earning less compensation for their risk, they hope to make up the difference by making the market for highly liquid securities. This could also result in your order filling, in pieces, at several different prices if your brokerage firm fills it through multiple market makers. Of course, if you place your order on an exchange where an electronic system fills it (the other type of exchange that Chris mentioned), this could happen anyway. In short, if you place a market order for 1000 shares, it could be filled at several different prices, depending on volume, multiple bid-ask prices, etc. If you place a sizable order, your broker may fill it in pieces regardless to prevent you from moving the market. This is rarely a problem for small-time investors trading securities with high volumes, but for investors with higher capital like institutional investors, mutual funds, etc. who place large orders relative to the average volume, this could conceivably be a burden, both in the price difference across time as the order is placed and the increased bookkeeping it demands. This is tangentially related, so I'll add it anyway. In cases like the one described above, all-or-none (AON) orders are one solution; these are orders that instruct the broker to only execute the order if it can be filled in a single transaction. Most brokers offer these, but there are some caveats that apply to them specifically. (I haven't been able to find some of this information, so some of this is from memory). All-or-none orders are only an option if the order is for more than a certain numbers of shares. I think the minimum size is 300 or 400 shares. Your order won't be placed until your broker places all other orders ahead of it that don't have special conditions attached to them. I believe all-or-none orders are day orders, which means that if there wasn't enough supply to fill the order during the day, the order is cancelled at market close. AON orders only apply to limit orders. If you want to replicate the behavior of a market order with AON characteristics, you can try setting a limit buy/sell order a few cents above/below the current market price.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d98a2df07419d2713839cdac91f60204",
"text": "I don't think you're missing anything. Many modern trading systems actually warn you when trying to enter a market order, asking if you are sure that you wouldn't prefer to set a limit. I fully agree with you that it is usually just better to define a limit even 20% higher than just doing a market trade. Let me give you some examples when you still might prefer to use a market order instead of a limit: But even in those two examples a (wide) limit order might just be the safer thing to do. So, what it really comes down to is speed: A market order has no other criterias to be defined, is thus entered faster and saves you a few seconds that might be crucial.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bd997606149f0c094aedc16193b7b9f3",
"text": "You can ask for 305rs, but as long as shares are available at lower prices you won't sell. Only when your ask becomes the lowest available price will someone buy from you. See many past questions about how buyers and sellers are matched by the market.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9ec10b3f7e1202acfe037a2259d8ce4d",
"text": "\"Mathematically it's arbitrary - you could just as easily use the bid or the midpoint as the denominator, so long as you're consistent when comparing securities. So there's not a fundamental reason to use the ask. The best argument I can come up with is that most analysis is done from the buy side, so looking at liquidity costs (meaning how much does the value drop instantaneously purely because of the bid-ask spread) when you buy a security would be more relevant by using the ask (purchase price) as the basis. Meaning, if a stock has a bid-ask range of $95-$100, if you buy the stock at $100 (the ask), you immediately \"\"lose\"\" 5% (5/100) of its value since you can only sell it for $95.\"",
"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": "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": "c54fc9eef2866d9ef5c17e8a1cb279b7",
"text": "\"> Is your time frame any longer than intraday? I imagine you wouldn't want to carry that risk overnight if you're a broker or selling a route.. Most brokers these days are executing in an agent capacity, so they're never holding the risk. They execute what they can, the customer keeps what they can't. > So, say for instance you join a bid a few levels down, you aren't really get filled, you start hitting the offer and eventually you realize you're competing with someone for the shares offered, so you take out the price level and bid on all the exchanges so that you're first on the bid at that level, then repeat until someone that can match your appetite starts to fill you on the bid? Lifting* the offer (hit bids, lift offers). And I suppose that's a stategy, albeit a somewhat simple one. Passive routing strategies differ from firm to firm and algo to algo. What is your customer going to think if you bid up a new price level only for the stock to rally completely away from it? > Right, so say you need 100k shares, there are 10k offered at 9.98, 25k offered at 9.99, and 65k at 10.00, you might just enter an intermarket sweep order of 100k @ 10 limit and hope that you can get most of the shares off before everyone can cancel? I imagine there has to be a lot of bidding it up to attract sellers and then letting people take out your bids all day... \"\"Bidding it up to attract sellers\"\" sounds an awful lot like [spoofing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoofing_(finance\\)), just a heads up. Sure though, if you want to tighten a spread or create new levels with aggressive passive liquidity, that is a strategy. The same caveats as I mentioned above apply. Anyway, if market impact isn't an issue for the customer, sure, take liquidity until you're filled. Don't forget about getting good size done in the opening and closing auctions (MOO/MOC). If you're too passive you risk the market moving away from you and pissing off the customer. If you're too aggressive you risk moving the market too much and pissing off the customer.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2bd87013ebec87075cd5392ace44fc84",
"text": "\"Re: A trader when buying needs to buy at the ask price and when selling needs to sell at the bid price. So how can a trade happen 'in between' the bid and ask? Saying the trade can happen \"\"in between\"\" the bid & ask is simplistic. There is a time dimension to the market. It's more accurate to say that an order can be placed \"\"in between\"\" the current best bid & ask (observed at time T=0), thus establishing a new level for one or the other of those quoted prices (observed at time T>0). If you enter a market order to buy (or sell), then yes, you'll generally be accepting the current best ask (or best bid) with your order, because that's what a market order says to do: Accept the current best market price being offered for your kind of transaction. Of course, prices may move much faster than your observation of the price and the time it takes to process your order – you're far from being the only participant. Market orders aside, you are free to name your own price above or below the current best bid & ask, respectively. ... then one could say that you are placing an order \"\"in between\"\" the bid and ask at the time your order is placed. However – and this is key – you are also moving one or the other of those quoted prices in the process of placing your above-bid buy order or your below-ask sell order. Then, only if somebody else in the market chooses to accept your new ask (or bid) does your intended transaction take place. And that transaction takes place at the new ask (or bid) price, not the old one that was current when you entered your order. Read more about bid & ask prices at this other question: (p.s. FWIW, I don't necessarily agree with the assertion from the article you quoted, i.e.: \"\"By looking for trades that take place in between the bid and ask, you can tell when a strong trend is about to come to an end.\"\" I would say: Maybe, perhaps, but maybe not.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a17f1adce034b4aca6ac98592c0dde66",
"text": "I think it is clear that this has a lot to do with keeping salaries down. The company has a maximal possible salary limit (i.e. the most they would be willing and able to pay) for what you do. You have a minimal possible salary. Both of you know that the current salary is in between the two figures. For negotiations it would be very useful for you to know the maximal possible salary (i.e. the utmost the company would be willing to pay you to stay and continue); the company on the other hand is obliged to keep costs low and hence would like to know your new minimum acceptable salary so they won't make an offer too high. But if you knew all salaries of people around you -- you could make a better guess about your own maximal possible salary. You probably would over-estimate it because we all tend to over-estimate our own relevance and competence, but it would be a better informed guess at least. The company would hence give up an informational advantage which could lead them to have higher costs. So they will ask you how much you were offered at the competitor (i.e. they will be close to your new minimum acceptable salary) while trying to prevent you from learning anything about the maximal possible salary..",
"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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
0a826e29c7971c2fb9bdded88adde854
|
DJIA components multipliers
|
[
{
"docid": "a1002e1a15d4cbb39de3a75c762a98e7",
"text": "You can create something like that by: You'll have to determine the PE ratio manually from the financial statements. To get the PE ratio for each company, you can try the Edgar database, though I doubt it goes as far back as 1950. This blog has a graph of the DJIA PE ratio from 1929 - 2009.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "df9c066ea1a2dc2089f4447e73322df8",
"text": "\"$36 dividend/900 DJIA = 4% 5.5% bond yield = ($36 dividend/660 DJIA) Graham wrote this at a very different time in financial markets- interest rates were much higher, and the DJIA much lower. In addition, bonds were yielding more than stocks, unlike today when the DJIA % the 10yr Treasury yield 2.63% and 2.13% respectively. In addition, his \"\"weigher of the odds\"\" suggests waiting to invest until equity prices are lower (usually dividends aren't reduced), and therefore the DJIA dividend yield would rise relative to bond yields.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4b0abc40f3f17041737bcc9fb62c7cf9",
"text": "> mostly-passive funds consisting of a sufficiently diverse array of holdings with historically* low volatility > 3.Market it with excessive jargon to impress laymen A quantitative-based global strategy with a wide coverage of asset classes that exhibit returns robustness and high inverted-alpha*. Uses the cutting edge of artificial intelligence to synthetically replicate index portfolios that maximizes benchmark correlation. ^^*Defined ^^as ^^1/alpha, ^^as ^^alpha ^^-> ^^0 ^^then ^^inverted ^^alpha ^^-> ^^infinity.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2d4ea113bce589e1648c170a6a81c74a",
"text": "Traditionally, the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) was only comprised of stocks that were traded on the New York Stock exchange. Neither Apple (AAPL) nor Google (GOOG) are traded on the New York Stock Exchange but instead are traded on NASDAQ. All NASDAQ tickers are four characters long and all NYSE tickers are only three or less characters long (e.g. IBM or T (AT&T)). However in 1999, MSFT became the first NASDAQ stock to be included in the DJIA. Given that AAPL now has the largest market capitalization of any company in U.S. history, I think it is likely if they retain that position, that they would eventually be let into the DOW club too, perhaps, ironically, even supplanting Microsoft.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3dbac35d169c0bc22c6eedb5fc973372",
"text": "\"http://www.attaincapital.com/alternative-investment-education/managed-futures-newsletter/investment-research-analysis/423 http://www.cta-info.com/cta_stats.htm I just googled \"\"managed futures stats\"\". I'm not 100% sure what your goal is, but I wouldn't look to filter out trades. You're better off grading returns and variance within the returns. http://www.autumngold.com/ Poke around the \"\"top traders\"\" section and compare the returns with the drawdown of the traders. You'll see the \"\"lucky\"\" traders, but you'll also see the high risk guys and low risk guys.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "72219980609d159014b02d59a87983e8",
"text": "\"I don't know what angle you're trying to push or why, but are you also saying that Kenichi Ueda of the IMF and Beatrice Weder Di Mauro of the University of Mainz are similarly lacking the understanding of financial concepts when they published a [paper](http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2012/wp12128.pdf) \"\"Quantifying Structural Subsidy Values for Systemically Important Financial Institutions\"\"? Are you suggesting a similar \"\"entire shaker of salt\"\" when they \"\"estimate[d] the structural subsidy values by exploiting expectations of state support embedded in credit ratings and by using long-run average value of rating bonus\"\"? Should we really be so skeptical when they conclude: >Section III has provided estimates of the value of the subsidy to SIFIs in terms of the overall ratings. Using the range of our estimates, we can summarize that a one-unit increase in government support for banks in advanced economies has an impact equivalent to 0.55 to 0.9 notches on the overall long-term credit rating at the end-2007. And, this effect increased to 0.8 to 1.23 notches by the end-2009 (Summary Table 8). At the end-2009, the effect of the government support is almost identical between the group of advanced countries and developing countries. Before the crisis, governments in advanced economies played a smaller role in boosting banks’ long-term ratings. These results are robust to a number of sample selection tests, such as testing for differential effects across developing and advanced countries, for both listed and non-listed banks, and also correcting for bank parental support and alternative estimations of an individual bank’s strength. I ask because this article is founded on that study - linked to by Bloomberg which is then linked to in OP's Huffpo article. While you can certainly claim that Mark Gongloff \"\"shows a basic lack of understanding\"\" of whatever, why don't you put some skin in the game and demonstrate how he somehow misses the entire point of that study, or better yet really wow us by de-bunking that study.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cedf0f6d3eda7cab6a6d873a80e54033",
"text": "Mostly some custom work i've done myself, bayesian and time series models, but there is some pattern matching. Most TA functions such as MA's, MACD's, BollingerBands, are simple ways of doing time series analysis. MA's are basic filters. MACD is essentially a way of viewing acceleration, as its the informational difference between filters. BB's are mean reverters based on standard deviation/ RSI is a ratio of filtered up to down moves basically generating an indicator based on how strong the market has moved.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9c7310340478610eea3f1d4b154baaf6",
"text": "\"As far as I can tell there are no \"\"out-of-the-box\"\" solutions for this. Nor will Moneydance or GnuCash give you the full solution you are looking for. I imaging people don't write a well-known, open-source, tool that will do this for fear of the negative uses it could have, and the resulting liability. You can roll-you-own using the following obscure tools that approximate a solution: First download the bank's CSV information: http://baruch.ev-en.org/proj/gnucash.html That guy did it with a perl script that you can modify. Then convert the result to OFX for use elsewhere: http://allmybrain.com/2009/02/04/converting-financial-csv-data-to-ofx-or-qif-import-files/\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1b17da46197e9cd892e258fc16b611ba",
"text": "I am also confused by what he says. The DJIA has not been at 900 for decades. However a $36 dividend is 4% per unit if you get $9 per unit per quarter. 2/3 of 4% is 6%,so that is inside his 7.5% to 5.5%. How much you have in dividend paying stocks vs. Bonds most often is a function of your age. For example, I have heard the advice of subtracting your age in years from 110 and that would be the percent you hold in dividend paying stocks. At age 30 you would have 80% in stocks. At age 60 you would be 50% in stocks. There are retirement funds that do this for you. But the 'bottom line' all depends on your risk tolerance. I have a large tolerance for risk. So even though I am currently retired I only have 10% of my money in a 'safe' investment (ticker=PGF). It pays 5.5% per year. The rest is in a leveraged junk bond fund (PHK) that pays 15.5% per year.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fe09430d51b96d6d5c254dc47da2aefd",
"text": "See the FX section of the quantitative finance SE data wiki.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "861bfef2f5aa886d0e3894fbb8a8819b",
"text": "Fx Pip partnership Limited is a reliable trading signal and consultancy provider with many years of experience and significant success in the field of investments. All the members of the team, utilizing in the best way their scientific background and their excellent professionalism, achieve the best results. The Fx Pip Signal which has at its disposal its Research and Development department, has an aim to offer the international community of traders, the most reliable solution to the most difficult daily questions, such as: which product do we buy and which do we sell, at what price do we enter the market and at what price do we exit? The employees have a long term experience in the international foreign exchange industry, which gives them the edge of competitiveness and professionalism. We guarantee independency at the selection of online trading options. The only obligation of fxpipsignal.com is to you, our customer. An ongoing training of our employee(s) is a priority, to have good knowledge and to meet your needs. Fx Pip Signal provides signals of major currency pairs as EUR/USD, GBP/USD, USD/JPY USD/CHF. It provides signals which suits almost all the market around the world.It has four packages named Trial, Standard, Premium, Premium Plus. It has well organised support team to provide 24/7 live support and forex consultancy to gain meaningful profit. It believes in transperancy , relaibility and accuracy. All the signals are provided in a flexible way so that the subscribers can easily execute them and their desire profit. Fx Pip Signal is available in almost all the countries of the world. It provides signals via sms, email and updated in the website.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bc9c402008b52c0eafe34f56502c5e48",
"text": "\"Some years ago, two \"\"academics,\"\" Ibbotson and Sinquefield did these calculations. (Roger) Ibbotson, is still around. So Google Roger Ibbotson, or Ibbotson Associates. There are a number of entries so I won't provide all the links.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5b9bddfbc13053744ab668020e549954",
"text": "Yes that is the case for the public company approach, but I was referring to the transaction approach: Firm A and Firm B both have $100 in EBITDA. Firm A has $50 in cash, Firm B has $100 in cash. Firm A sells for $500, Firm B sells for $600. If we didn't subtract cash before calculating the multiple: Firm A: 5x Firm B: 6x If we DO subtract cash before calculating the multiple: Firm A: 4.5x Firm B: 5x So yea, subtracting cash does skew the multiple.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "791a284b641dc2d848f1556503700ffe",
"text": "I don't know of any books, but there are a lot of good white papers on the subject if you take the time to look for them. For example, Moody's has a white paper on their LGD model (LossCalc) that explains their calibration methodology. Searching for academic papers on the subject is really the only way to go, because credit risk is a field that really is just being explored. Really only since 2006 have banks started to actively try to use a risk rating model that incorporates PD and LGD. This is because of data insufficiency - banks just didn't keep active and centralized loan level data that is required to calibrate the models. tl;dr: Use the internet - it is your friend.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1f1018c8300ca9c4afffbf229277580a",
"text": "Ugh. Please don't use Damode's models. Guy is brilliant but his model are absolute shit and super annoying to audit. Much better to read the theory and build his shit from scratch in a way that effects the theory. Then use his models to check that your output is in the right ballpark. You will get a MUCH better grasp of modeling and of valuation this way.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9f3cb39df08230246dab34f6ec9c3a85",
"text": "They're all in one place. The OCC provides: http://www.optionsclearing.com/webapps/flex-reports",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
1b89d4a21cd68488f542f68fcb797e80
|
What are the tax implications of dividends that I receive from stocks (equity) that I hold?
|
[
{
"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": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "fd9497f6f720d74c94f789669aa226c2",
"text": "There are many reasons, which other answers have already discussed. I want to emphasize and elaborate on just one of the reasons, which is that it avoids double taxation, especially on corporate earnings. Generally, for corporations, its earnings are already taxed at around 40% (for the US - including State income taxes). When dividends are distributed out, it is taxed again at the individual level. The effect is the same when equity is sold and the distribution is captured as a capital gain. (I believe this is why the dividend and capital gain rates are the same in the US.) For a simplistic example, say there is a C Corporation with a single owner. The company earns $1,000,000 before income taxes. It pays 400,000 in taxes, and has retained earnings of $600,000. To get the money out, the owner can either distribute a dividend to herself, or sell her stake to another person. Either choice leads to $600,000 getting taxed at another 20%~30% or so at the individual level (depending on the State). If we calculate the effective rate, it is above 50%! Many people invest in stock, including mutual funds, and the dividends and capital gains are taxed at lower rates. Individual tax returns that contain no wage income often have very low average tax rates for this reason. However, the investments themselves are continuously paying out their own taxes, or accruing taxes in the form of future tax liability.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "29af954b3b5d2f33d38175d849fcf8ac",
"text": "You should get a 1099-MISC for the $5000 you got. And your broker should send you a 1099-B for the $5500 sale of Google stock. These are two totally separate things as far as the US IRS is concerned. 1) You made $5000 in wages. You will pay income tax on this as well as FICA and other state and local taxes. 2) You will report that you paid $5000 for stock, and sold it for $5500 without holding it for one year. Since this was short term, you will pay tax on the $500 in income you made. These numbers will go on different parts of your tax form. Essentially in your case, you'll have to pay regular income tax rates on the whole $5500, but that's only because short term capital gains are treated as income. There's always the possibility that could change (unlikely). It also helps to think of them separately because if you held the stock for a year, you would pay different tax on that $500. Regardless, you report them in different ways on your taxes.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "08517cf374549c107ac72e13d34e672f",
"text": "\"It sounds like \"\"bonus shares\"\" are the same as a stock dividend. Stock dividends are equivalent to a stock split except for accounting treatment (good explanation here: http://www.accountingcoach.com/online-accounting-course/17Xpg05.html). As an investor, the only likely effect of a stock dividend is to make it more complex to keep track of cost basis and do your taxes. There's no economic effect, it's just rearranging accounting numbers.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5f7a079d4ad1a718b2717fda990b436d",
"text": "\"OK, I found this filing by JCI on the SEC website: U.S. Federal Income Tax Consequences of the Distribution to U.S. Holders For U.S. federal income tax purposes, the distribution will not be eligible for treatment as a tax-free distribution by Johnson Controls with respect to its stock. Accordingly, the distribution will be treated as a taxable distribution by Johnson Controls to each Johnson Controls shareholder in an amount equal to the fair market value of the Adient ordinary shares received by such shareholder (including any fractional shares deemed received and any Adient ordinary shares withheld on account of any Irish withholding taxes), determined as of the distribution date (such amount, the \"\"Distribution Amount\"\"). The Distribution Amount received by a U.S. holder will be treated as a taxable dividend to the extent of such U.S. holder's ratable share of current or accumulated earnings and profits of Johnson Controls for the taxable year of the distribution (as determined under U.S. federal income tax principles). Any portion of the Distribution Amount that is treated as a dividend will not be eligible for the dividends-received deduction allowed to corporations under the Code. My broker's 1099-B form tells me that I received a Qualified Dividend from JCI on 10/31/2016 of $512.44, which would be equivalent to $45.349 valuation of ADNT as of the spinoff date for my 11.3 shares (before the 0.3 shares were sold as cash-in-lieu) .\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9b02186c17c8d6c54dc29f81d0b2e4c9",
"text": "(All for US.) Yes you (will) have a realized long-term capital gain, which is taxable. Long-term gains (including those distributed by a mutual fund or other RIC, and also 'qualified' dividends, both not relevant here) are taxed at lower rates than 'ordinary' income but are still bracketed almost (not quite) like ordinary income, not always 15%. Specifically if your ordinary taxable income (after deductions and exemptions, equivalent to line 43 minus LTCG/QD) 'ends' in the 25% to 33% brackets, your LTCG/QD income is taxed at 15% unless the total of ordinary+preferred reaches the top of those brackets, then any remainder at 20%. These brackets depend on your filing status and are adjusted yearly for inflation, for 2016 they are: * single 37,650 to 413,350 * married-joint or widow(er) 75,300 to 413,350 * head-of-household 50,400 to 441,000 (special) * married-separate 37,650 to 206,675 which I'd guess covers at least the middle three quintiles of the earning/taxpaying population. OTOH if your ordinary income ends below the 25% bracket, your LTCG/QD income that 'fits' in the lower bracket(s) is taxed at 0% (not at all) and only the portion that would be in the ordinary 25%-and-up brackets is taxed at 15%. IF your ordinary taxable income this year was below those brackets, or you expect next year it will be (possibly due to status/exemption/deduction changes as well as income change), then if all else is equal you are better off realizing the stock gain in the year(s) where some (or more) of it fits in the 0% bracket. If you're over about $400k a similar calculation applies, but you can afford more reliable advice than potential dogs on the Internet. (update) Near dupe found: see also How are long-term capital gains taxed if the gain pushes income into a new tax bracket? Also, a warning on estimated payments: in general you are required to pay most of your income tax liability during the year (not wait until April 15); if you underpay by more than 10% or $1000 (whichever is larger) you usually owe a penalty, computed on Form 2210 whose name(?) is frequently and roundly cursed. For most people, whose income is (mostly) from a job, this is handled by payroll withholding which normally comes out close enough to your liability. If you have other income, like investments (as here) or self-employment or pension/retirement/disability/etc, you are supposed to either make estimated payments each 'quarter' (the IRS' quarters are shifted slightly from everyone else's), or increase your withholding, or a combination. For a large income 'lump' in December that wasn't planned in advance, it won't be practical to adjust withholding. However, if this is the only year increased, there is a safe harbor: if your withholding this year (2016) is enough to pay last year's tax (2015) -- which for most people it is, unless you got a pay cut this year, or a (filed) status change like marrying or having a child -- you get until next April 15 (or next business day -- in 2017 it is actually April 18) to pay the additional amount of this year's tax (2016) without underpayment penalty. However, if you split the gain so that both 2016 and 2017 have income and (thus) taxes higher than normal for you, you will need to make estimated payment(s) and/or increase withholding for 2017. PS: congratulations on your gain -- and on the patience to hold anything for 10 years!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6a4539c3023dfcea2edaaec10b1f429c",
"text": "Cost basis is irrelevant because the entire distribution is taxed as ordinary income even if the custodian distributes stock or mutual fund shares to you. Such distributions save you the brokerage fees that you would incur had you taken a cash distribution and promptly bought the shares outside the retirement account for yourself but they have no effect on the tax treatment of the distribution: the market value of the shares distributed to you is taxed as ordinary income, and your basis in the newly acquired shares outside the retirement account is the market value of the shares, all prices being as of the date of the distribution.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f3275902f1c0f9720de7ffcf33556f77",
"text": "\"The shares are \"\"imputed income\"\" / payment in kind. You worked in the UK, but are you a \"\"US Person\"\"? If not, you should go back to payroll with this query as this income is taxable in the UK. It is important you find out on what basis they were issued. The company will have answers. Where they aquired at a discount to fair market value ? Where they purchased with a salary deduction as part of a scheme ? Where they acquired by conversion of employee stock options ? If you sell the shares, or are paid dividends, then there will be tax withheld.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f292e6255da333b3bd70c894d8d7c53c",
"text": "How you are taxed will depend on what kind of stock awards they are. The value will be determined by the company that issues it, and appropriate tax forms will be sent to you to include with your taxes. The way the value is determined is an accounting question that is off-topic here, but the value will be stated on your stock award paperwork. If you are awarded the stock directly then that value will be taxed as ordinary income. If you are awarded options, then you can purchase the stock to start the clock on long-term capital gains, but you will not incur any tax liability through the initial purchase. If the company is sold privately and you have held the stock for over 1 year, then yes, it will be taxed as a long-term capital gain. If you receive/exercise the stock less than 1 year before such an acquisition, then it will be considered a short-term capital gain and will be taxed as ordinary income.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "99c560ff8a865296a2908cbc18ed8b0a",
"text": "As far as I read in many articles, all earnings (capital gains and dividends) from Canadian stocks will be always tax-free. Right? There's no withholding tax, ie. a $100 dividend means you get $100. There's no withholding for capital gains in shares for anybody. You will still have to pay taxes on the amounts, but that's only due at tax time and it could be very minor (or even a refund) for eligible Canadian dividends. That's because the company has already paid tax on those dividends. In contrast, holding U.S. or any foreign stock that yields dividends in a TFSA will pay 15% withholding tax and it is not recoverable. Correct, but the 15% is a special rate for regular shares and you need to fill out a W8-BEN. Your broker will probably make sure you have every few years. But if you hold the same stock in a non-registered account, this 15% withholding tax can be used as a foreign tax credit? Is this true or not or what are the considerations? That's true but reduces your Canadian tax payable, it's not refundable, so you have to have some tax to subtract it from. Another consideration is foreign dividends are included 100% in income no mater what the character is. That means you pay tax at your highest rate always if not held in a tax sheltered account. Canadian dividends that are in a non-registered account will pay taxes, I presume and I don't know how much, but the amount can be used also as a tax credit or are unrecoverable? What happens in order to take into account taxes paid by the company is, I read also that if you don't want to pay withholding taxes from foreign > dividends you can hold your stock in a RRSP or RRIF? You don't have any withholding taxes from US entities to what they consider Canadian retirement accounts. So TFSAs and RESPs aren't covered. Note that it has to be a US fund like SPY or VTI that trades in the US, and the account has to be RRSP/RRIF. You can't buy a Canadian listed ETF that holds US stocks and get the same treatment. This is also only for the US, not foreign like Europe or Asia. Also something like VT (total world) in the US will have withholding taxes from foreign (Europe & Asia mostly) before the money gets to the US. You can't get that back. Just an honourable mention for the UK, there's no withholding taxes for anybody, and I hear it's on sale. But at some point, if I withdraw the money, who do I need to pay taxes, > U.S. or Canada? Canada.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c36b1a3c19a44acdf22acd904acbe658",
"text": "\"First, do you get charged a commission or other fee for reinvesting? Second, why would capital gains and dividends be grouped together? If the broker charges you for that run away. As Joe explained, it is done as a courtesy. Doesn't this mean if I sell the stock, the profit will be used to buy that stock right back? No, this is only the capital gains distributions of funds. Lastly, there are two additional checkbox options I was hoping somebody could explain: \"\"All equity positions currently held in this account\"\" and \"\"Future equity purchases, transfers, and deposits to this account\"\". \"\"All equity positions\"\" means your selection will be valid for all the positions you already have. \"\"Future positions\"\" means it will only affect future positions, not the ones you already have. For example: FOLLOW-UP: Looking around, some people suggest not doing this for taxable accounts because it complicates cost basis reporting. Is this a valid concern? Doesn't the brokerage handle that and send you the information when you sell the stock? Yes, because you end up with tons of positions and you need to track the cost basis for each. Brokers are required to report cost-basis on 1099-B now, so its less of a problem, but before 2011 you'd have 10's of positions each year (if you have a monthly dividend, for example) each with different cost basis, and you'd usually sell them all at once. Go figure the gain. So the new 1099-B reporting regulations help a little on this, but it only kicks in for everything starting of 2013 IIRC. Fortunately, for some investments (mutual funds, mainly) you may chose averaging, but it has drawbacks as well.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8bb9b540faa16f59254b2eeffb1f03b5",
"text": "For the Roth the earnings: interest, dividends, capital gains distributions and capital gains are tax deferred. Which means that as long as the money stays inside of a Roth or is transferred/rolled over to another Roth there are no taxes due. In December many mutual funds distribute their gains. Let's say people invested in S&P500index fund receive a dividend of 1% of their account value. The investor in a non-retirement fund will be paying tax on that dividend in the Spring with their tax form. The Roth and IRA investors will not be paying tax on those dividends. The Roth investor never will, and the regular IRA investor will only pay taxes on it when they pull the money out.",
"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": "2ed3c177786d18301727f0854afccc2d",
"text": "\"In the USA there are two ways this situation can be treated. First, if your short position was held less than 45 days. You have to (when preparing the taxes) add the amount of dividend back to the purchase price of the stock. That's called adjusting the basis. Example: short at $10, covered at $8, but during this time stock paid a $1 dividend. It is beneficial for you to add that $1 back to $8 so your stock purchase basis is $9 and your profit is also $1. Inside software (depending what you use) there are options to click on \"\"adjust the basis\"\" or if not, than do it manually specifically for those shares and add a note for tax reviewer. Second option is to have that \"\"dividednd payment in lieu paid\"\" deducted as investment expence. But that option is only available if you hold the shorts for more than 45 days and itemize your deductions. Hope that helps!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bbf1a4e9a95e8154a0e768606992b801",
"text": "I gift my daughter stock worth $1000. No tax issue. She sells it for $2000, and has a taxable gain of $1000 that shows up on her return. Yes, you need to find out the date of the gift, as that is the date you value the fund for cost basis. The $3500 isn't a concern, as the gift seems to have been given well before that. It's a long term capital gain when you sell it. And, in a delightfully annoying aspect of our code, the dividends get added to basis each year, as you were paying tax on the dividend whether or not you actually received it. Depending on the level of dividends, your basis may very well be as high as the $6500 current value. (pls ask if anything here needs clarification)",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
4019022e747ab4244ecb828e1f11a296
|
Are limit orders safe?
|
[
{
"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": "6b4b297233e4a9ae8bad770474442913",
"text": "Limit orders are generally safer than market orders. Market orders take whatever most-favorable price is being offered. This can be especially dangerous in highly volatile stocks which have a significant spread between the bid and ask. That being said, you want to be very careful that you enter the price you intend into a limit order. It is better to be a bit slower at entering your orders than it is to make a terrible mistake like the one you mention in your question.",
"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": "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": "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": "f26da920dee863c58ad78ff146febe67",
"text": "The Key aspect is the risk of market orders; You should be worried about point 2 & 3 when you are doing market orders.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fba9914819f98040a5ae17c9cd641ae5",
"text": "From the non-authoritative Investopedia page: A stop-limit order will be executed at a specified price, or better, after a given stop price has been reached. Once the stop price is reached, the stop-limit order becomes a limit order to buy or sell at the limit price or better. So once the stop price has been breached, your limit order is placed and will be on the order books as a $9 ask. For a vanilla stop order, a market order will be placed and will be filled using the highest active bid(s).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "54de8f950e5eb26faf4845ac8f2c2bc7",
"text": "From your question, I am guessing that you are intending to have stoploss buy order. is the stoploss order is also a buy order ? As you also said, you seems to limit your losses, I am again guessing that you have short position of the stock, to which you are intending to place a buy limit order and buy stoploss order (stoploss helps when when the price tanks). And also I sense that you intend to place buy limit order at the price below the market price. is that the situation? If you place two independent orders (one limit buy and one stoploss buy). Please remember that there will be situation where two orders also get executed due to market movements. Add more details to the questions. it helps to understand the situation and others can provide a strategic solution.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e8034a4cc4698ab17120162a58ee34d8",
"text": "The Bank Secrecy Act of 1970 requires that banks assist the U.S. Gov't in identifying and preventing money laundering. This means they're required to keep records of cash transactions of Negotiable Instruments, and report any such transactions with a daily aggregate limit of a value greater than (or equal to?) $10,000. Because of this, the business which is issuing the money order is also required to record this transaction to report it to the bank, who then holds the records in case FinCEN wants to review the transactions. EDITED: Added clarification on the $10,000 rule",
"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": "46741cccc3fe066d39bb2528a50b1d98",
"text": "You could always maintain a limit order to sell at a price you're comfortable with.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c373a9ff29b5f16a5563824d77021583",
"text": "\"Yes, in my humble opinion, it can be \"\"safe\"\" to assume that — but not in the sense that your assumption is necessarily or likely correct. Rather, it can be \"\"safe\"\" in the respect that assuming the worst — even if wrong! — could save you from a likely painful and unsuccessful speculation in the highly volatile stock of a tiny company with no revenue, no profits, next to no assets, and continued challenges to its existence: \"\"There is material uncertainty about whether the Company will be able to obtain the required financing. This material uncertainty casts significant doubt about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern.\"\" As a penny stock, they are in good company. Still, there are a variety of other reasons why such a stock might have gone up, or down, and no one [here] can say for sure. Even if there was a news item, any price reaction to news could just amount to speculation on the part of others having enough money to move the stock. There are better investments out there, and cheaper thrills, than most penny stocks.\"",
"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": "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": "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": "ec8f8aec8dbc65664a5e95008f9d34f6",
"text": "This is rather simple if you understand a trailing limit order but to be sure I am going to explain a limit, trailing limit, and trailing LIT order. I am going to use an example assuming that you already own a stock and want to sell it. Limit Order I place an order to sell 100 PG @ 65.00. This order will only be executed if the bid price of PG is at $65.0000 or greater. Trailing Limit Order I place an order to sell 100 CAT @ 85.25 with a trailing 5%. This order will be executed when CAT drops 5% below the highest point it reaches after you place this order. So if you place this order at 85.25 and the stock drops 5% to $80.9875, your order will be executed. However, if the stock jumps to $98, the order will not be executed until the stock falls to $93.10. The sell point will go up with the stock and will always remain at the specified % or $ amount behind the high point. Trailing Limit If Touched Order I place an order to sell 100 INTC @ 24.75 with a trailing 5% if the stock touches $25.00. Essentially, this is the same as the trailing limit except that it doesn't take effect until the stock first gets $25.00. I think the page they provide to explain this is confusing because I think they are explaining it from the shorting a stock perspective instead of the selling a stock you want to profit from. I could also be wrong in how I understand it. My advice would be to either call their customer support and ask for a better explanation or what I do in my finances, avoid things I don't understand.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
5af9e81929ae5f8266305ee1408a77bf
|
I'm in the U.S. What are vehicles to invest in international stocks?
|
[
{
"docid": "3167b26b3d85953e30d252c7ae9aa5d5",
"text": "You can look into specific market targeted mutual funds or ETF's. For Norway, for example, look at NORW. If you want to purchase specific stocks, then you'd better be ready to trade on local stock exchanges in local currency. ETrade allows trading on some of the international stock exchanges (in Asia they have Hong Kong and Japan, in Europe they have the UK, Germany and France, and in the Americas they have the US and Canada). Some of the companies you're interested in might be trading there.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "fe4513005bf90450c2695629c0f31560",
"text": "Taking into account that you are in Cyprus, a Euro country, you should not invest in USD as the USA and China are starting a currency war that will benefit the Euro. Meaning, if you buy USD today, they will be worth less in a couple of months. As for the way of investing your money. Look at it like a boat race, starting on the 1st of January and ending on the 31st of December each year. There are a lot of boats in the water. Some are small, some are big, some are whole fleets. Your objective is to choose the fastest boat at any time. If you invest all of your money in one small boat, that might sink before the end of the year, you are putting yourself at risk. Say: Startup Capital. If you invest all of your money in a medium sized boat, you still run the risk of it sinking. Say: Stock market stock. If you invest all of your money in a supertanker, the risk of it sinking is smaller, and the probability of it ending first in the race is also smaller. Say: a stock of a multinational. A fleet is limited by it's slowest boat, but it will surely reach the shore. Say: a fund. Now investing money is time consuming, and you may not have the money to create your own portfolio (your own fleet). So a fund should be your choice. However, there are a lot of funds out there, and not all funds perform the same. Most funds are compared with their index. A 3 star Morningstar rated fund is performing on par with it's index for a time period. A 4 or 5 star rated fund is doing better than it's index. Most funds fluctuate between ratings. A 4 star rated fund can be mismanaged and in a number of months become a 2 star rated fund. Or the other way around. But it's not just luck. Depending on the money you have available, your best bet is to buy a number of star rated, managed funds. There are a lot of factors to keep into account. Currency is one. Geography, Sector... Don't buy for less than 1.000€ in one fund, and don't buy more than 10 funds. Stay away from Gold, unless you want to speculate (short term). Stay away from the USD (for now). And if you can prevent it, don't put all your eggs in one basket.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "5affdedc6246219e3093477fd999126e",
"text": "Reddit doesn't have a ton of resources to offer you as you learn about where to invest, you want to start reading up on actual investing sites. You might start with Motley Fool, StockTwits, Seeking Alpha, Marketwatch, etc. I agree with hipster's take, if all countries are going to keep printing money and expanding their debts and craziness, gold has a bright future. Land, petroleum, commodities, and precious metals have an intrinsic worth that will still be there regardless of what currencies are doing, versus bonds which are merely promises to pay, which will be paid off in devalued money, or stocks which are just promises of future earnings. Think about spreading your risk in a few different places, one chunk here, one chunk there. Some people in the US now are big on dividend paying stocks in lieu of bonds which only pay a percent, which is negative return after inflation. Some people buy 'royalty trust' units, which throw off income from oil leases as dividends. You might want to park a portion in a different currency, but dollar funds aren't going to pay interest and Switzerland plans to keep devaluing its currency as people keep bidding the price up. I don't know if you are allowed to buy CEF, a bullion-backed fund out of Canada in your country, but that's one way to own gold & silver. But with the instability out there, you might prefer a bit of the real thing stashed in a safe place. Or if you have a bit of family land, maybe just be sure you can pay the taxes to keep it; or pursue any other way to own 'real stuff' that will still be worth something after all hell breaks loose.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "21b890429ad52c9daf27275afc511a82",
"text": "I personally am from Canada and use my local bank to trade stocks. Contact your local bank and they will tell you how to do it, since rules depend on country of residency. If you are not close to a bank, e-mail the major bank in the country of your residence.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "184b63bf1790b8e69ca079b62aebdbb5",
"text": "Open an account with a US discount online broker, or with a European broker with access to the US market. I think ETRADE allow non-resident accounts, for instance, amongst others. The brokerage will be about $10, and there is no annual fee. (So you're ~1% down out of the gate, but that's not so much.) Brokers may have a minimum transaction value but very few exchanges care about the number of shares anymore, and there is no per-share fee. As lecrank notes, putting all your savings into a single company is not prudent, but having a flutter with fun money on Apple is harmless. Paul is correct that dividend cheques may be a slight problem for non-residents. Apple don't pay dividends so there's no problem in this specific case. More generally your broker will give you a cash account into which the dividends can go. You may have to deal with US tax which is more of an annoyance than a cost.",
"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": "f719c6cd550aa8750e9b8d06241671cf",
"text": "\"I'm really surprised more people didn't recommend UGA or USO specifically. These have been mentioned in the past on a myriad of sites as ways to hedge against rising prices. I'm sure they would work quite well as an investment opportunity. They are ETF's that invest in nearby futures and constantly roll the position to the next delivery date. This creates a higher than usual expense ratio, I believe, but it could still be a good investment. However, be forewarned that they make you a \"\"partner\"\" by buying the stock so it can mildly complicate your tax return.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a6cf13ea4d096712e382bab3746657bf",
"text": "\"BestInvest is a UK site looking at that URL, base on the \"\"co.uk\"\" ending. Yahoo! Finance that you use is a US-based site unless you add something else to the URL. UK & Ireland Yahoo! Finance is different from where you were as there is something to be said for where are you looking. If I was looking for a quarter dollar there are Canadian and American coins that meet this so there is something to be said for a higher level of categorization being done. \"\"EUN.L\"\" would likely denote the \"\"London\"\" exchange as tickers are exchange-specific you do realize, right?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e6a3340c925cebe9771d4f0abb64fb8b",
"text": "When you want to invest in an asset denominated by a foreign currency, your investment is going to have some currency risk to it. You need to worry not just about what happens to your own currency, but also the foreign currency. Lets say you want to invest $10000 in US Stocks as a Canadian. Today that will cost you $13252, since USDCAD just hit 1.3252. You now have two ways you can make money. One is if USDCAD goes up, two is if the stocks go up. The former may not be obvious, but remember, you are holding US denominated assets currently, with the intention of one day converting those assets back into CAD. Essentially, you are long USDCAD (long USD short CAD). Since you are short CAD, if CAD goes up it hurts you It may seem odd to think about this as a currency trade, but it opens up a possibility. If you want a foreign investment to be currency neutral, you just make the opposite currency trade, in addition to your original investment. So in this case, you would buy $10,000 in US stocks, and then short USDCAD (ie long CAD, short USD $10,000). This is kind of savvy and may not be something you would do. But its worth mentioning. And there are also some currency hedged ETFs out there that do this for you http://www.ishares.com/us/strategies/hedge-currency-impact However most are hedged relative to USD, and are meant to hedge the target countries currency, not your own.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b8bc5ac6fc7eafb3ec03c29d82e651ec",
"text": "\"The London Stock Exchange offers a wealth of exchange traded products whose variety matches those offered in the US. Here is a link to a list of exchange traded products listed on the LSE. The link will take you to the list of Vanguard offerings. To view those offered by other managers, click on the letter choices at the top of the page. For example, to view the iShares offerings, click on \"\"I\"\". In the case of Vanguard, the LSE listed S&P500 ETF is traded under the code VUSA. Similarly, the Vanguard All World ETF trades under the code VWRL. You will need to be patient viewing iShares offerings since there are over ten pages of them, and their description is given by the abbreviation \"\"ISH name\"\". Almost all of these funds are traded in GBP. Some offer both currency hedged and currency unhedged versions. Obviously, with the unhedged version you are taking on additional currency risk, so if you wish to avoid currency risk then choose a currency hedged version. Vanguard does not appear to offer currency hedged products in London while iShares does. Here is a list of iShares currency hedged products. As you can see, the S&P500 currency hedged trades under the code IGUS while the unhedged version trades under the code IUSA. The effects of BREXIT on UK markets and currency are a matter of opinion and difficult to quantify currently. The doom and gloom warnings of some do not appear to have materialised, however the potential for near-term volatility remains so longs as the exit agreement is not formalised. In the long-term, I personally believe that BREXIT will, on balance, be a positive for the UK, but that is just my opinion.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f104aaaa262a368acdac8f46ddc2c436",
"text": "Index funds: Some of the funds listed by US SIF are index funds. ETFs: ETFdb has a list, though it's pretty short at the moment.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0bfe5f2d434119bfe551f072cfae1166",
"text": "\"Depends. The short answer is yes; HSBC, for instance, based in New York, is listed on both the LSE and NYSE. Toyota's listed on the TSE and NYSE. There are many ways to do this; both of the above examples are the result of a corporation owning a subsidiary in a foreign country by the same name (a holding company), which sells its own stock on the local market. The home corporation owns the majority holdings of the subsidiary, and issues its own stock on its \"\"home country's\"\" exchange. It is also possible for the same company to list shares of the same \"\"pool\"\" of stock on two different exchanges (the foreign exchange usually lists the stock in the corporation's home currency and the share prices are near-identical), or for a company to sell different portions of itself on different exchanges. However, these are much rarer; for tax liability and other cost purposes it's usually easier to keep American monies in America and Japanese monies in Japan by setting up two \"\"copies\"\" of yourself with one owning the other, and move money around between companies as necessary. Shares of one issue of one company's stock, on one exchange, are the same price regardless of where in the world you place a buy order from. However, that doesn't necessarily mean you'll pay the same actual value of currency for the stock. First off, you buy the stock in the listed currency, which means buying dollars (or Yen or Euros or GBP) with both a fluctuating exchange rate between currencies and a broker's fee (one of those cost savings that make it a good idea to charter subsidiaries; could you imagine millions a day in car sales moving from American dealers to Toyota of Japan, converted from USD to Yen, with a FOREX commission to be paid?). Second, you'll pay the stock broker a commission, and he may charge different rates for different exchanges that are cheaper or more costly for him to do business in (he might need a trader on the floor at each exchange or contract with a foreign broker for a cut of the commission).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "271b245c66784da2295c00234b95afee",
"text": "Not knowing the US laws at all, you should worry more about having the best stock portfolio and less about taxes. My 0,02€",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
f8952941297709d594a2348918921f53
|
Bid price… sudden Drop
|
[
{
"docid": "495c342f3cfec0dc4d35802cfc0b6011",
"text": "An option gives you the option rather than the obligation to buy (or sell) the underlying so you don't have to exercise you can just let the option expire (so long it doesn't have an automatic expiry). After expiration the option is worthless if it is out of the money but other than that has no hangover. Option prices normally drop as the time value of the option decays. An option has two values associated with it; time value and exercise value. Far out of the money (when the price of the underlying is far from the strike price on the losing side) options only have time value whereas deep in the money options (as yours seems to be) has some time value as well as the intrinsic value of the right to buy (sell) at a low (high) price and then sell (buy) the underlying. The time value of the option comes from the possibility that the price of the underlying will move (further) in your favour and make you more money at expiry. As expiry closes it is less likely that there will be a favourable mood so this value declines which can cause prices to move sharply after a period of little to no revaluing. Up to now what I have said applies to both OTC and traded options but exchange traded options have another level of complexity in their trading; because there are fewer traders in the options market the size of trade at which you can move the market is much lower. On the equities markets you may need to trade millions of shares to have be substantial enough to significantly move a price, on the options markets it could be thousands or even hundreds. If these are European style options (which sounds likely) and a single trading entity was holding a large number of the exchange traded options and now thinks that the price will move significantly against them before expiry their sell trade will move the market lower in spite of the options being in the money. Their trade is based on their supposition that by the time they can exercise the option the price will be below the strike and they will lose money. They have cashed out at a price that suited them and limited what they will lose if they are right about the underlying. If I am not correct in my excise style assumption (European) I may need more details on the trade as it seems like you should just exercise now and take the profit if it is that far into the money.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "e96cd274fba81dbc2091ded7359dabed",
"text": "When you place a bid between the bid/ask spread, that means you are raising the bid (or lowering the ask, if you are selling). The NBBO (national best bid and offer) is now changed because of your action, and yes, certain kinds of orders may be set to react to that (a higher bid or lower ask triggering them), also many algorithms (that haven't already queued an order simply waiting for a trigger, like in a stop limit) read the bid and ask and are programmed to then place an order at that point.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "742a3e3a277dc4cfb870febddb8c7d92",
"text": "\"What if everyone decided to sell all the shares at a given moment, let's say when the stock is trading at $40? It would fall to the lowest bid price, which could be $0.01 if someone had that bid in place. Here is an example which I happened to find online: Notice there are orders to buy at half the market price and lower... probably all the way down to pennies. If there were enough selling activity to fill all of those bids you see, then the market price would be the lowest bid on the screen. Alternatively, the bid orders could be pulled (cancelled), which would also let the price free-fall to the lowest bid even if there were few actual sellers. Bid-stuffing is what HFT (high frequency trading) algorithms sometimes do, which some say caused the Flash Crash of May 2010. The computers \"\"stuff\"\" bids into the order book, making it look like there is demand in order to trigger a market reaction, then they pull the bids to make the market fall. This sort of thing happens all the time and Nanex documents it http://www.nanex.net/FlashCrash/OngoingResearch.html Quote stuffing defined: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/q/quote-stuffing.asp I remember the day of the Flash Crash very well. I found this video on youtube of CNBC at that time. Watch from the 5:00 min mark on the video as Jim Crammer talks about PG easily not being worth the price of the market at that time. He said \"\"Who cares?\"\", \"\"Its not a real price\"\", \"\"$49.25 bid for 50,000 shares if I were at my hedge fund.\"\" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86g4_w4j3jU You can value a stock how you want, but its only actually worth what someone will give you for it. More examples: Anadarko Petroleum, which as we noted in today's EOD post, lost $45 billion in market cap in 45 milliseconds (a collapse rate of $1 billion per millisecond), flash crashing from $90 all the way to an (allegedly illegal) stub quote of $0.01. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-05-17/how-last-second-flash-crash-pushed-sp-500-1667-1666 How 10,000 Contracts Crashed The Market: A Visual Deconstruction Of Last Night's E-Mini Flash Crash http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-12-21/how-10000-contracts-crashed-market-visual-deconstruction-last-nights-e-mini-flash-cr Symantec Flash-Crash Destroys Over $1.5 Billion In Less Than A Second http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-04-30/symantec-flash-crash-destroys-over-15-billion-less-second This sort of thing happens so often, I don't pay much attention anymore.\"",
"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": "99a1c389d5216cd5cdf955b049a2fac6",
"text": "A lower Price/Book Value means company is undervalued. It could also mean something horribly wrong. While it may look like a good deal, remember;",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "04add3d9946ef2117f350d4d5bad5968",
"text": "The reality that the share price did not move shows that there is nothing nefarious going on. It is most likely some mutual fund offloading their position to another fund. You can commonly see the play out at market openings if you have access to level II data. You will see a big block sitting on both sides of the same bid/ask. If you put in a higher bid (or vice versa) the two positions will move to match yours. And when the market opens their trade will be transacted BEFORE yours, even though you are thinking ... 'well I put in my bid first'. Obviously they have agreed to swap and agreed to use whatever value the market decides.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1d5eb0c11dafc70b5a929746c6dcc694",
"text": "It doesn't sound fishy at all to me. Just seems like you may be dealing with a company that has relatively light trading volume to begin with, meaning that small trades could easily make the price drop 8% (which isn't much if you're talking about a stocks in the $5 or less range. If someone sells at the bid and the bid happens to be 8% lower than the current price, that bid is now the price, hence the drop. The bid moving up afterward, just means that someone is now willing to place a higher order than what the last trade was, to try to get in.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "00d64462b1b09ff604bb7c35a27c8c37",
"text": "All the time. For high volume stocks, it may be tough to see exactly what's going on, e.g. the bid/ask may be moving faster than your connection to the broker can show you. What I've observed is with options. The volume on some options is measured in the 10's or 100's of contracts in a day. I'll see a case where it's $1.80/$2.00 bid/ask, and by offering $1.90 will often see a fill at that price. Since I may be the only trade on that option in the 15 minute period and note that the stock wasn't moving more than a penny during that time, I know that it was my order that managed to fill between the bid/ask.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e4cf1f5efd115f13c58c14aad6ff927f",
"text": "Everyone and their grandmother has been expecting QE to taper since May 2013. If the drop is caused by that, then it shouldn't be too serious. Also, can people stop comparing stuff to 2009? 2009 was a unique once-in-a-lifetime circumstance, and not indicative of actual market values.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e85ca597f6ce4303a9379b005fa87d1a",
"text": "I can't say I know everything about the underlying details, but from what I understand, your limit buy adds to the bid side of open orders, and one possibility is that someone placed a market order to sell when the bid price for the stock fell to $10 which was matched to your open limit order. So using your terminology, I would say the spot bid price is what fell to $10, even if for a brief moment. Whether or not it is possible for your order to be filled when the limit buy price is deeper than the current bid price is beyond me. It may have something to do with lot sizes.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "681a68e3b9bb0ed1f7c21754b288d44c",
"text": "On 2012/05/18 at 15:34:00 UTC (11:34:00 EDT) FB was in chaos mode. The most recent public US trade at that moment was at $40.94, but in the next one second (i.e. before the clock hit 15:34:01) there were several dozen trades as low as $40.76 and as high as $41.00. On 2012/05/30 at 17:21:00 UTC (13:21:00 EDT) the most recent public US trade for FB was at $28.28.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d502149a85e0fe587f5e0b9b1570ba9c",
"text": "It this a real situation or is it a made up example? Because for a stock that has a last traded priced of $5 or $6 and volume traded over $4M (i.e. it seems to be quite liquid), it is hardly likely that the difference from bid to ask would be as large as $1 (maybe for a stock that has volume of 4 to 5 thousand, but not for one having volume of 4 to 5 million). In regards to your question, if you were short selling the order would go in exactly the same as if you were selling a stock you owned. So your order would be on the ask side and would need to be matched up with a price on the bid side for there to be a trade.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b9581148b6453c1697ee377b6f87be88",
"text": "The best ask is the lowest ask, and the best bid is the highest bid. If the ask was lower than the bid then they crossed, and that would be a crossed market and quickly resolved. So the bid will almost always be cheaper than the ask. A heuristic is that a bid is the revenue of the stock at any given time while the ask is the cost, so the market will only ever offer a profit to itself not to the liquidity seeker. If examining the book vertically, all orders are usually sorted descending. Since the best ask is the lowest ask, it is on the bottom of the asks, and vice versa for the best bid. The best bid & best ask will be those closest since that's the narrowest spread and price-time priority will promise that a bid that crosses the asks will hit the lowest ask, the best possible price for the bidder and vice versa for an ask that crosses the best bid.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ca5eeab62ad25a710f6f6d4e5a082e79",
"text": "No, this is misbehavior of sales software that tries to automatically find the price point which maximizes profit. There have been much worse examples. Ignore it. The robot will eventually see that no sales occurred and try a more reasonable price.",
"title": ""
},
{
"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": "2bd87013ebec87075cd5392ace44fc84",
"text": "\"Re: A trader when buying needs to buy at the ask price and when selling needs to sell at the bid price. So how can a trade happen 'in between' the bid and ask? Saying the trade can happen \"\"in between\"\" the bid & ask is simplistic. There is a time dimension to the market. It's more accurate to say that an order can be placed \"\"in between\"\" the current best bid & ask (observed at time T=0), thus establishing a new level for one or the other of those quoted prices (observed at time T>0). If you enter a market order to buy (or sell), then yes, you'll generally be accepting the current best ask (or best bid) with your order, because that's what a market order says to do: Accept the current best market price being offered for your kind of transaction. Of course, prices may move much faster than your observation of the price and the time it takes to process your order – you're far from being the only participant. Market orders aside, you are free to name your own price above or below the current best bid & ask, respectively. ... then one could say that you are placing an order \"\"in between\"\" the bid and ask at the time your order is placed. However – and this is key – you are also moving one or the other of those quoted prices in the process of placing your above-bid buy order or your below-ask sell order. Then, only if somebody else in the market chooses to accept your new ask (or bid) does your intended transaction take place. And that transaction takes place at the new ask (or bid) price, not the old one that was current when you entered your order. Read more about bid & ask prices at this other question: (p.s. FWIW, I don't necessarily agree with the assertion from the article you quoted, i.e.: \"\"By looking for trades that take place in between the bid and ask, you can tell when a strong trend is about to come to an end.\"\" I would say: Maybe, perhaps, but maybe not.)\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
0b30ee9ee1d7319a9b367323e4d1847e
|
When a company reports it earnings, when does the SEC EDGAR system show the report online?
|
[
{
"docid": "d59124eccf47deb2ef6ffae2a2ea1012",
"text": "\"IT appears the company you're talking about did not report as you expected them to, which is not unusual for OTC companies because, as Milo stated, they are not well-managed. That being said, reports on EDGAR are available as soon as they're posted. I'm not aware of any lag between when the company uploads their report and it is available on the EDGAR site. Looking at the profile of the company you're referring to, I'm curious why you'd be so interested in a company with huge negative earnings, a near-zero share price, and an obviously spotty history of reporting its numbers. In order to make any money with this stock, you'd have to buy a huge number of shares, which could be difficult to unload. Further, the fees you're going to pay to make your trades are very likely to outstrip your return, so you'd be upside down on it. This company has pretty negative financials, and in a world of cheap oil, alternative energy (and the companies that deal in it) are out of vogue, so they're not likely to see a turnaround anytime soon. They're spending money on R & D at a rate almost 17 times earnings, and the losses are deepening, while revenues are not improving all that much. These guys are bleeding to death, and there's little prospect of a financial transfusion on the horizon. This is, as they say, a \"\"dog with fleas\"\", so your best bet is to find something else to put your money into. I hope this helps. Good luck!\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "fa20e041a22638e99f97f3d57b73d5ca",
"text": "You can take a look at EDGAR (Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval), a big database run by the SEC where all companies, foreign and domestic, are required to file registration statements, periodic reports, and other forms electronically.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2c0c0bbde5c283c2c693995d9bd7469b",
"text": "For months prior to going public a company has to file financial documents with the SEC. These are available to the public at www.sec.gov on their Edgar database. For instance, Eagleline is listed as potentially IPOing next week. You can find out all the details of any IPO including correspondence between the company and the SEC on Edgar. Here's the link for Eagleline (disclaimer, I have not investigated this company. It is an example only) https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0001675776&owner=exclude&count=40 The most important, complex, and thorough document is the initial registration statement, usually an S-1, and subsequent amendments that occur as a result of new information or SEC questions. You can often get insight into a new public company by looking at the changes that have occurred in amendments since their initial filings. I highly advise people starting out to first look at the filings of companies they work for or know the industry intimately. This will help you to better understand the filings from companies you may not be so familiar with. A word of caution. Markets and company filings are followed by very large numbers of smart people experienced in each business area so don't assume there is fast and easy money to be made. Still, you will be a bit ahead if you learn to read and understand the filings public companies are required to make.",
"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": "3e1635a637bbb1a5c4363476bdfa51e1",
"text": "\"For US equities, Edgar Online is where companies post their government filings to the SEC. On Google Finance, you would look at the \"\"SEC filings\"\" link on the page, and then find their 10K and 10Q documents, where that information is listed and already calculated. Many companies also have these same documents posted on their Investor Relations web pages.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "739b7375d58d91d8094464eb6a7b3760",
"text": "\"So is knowledge of unannounced products simply not considered material nonpublic information? Well \"\"material\"\" is relative but it certainly is nonpublic information. And trading based on that information would likely be considered illegal if it is actually material. Many companies require that employees with material non-public info get stock trades approved by their legal department. This protects not only the employee but the employer from SEC scrutiny. If the legal department determines that the employee has non-public info that is the genesis of the stock trade, they might deny the request. In many cases these employees receive stock through ESPP, ISO and/or RSUs and often sell while in possession of information about unannounced products. Just receiving stock as part of as part of a compensation program would not be illegal, provided it was part of a normal compensation package and not deliberately awarded in advance of these types of events. Selling or outright buying stock (including RSUs) with that kind of information would certainly be scrutinized. An employee is granted RSUs, they vest 7 months before announcement of a new product. The employee knows the exact specifications of the product. If they sell the vested stock before the announcement would this constitute insider trading or not? Why? The law is not meant to prevent people from investing in their own company just because they know future plans. So knowledge of an announcement 7 months out may not be considered material. If, however, you sold stock the day (or a week) before some announcement that caused the stock to fall, then that would probably be scrutinized. Or, if you traded shortly before an announcement of a new, revolutionary product that was set to be released in seven months, and the stock rose, then you might be scrutinized. So there is a lot of gray area, but remember that the spirit of the law is to prevent people from benefiting unfairly with non-public information. It would be hard to prove that gaining on a stock trade 7 months before a product announcement would be considered \"\"unfair gain\"\". A lot can happen in that time.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "8a10b1be31f2f1826b045d9c71020ade",
"text": "You're interpreting things correctly, at least at a high level. Those numbers come from the 10Q filing and investor summary from Microsoft, but are provided to NASDAQ by Zacks Investment Research, as noted on the main page you linked to. That's a big investment data firm. I'm not sure why they reported non-GAAP Microsoft numbers and not, say, AAPL numbers; it's possible they felt the non-GAAP numbers reflect things better (or have in the past) for some material reason, or it's possible they made a typo, though the last three quarters at least all used non-GAAP numbers for MSFT. MSFT indicates that the difference in GAAP and non-GAAP revenue is primarily deferred revenue (from Windows and Halo). I did confirm that the SEC filing for MSFT does include the GAAP number, not the non-GAAP number (as you'd expect). I will also note that it looks like the 10Q is not the only source of information. Look at ORCL for example: they had in the March 2016 report (period ending 2/29/16) revenues of .50/share GAAP / .64/share non-GAAP. But the NASDAQ page indicates .59/share for that quarter. My suspicion is that the investment data firm (Zack's) does additional work and includes certain numbers they feel belong in the revenue stream but are not in the GAAP numbers. Perhaps MS (and Oracle) have more of those - such as deferred software revenues (AAPL has relatively little of that, as most of their profit is hardware).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "98634ad20792e08f87659493195a9884",
"text": "For a company listed on NASDAQ, the numbers are published on NASDAQ's site. The most recent settlement date was 4/30/2013, and you can see that it lists 27.5 million shares as held short. NASDAQ gets these numbers from FINRA member firms, which are required to submit them to the exchange twice a month: Each FINRA member firm is required to report its “total” short interest positions in all customer and proprietary accounts in NASDAQ-listed securities twice a month. These reports are used to calculate short interest in NASDAQ stocks. FINRA member firms are required to report their short positions as of settlement on (1) the 15th of each month, or the preceding business day if the 15th is not a business day, and (2) as of settlement on the last business day of the month.* The reports must be filed by the second business day after the reporting settlement date. FINRA compiles the short interest data and provides it for publication on the 8th business day after the reporting settlement date.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3f591963899eb4a32562e19cb18bcc65",
"text": "\"Why do stock markets allow these differences in reporting? The IRS allows businesses to use fiscal calendars that differ from the calendar year. There are a number of reasons a company would choose do this, from preferring to avoid an accounting rush at end of year during holiday season, to aligning with seasonality for their profits (some like to have Q4 as the strongest quarter). Smaller businesses may prefer to keep the extra stress of year end closeout to a traditionally slower time for the business, and some just start their fiscal calendar when the company starts up. You'll notice the report dates are a couple weeks after fiscal quarter end, you would read it as \"\"three months ended...,\"\" so for Agilent, three months ended October 31, 2017, so August, September, October are their Q4 months.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4731dfb1db064ae942c8e2fd7c36e757",
"text": "\"Dividends are declared by the board of directors of a corporation on date A, to stock holders of record on date B (a later date). These stockholders then receive the declared dividend on date C, the so-called payment date. All of these dates are announced on the first (declaration) date. If there is no announcement, no dividend will be paid. The stock typically goes down in price by approximately the amount of the dividend on the date it \"\"goes ex,\"\" but then moves in price to reflect other developments, including the possibility of another declaration/payment, three months hence. Dividends are important to some investors, especially those who live on the income. They are less important to investors who are out for capital gains (and who may prefer that the company reinvest its money to seek such gains instead of paying dividends). In actual fact, dividends are one component of \"\"total\"\" or overall return. The other component is capital gains, and the sum of the two represents your return.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "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": "40e08223ac41fd50cdae1dcf1e7cebc1",
"text": "The reason for such differences is that there's no source to get this information. The companies do not (and cannot) report who are their shareholders except for large shareholders and stakes of interest. These, in the case of GoPro, were identified during the IPO (you can look the filings up on EDGAR). You can get information from this or that publicly traded mutual fund about their larger holdings from their reports, but private investors don't provide even that. Institutional (public) investors buy and sell shares all the time and only report large investments. So there's no reliable way to get a snapshot picture you're looking for.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "49d00cb08b23d1d2103174fcafd21f4c",
"text": "If you are refering to company's financial reports and offerings, the required source for companies to disclose the information is the SGX website (www.sgx.com) under the Company Disclosure tab. This includes annual statements for the last 5 years, prospectus for any shares/debentures/buy back/etc which is being offered, IPO offers and shareholders meetings. You may also find it useful to check the Research section of the SGX website where some of the public listed companies have voluntarily allowed independent research firms to monitor their company for a couple of years and produce a research report. If you are referring to filings under the Companies Act, these can be found at the Accounting and Regulatory Authority (ACRA) website (www.acra.gov.sg) and you can also purchase extracts of specific filings under the ACRA iShop. To understand the Singapore public listing system and the steps to public listing, you may find it useful to purchase one of the resource documents available for Singapore law, finance, tax and corporate secretaryship which are sold by CCH (www.cch.com.sg). Specifically for public listing the Singapore Annotated Listing Manual may help. It is common practice for companies here to employ law firms and research firms to do the majority of this research instead of doing it themselves which I one of the reasons this information is online but perhaps not so visible. I hope I have understood your question correctly!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b805044f17ae992893840a7f2135a968",
"text": "Yes it is true. The US based companies have to meet the requirements placed on them by the US government. The agency with all these reports is the Security and Exchange Commission. They run the EDGAR system to hold all those required reports The SEC’s EDGAR database provides free public access to corporate information, allowing you to quickly research a company’s financial information and operations by reviewing registration statements, prospectuses and periodic reports filed on Forms 10-K and 10-Q. You also can find information about recent corporate events reported on Form 8-K but that a company does not have to disclose to investors. EDGAR also provides access to comment and response letters relating to disclosure filings made after August 1, 2004, and reviewed by either the Division of Corporation Finance or the Division of Investment Management. On May 22, 2006, the staffs of the Divisions of Corporation Finance and Investment Management began to use the EDGAR system to issue notifications of effectiveness for Securities Act registration statements and post-effective amendments, other than those that become effective automatically by law. These notifications will be posted to the EDGAR system the morning after a filing is determined to be effective. As pointed out by Grade 'Eh' Bacon: Other countries may require different types of information to be reported to the public, in particular, financial statements. To find the financial statements released for a particular company, you can go to the appropriate stock exchange, or often simply the company's corporate website.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
d0d70a9a528e0a6ba0f1d2b3df4a0c6a
|
How (or is it necessary) to rebalance a 401k with only one index fund?
|
[
{
"docid": "021fc085f132c2a17051d3a92ab42551",
"text": "\"There's nothing to rebalance, the index fund rebalances itself to continue matching the index. However, you need to understand that such an investment is not diversified and you only invest in a very specific market, and very specific stocks on that market. S&P 500 is large (500 different companies, most of the time), but still not as broadly diversified as your retirement investment portfolio should be. You should talk to a financial adviser (CFP for example), many companies provide access to these for 401k plan participants. But in any case, I'd suggest considering \"\"target date\"\" funds - funds that are investing based on your expected retirement year, and become more conservative as you get closer to that year.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "05382e355d7e1a52e94efbadb6a72ebd",
"text": "Rebalance is across asset-classes which are mutually independent [like stocks and bonds; they may be inversely correlated at times as when stocks go down, bonds go up] 80%-20% (stock-bond) split is good for a young investor [say in 30s, some suggest 110-age as a good stock allocation percentage]. Here rebalance is done when say the asset-allocation(AA) strays away more than say 3 to 5% (again just a rule of thumb). E.g. if due to a recent run-up in stocks, AA could become 85%-15%. Then you sell stocks to buy bonds to make the AA 80%-20% And since this method always sells the winner -- you automatically make gains [selling high and buying low] S&P 500 index gives decent diversification within stocks; you want a total-bond-fund to take care of the bond side of your AA.",
"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": "ac22618341c07a2678f24e43e1aad47a",
"text": "Personally I'm not a huge fan of rebalancing within an asset class. I would vote for leaving the HD shares alone and buying other assets until you get to the portfolio you want. Frequent buying and selling incurs costs and possible tax consequences that can really hurt your returns.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fdf6d44b9b633d26c622da16169598a4",
"text": "They can rebalance and often times at a random manager's discretion. ETF's are just funds, and funds all have their own conditions, read the prospectus, thats the only source of truth.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a68a6190f8f1909ef9cf515c36ca5e0d",
"text": "\"The goal of the single-fund with a retirement date is that they do the rebalancing for you. They have some set of magic ratios (specific to each fund) that go something like this: Note: I completely made up those numbers and asset mix. When you invest in the \"\"Mutual-Fund Super Account 2025 fund\"\" you get the benefit that in 2015 (10 years until retirement) they automatically change your asset mix and when you hit 2025, they do it again. You can replace the functionality by being on top of your rebalancing. That being said, I don't think you need to exactly match the fund choices they provide, just research asset allocation strategies and remember to adjust them as you get closer to retirement.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "76111de6de2f2ba150bc424f08767301",
"text": "The benefit of the 401K and IRAs are that reallocating and re balancing are easy. They don't want you to move the funds every day, but you are not locked in to your current allocations. The fact that you mentioned in a comment that you also have a Roth IRA means that you should look at all retirements as a whole. Look at what options you have in the 401K and also what options you have with the IRA. Then determine the overall allocation between bonds, stocks, international, REIT, etc. Then use the mix of funds in the IRA and 401K to meet that goal. Asking if the 401K should be small and mid cap only can't be answered without knowing not just your risk tolerances but the total money in the 401K and IRA. Pick an allocation, map the available funds to that allocation. Rebalance every year. But review the allocation in a few years or after a life event such as: change of job, getting married, having kids, or buying a house.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3a06e2230f0a32d5ad721d1d6602a9af",
"text": "\"In case other people arrive at this page wondering whether they should enable automatic reinvestment of dividends and capital gains for taxable (non-retirement) accounts (which is what I was searching for when I first arrived on this page): You might want to review https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Reinvesting_dividends_in_a_taxable_account and http://www.fivecentnickel.com/2011/01/26/why-you-shouldnt-automatically-reinvest-dividends/. The general idea is that--assuming you plan to regularly manually rebalance your portfolio to ensure that all of the \"\"pieces of the pie\"\" are the relative sizes that you want--there are approaches you can use to minimize taxes (and also fees, although at Vanguard I don't think that's a concern) if you choose a \"\"SpecID cost basis\"\" and manual reinvestment. Then you can go to \"\"Change your dividends and capital gains distribution elections\"\" at https://personal.vanguard.com/us/DivCapGainAccountSelection.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fbd7141c4bc604e0757f190f9e0f26c9",
"text": "\"I assume by that you mean gradually buying the same mix of funds over time. If that's the case, there is no rational reason to do this. Dollar-cost averaging is an artifact of the way most people fund their 401(k). I would not consider it a viable \"\"strategy\"\". (Neither does Wikipedia) Let's say you have $100,000 that you add $10,000 at a time. When you add money, one of three things can happen: Since you can't predict the future, there's no mathematical justification for buying in segments. There's just as much chance that your funds will be worth more or less, so on average it should make little to no difference. In fact, given the time value of money there is a slight advantage to investing it all now so you can capture any future returns. You can always rebalance later to capture gains on some funds and purchase funds that are down to (hopefully) catch them on a rebound.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "07879fbd5435f8dae93d0837a5e1bb5e",
"text": "As a general rule, diversification means carrying sufficient amounts in cash equivalents, stocks, bonds, and real estate. An emergency fund should have six months income (conservative) or expenses (less conservative) in some kind of cash equivalent (like a savings account). As you approach retirement, that number should increase. At retirement, it should be something like five years of expenses. At that time, it is no longer an emergency fund, it's your everyday expenses. You can use a pension or social security to offset your effective monthly expenses for the purpose of that fund. You should five years net expenses after income in cash equivalents after retirement. The normal diversification ratio for stocks, bonds, and real estate is something like 60% stocks, 20% bonds, and 20% real estate. You can count the equity in your house as part of the real estate share. For most people, the house will be sufficient diversification into real estate. That said, you should not buy a second home as an investment. Buy the second home if you can afford it and if it makes you happy. Then consider if you want to keep your first home as an investment or just sell it now. Look at your overall ownership to determine if you are overweighted into real estate. Your primary house is not an investment, but it is an ownership. If 90% of your net worth is real estate, then you are probably underinvested in securities like stocks and bonds. 50% should probably be an upper bound, and 20% real estate would be more diversified. If your 401k has an employer match, you should almost certainly put enough in it to get the full match. I prefer a ratio of 70-75% stocks to 25-30% bonds at all ages. This matches the overall market diversification. Rebalance to stay in that range regularly, possibly by investing in the underweight security. Adding real estate to that, my preference would be for real estate to be roughly a quarter of the value of securities. So around 60% stocks, 20% bonds, and 20% real estate. A 50% share for real estate is more aggressive but can work. Along with a house or rental properties, another option for increasing the real estate share is a Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT). These are essentially a mutual fund for real estate. This takes you out of the business of actively managing properties. If you really want to manage rentals, make sure that you list all the expenses. These include: Also be careful that you are able to handle it if things change. Perhaps today there is a tremendous shortage of rental properties and the vacancy rate is close to zero. What happens in a few years when new construction provides more slack? Some kinds of maintenance can't be done with tenants. Also, some kinds of maintenance will scare away new tenants. So just as you are paying out a large amount of money, you also aren't getting rent. You need to be able to handle the loss of income and the large expense at the same time. Don't forget the sales value of your current house. Perhaps you bought when houses were cheaper. Maybe you'd be better off taking the current equity that you have in that house and putting it into your new house's mortgage. Yes, the old mortgage payment may be lower than the rent you could get, but the rent over the next thirty years might be less than what you could get for the house if you sold it. Are you better off with minimal equity in two houses or good equity with one house? I would feel better about this purchase if you were saying that you were doing this in addition to your 401k. Doing this instead of your 401k seems sketchy to me. What will you do if there is another housing crash? With a little bad luck, you could end up underwater on two mortgages and unable to make payments. Or perhaps not underwater on the current house, but not getting much back on a sale either. All that said, maybe it's a good deal. You have more information about it than we do. Just...be careful.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bb03f6138adbaa94717ac50bc9a5fc1b",
"text": "\"When you hear advice to buy index funds, that usually comes with two additional pieces of investment discipline advice that are important: These two elements are important to give you relative predictability in your outcome 20 years from now. In this old blog post of mine I linked to Warren Buffett talking about this, also mentioned it in a comment on another answer: http://blog.ometer.com/2008/03/27/index-funds/ It's perfectly plausible to do poorly over 20 years if you buy 100% stocks at once, without dollar-cost averaging or rebalancing. It's very very very plausible to do poorly over 10 years, such as the last 10 in fact. Can you really say you know your financial situation in 20-30 years, and for sure won't need that money? Because predictability is important, I like buying a balanced fund and not \"\"pure stocks\"\": http://blog.ometer.com/2010/11/10/take-risks-in-life-for-savings-choose-a-balanced-fund/ (feel a little bad linking to my blog, but retyping all that into this answer seems dumb!) Here's another tip. You can go one step past dollar cost averaging and try value averaging: http://www.amazon.com/Value-Averaging-Strategy-Investment-Classics/dp/0470049774 However, chances are you aren't even going to be good about rebalancing if it's done \"\"by hand,\"\" so personally I would not do value averaging unless you can find either a fund or a financial advisor to do it for you automatically. (Finance Buff blog makes a case for a financial advisor, in case you like that more than my balanced fund suggestion: http://thefinancebuff.com/the-average-investor-should-use-an-investment-advisor-how-to-find-one.html) Like rebalancing, value averaging makes you buy more when you're depressed about the market and less when it's exciting. It's hard. (Dollar cost averaging is easily done by setting up automatic investment, of course, so you don't have to do it manually in the way you would with value averaging.) If you read the usual canonical books on index funds and efficient markets it's easy to remember the takeaway that nobody knows whether the market will go up or down, and yes you won't successfully time the market. But what you can do successfully is use an investment discipline with risk control: assume that the market will fluctuate, that both up and down are likely and possible, and optimize for predictability in light of that. Most importantly, optimize to take your emotions and behavior out of the picture. Some disciplines for example are: there are dozens out there, many of them snake oil, I think these I mentioned are valid. Anyway, you need some form of risk control, and putting all your money in stocks at once doesn't give you a lot of risk control. There's no real need to get creative. A balanced fund that uses index funds for equity and bond portions is a great choice.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "000c45b503d857f5f81da23d773a0aae",
"text": "(a) 5 funds for $15K is not too many or too few ? A bit high as I'd wonder if you've thought of how you'll rebalance the funds over time so you aren't investing too much in a particular market segment. I'd also question if you know what kinds of fees you may have with those funds as some of Vanguard's index funds had fees if the balance is under $10K that may change how much you'll be paying. From Vanguard's site: We charge a $20 annual account service fee for each Vanguard fund with a balance of less than $10,000 in an account. This fee doesn’t apply if you sign up for account access on Vanguard.com and choose electronic delivery of statements, confirmations, and Vanguard fund reports and prospectuses. This fee also doesn’t apply to members of Flagship®, Voyager Select®, and Voyager Services®. So, if you don't do the delivery this would be an extra $100/year that I wonder if you factored that into things here. (b) Have I diversified my portfolio too much or not enough ? Perhaps I am missing something that would be recommended for the portfolio of this kind with this goal. Both, in my opinion. Too much in the sense that you are looking at Morningstar's style box to pick a fund for this box and that which I'd consider consolidating on one hand yet at the same time I notice that you are sticking purely to US stocks and ignoring international funds. I do think taxes may be something you haven't considered too much as stocks will outgrow most of those funds and trigger capital gains that you don't mention at all. (c) If not my choice of my portfolio, where would you invest $15K under similar circumstances and similar goals. What is the goal here? You state that this is your first cash investment but don't state if this is for retirement, a vacation in 10 years, a house in 7 years or a bunch of other possibilities which is something to consider. If I consider this as retirement investments, I'd like pick 1 or 2 funds known for being tax-efficient that would be where I'd start. So, if a fund goes down 30%, that's OK? Do you have a rebalancing strategy of any kind? Do you realize what taxes you may have even if the fund doesn't necessarily have gains itself? In not stating a goal, I wonder how well do you have a strategy worked out for how you'll sell off these funds down the road at some point as something to ponder.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8cb7eb913f9f29b9425752068c1fd065",
"text": "\"From http://blog.ometer.com/2008/03/27/index-funds/ , Lots of sensible advisers will tell you to buy index funds, but importantly, the advice is not simply \"\"buy index funds.\"\" There are at least two other critical details: 1) asset allocation across multiple well-chosen indexes, maintained through regular rebalancing, and 2) dollar cost averaging (or, much-more-complex-but-probably-slightly-better, value averaging). The advice is not to take your single lump sum and buy and hold a cap-weighted index forever. The advice is an investment discipline which involves action over time, and an initial choice among indexes. An index-fund-based strategy is not completely passive, it involves some active risk control through rebalancing and averaging. If you'd held a balanced portfolio over the last ten years and rebalanced, and even better if you'd dollar cost averaged, you'd have done fine. Your reaction to the last 10 years incidentally is why I don't believe an almost-all-stocks allocation makes sense for most people even if they're pretty young. More detail in this answer: How would bonds fare if interest rates rose? I think some index fund advocacy and books do people a disservice by focusing too much on the extra cost of active management and why index funds are a good deal. That point is true, but for most investors, asset allocation, rebalancing, and \"\"autopilotness\"\" of their setup are more important to outcome than the expense ratio.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "338626ea8f640e3e473a95c5587d7eb9",
"text": "Yours two funds are redundant. Both are designed to have a mix of bonds and stocks and allow you to put all your money in them. Pick the one that has the lowest fees and stick with that (I didn't look at the funds you didn't select...they didn't look great either). Although all your funds have high fees, some are higher than others, so don't ignore fees. When you have decided on your portfolio weights, prioritize your money thus: Contribute enough to your 401(k) to get the full match from your employer Put everything else toward paying off that credit card until you have 0 balance. It's ok to use the card, but let it be little enough that you pay your statement balance off each month so you pay no interest. Then set aside some savings and invest any retirement money into a Roth IRA. At your income level your taxes are low so Roth is better than traditional IRA or 401(k). If you max out your Roth, put any other retirement savings in your 401(k).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "74a1089bb1d601ec2114c0ed79ffc620",
"text": "I still don't see the point of this software; rebalancing frequently is a waste of money (through fees). If you invest in index funds, you don't have to rebalance at all--effectively, the fund is doing it for you, and since they can generally trade more efficiently than individual investors can, that's a win. The Coverdell ESA is a great example. There's a maximum contribution amount, just as there are for almost any tax-exempt account. A decent financial adviser could help you plan how much to contribute to which accounts, at what time, and when you can/should start to withdraw from them.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f0e35575aa64bebb6e39286109ddf921",
"text": "\"Having worked for a financial company for years, my advice is to stay away from all the \"\"Freedom Funds\"\" offered. They're a new way for Fidelity to justify charging a higher management fee on those particular funds. That extra 1% or so a year is great for making the company money; it will kill your rate of return over the next 25+ years you're putting money into your retirement account. All these funds do is change the percentage of your funds in stocks vs. more fixed investments (bonds, etc.) so you have a higher percentage in stocks while you're young and slowly move the percentage more towards fixed as you get older. If you take a few hours every 5 years to re-balance your portfolio and just slowly shift more money towards fixed investments, you'll achieve the same thing WITHOUT the extra annual fee. So how much difference are we talking here? Let's do a quick example. Based on your salary of $70k and a 4% match by your company, you'll have $5,600 a year to put in your 401(k) (your 4% plus matched 4%). I'll also assume an 8% annual return for both funds. Here is what that 1% extra service charge will cost you: Fund with a 1% service charge: Annual Fee Paid Year 1 - $60.00 Annual Fee Paid Year 25 (assuming 8% growth in assets) - $301.00 Total Fees Year 1 through 25: $3,782 Fund with a 2% service charge: Annual Fee Paid Year 1 - $121.00 Annual Fee Paid Year 25 (assuming 8% growth in assets) - $472.00 Total Fees Year 1 through 25: $6,489 That's a total of $2,707 in extra fees over 25 years on just the investment you make this year! Next year if you invest the same amount in your 401k that will be another $2,707 paid over 25 years to the management company. This pattern repeats EACH year you pay the higher management fee. Trust me, if you invest that money in stock instead of paying it as fees, you'll have a whole lot more money saved when it's time to retire. My advice, pick a percentage you're comfortable with in stocks at your age, maybe 85 - 90%, and pick the stock funds with the lowest management fees (the remaining 10 - 15% should go into a fixed fund). Make sure you pick at least some of your stock money, I do 20 - 25%, and select a diverse (lots of different countries) international fund. For any retirement money you plan to save above the 4% getting matched by your company, set up a Roth IRA. That will give you the freedom to invest in any stocks or funds you want. Find some low-cost index funds (such as VTI for stocks, and BND for bonds) and put your money in those. Invest the same amount every month, automatically, and your cost average will work itself out through up markets and down. Good luck!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7129104fb2ab770f186c5882f2e6074c",
"text": "\"when the index is altered to include new players/exclude old ones, the fund also adjusts The largest and (I would say) most important index funds are whole-market funds, like \"\"all-world-ex-US\"\", or VT \"\"Total World Stock\"\", or \"\"All Japan\"\". (And similarly for bonds, REITS, etc.) So companies don't leave or enter these indexes very often, and when they do (by an initial offering or bankruptcy) it is often at a pretty small value. Some older indices like the DJIA are a bit more arbitrary but these are generally not things that index funds would try to match. More narrow sector or country indices can have more of this effect, and I believe some investors have made a living from index arbitrage. However well run index funds don't need to just blindly play along with this. You need to remember that an index fund doesn't need to hold precisely every company in the index, they just need to sample such that they will perform very similarly to the index. The 500th-largest company in the S&P 500 is not likely to have all that much of an effect on the overall performance of the index, and it's likely to be fairly correlated to other companies in similar sectors, which are also covered by the index. So if there is a bit of churn around the bottom of the index, it doesn't necessarily mean the fund needs to be buying and selling on each transition. If I recall correctly it's been shown that holding about 250 stocks gives you a very good match with the entire US stock market.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
fc3fb2167dfaf2f70cd60053259faefb
|
Can buying REIT's be compared to investing in Real Estate?
|
[
{
"docid": "7463e6b01c2f38e523cd6ba482a29b8a",
"text": "\"A couple of distinctions. First, if you were to \"\"invest in real estate\"\" were you planning to buy a home to live in, or buy a home to rent out to someone else? Buying a home as a primary residence really isn't \"\"investing in real estate\"\" per se. It's buying a place to live rather than renting one. Unless you rent a room out or get a multi-family unit, your primary residence won't be income-producing. It will be income-draining, for the most part. I speak as a homeowner. Second, if you are buying to rent out to someone else, buying a single home is quite a bit different than buying an REIT. The home is a lot less liquid, the transaction costs are higher, and all of your eggs are in one basket. Having said that, though, if you buy one right and do your homework it can set you on the road for a very comfortable retirement.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9e2514f7b41ead8b0f37d702fcf7fbd2",
"text": "well yes but you should also begin to understand the sectoral component of real estate as a market too in that there can be commercial property; industrial property and retail property; each of which is capable of having slightly (tho usually similar of course) different returns, yields, and risks. Whereas you are saving to buy and enter into the residential property market which is different again and valuation principles are often out of kilter here because Buying a home although exposing your asset base to real estate risk isnt usually considered an investment as it is often made on emotional grounds not strict investment criteria.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "2669fc66733ed6fbfa361a18d255cba9",
"text": "Besides the long-term concern about which is cheaper, which has already been addressed by other answers, consider your risk exposure. Owning property has financial risks associated with it, just like owning stocks or bonds. The risk-related downsides of owning a home as an asset include: The risk-related upsides of owning a home as an asset include: Taking on some risk can save you (or earn you) money in the long run (that's why people buy risky stocks, after all) but consider how well you're equipped to handle that risk before you rush out to buy on a naive analysis of what's cheaper.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d18af34075798769df46f3517dde7d05",
"text": "To round out something that @Chris W. Rea pointed out, the business that a REIT is in will be either A) Equity REIT... property management, B) mortgage REIT... lending, or C) hybrid REIT (both). A very key point about why REITs broadly have been struggling lately, (and this would show up in the REIT indices/ETFs you've linked to,) is linked to the REIT business models. For an Equity REIT, they borrow money at the going rate (let's say ~4.5% for commercial-scale loans), and use that to take out mortgages on physical properties. If a property rents for $15K per month, and they can take out a $1.8 million loan at $9,000 per month, then their business is around managing maintenance, operating expenses, and taxes on that $6,000 per month margin. For a mortgage REIT, they borrow funds as a highly qualified borrower, (again let's say ~4.5%), and lend those funds back out at a higher rate. The basic concept is that if you borrow $10 million at 4.5% for 30 years, you need to pay it back at $50,668 per month. If you can lend it out reliably at 5%, you collect $53,682 per month... a handy $3,000 per month. The cheaper you can get money at (below 4.5%) and the higher you can lend it at (above 5%), the better your margin is. The worry is that both REIT business models are very highly dependent on the cost of borrowing money. With the US Fed changing its bond-buying/QE/stimulus activity, the prevailing interest rates are likely to go up. While this has its benefits (inflation), it also will make it more expensive for these types of companies to do business.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f954722876bfa4acb9331c336341e5db",
"text": "As other answers have pointed out, professional real estate investors do own residential investment properties. However, small residential units typically are not owned by professional real estate investors as your experience confirms. This has a fairly natural cause. The size of the investment opportunity is insufficient to warrant the proper research/due diligence to which a large investment firm would have to commit if it wanted to properly assess the potential of a property. For a small real estate fund managing, say, $50 MM, it would take 100 properties at a $500K valuation in order to fully invest the funds. This number grows quickly as we decrease the average valuation to reflect even smaller individual units. Analogously, it is unlikely that you will find large institutional investors buying stocks with market caps of $20 MM. They simply cannot invest a large enough portion of total AUM to make the diligence make economic sense. As such, institutional real estate money tends to find its way into large multi-family units that provide a more convenient purchase size for a fund.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d16189759e51343e7ecb4ac89cf8ce81",
"text": "would buying the stock of a REIT qualify as a 'Like-Kind' exchange? Short answer, no. Long answer, a 1031 (Starker) exchange only applies to real estate. From the Wikipedia page on the topic: To qualify for Section 1031 of the Internal Revenue Code, the properties exchanged must be held for productive use in a trade or business, or for investment. Stocks, bonds, and other properties are listed as expressly excluded by Section 1031 of the Internal Revenue Code, although securitized properties are not excluded. A REIT, being stock in a real estate company, is excluded from Section 1031.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8e0db68e6cc4cd7e8486bf6496e30c1b",
"text": "With out a doubt: commercial real estate. Those that have significant amounts of money, and want to make lots more usually end up investing a chunk of their portfolio in commercial real estate. Everyone finds a way to make money elsewhere, but there’s no comparison to the incentives and returns in real estate when you have tens or hundreds of millions of $ at your disposal. Have money, make money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "31c5ac8c41c0019f73a79c19208dd61e",
"text": "Have you considered a self-directed IRA to invest, rather than the stock market or publicly traded assets? Your IRA can actually own direct title to real estate, loan money via secured or unsecured promissory notes much like a hard money loan or invest into shares of an entity that invests in real estate. The only nuance is that the IRA holder is responsible for finding and deciding upon the investment vehicle. Just an option outside of the normal parameters, if you have an existing IRA or old 401(k) or other qualified plan, this might be an option for you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "efbb304b34f82e85b8b06a3c4e46874f",
"text": "\"Okay. An ETF is an \"\"Exchange Traded Fund\"\". It trades like a stock, on the stock market. Basically by buying one ETF, you can have ownership in the underlying companies that make up the ETF. So, if you buy QCLN, a green energy ETF, you own Tesla, First Solar Inc, SunPower Corporation, Vivint Solar, Advanced energy industries and a bunch of other companies that are involved in clean energy. It allows you to gain exposure to a sector without having to buy individual companies. There are ETFs for lots of different things. Technology ETFs, Healthcare ETFs, Consumer Staples ETFs, Utilities ETFs, etc. REITS are essentially the same thing, except they own real estate.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "526b49773d4cadf21e72433fba36f526",
"text": "It's not an easy calculation so I made this demonstration that compares a fixed investment with a 100% mortgage, for a simple case. (Obviously if you lessen the mortgage with a deposit it's somewhere between the extremes.) The demonstrations shows some definite differences at higher interest rates. You can probably decipher the calculations in the code if you're interested. It's intended to be legible. http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/BuyOrRentInvestmentReturnCalculator/",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e725542c1d026fca1da7d80aedc71bca",
"text": "I plotted your figures in my Buy or Rent app. It compares the equity of buying or renting by calculating what your mortgage payment would be and comparing the alternative case if you rented and invested an equivalent amount. Clearly for the amounts you specified it is better to buy, but if you change the amounts and interest or property appreciation you can see the equity effects.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "46c9f0d3d1b4ccabea1124258eda375c",
"text": "\"You're \"\"onto\"\" something. Investing in real estate was not a bad idea about 10-15 years ago, when stocks were high, and real estate was not. On the other hand, by about 2006, BOTH stocks and real estate were high, and should have been avoided. And around 1980, both were LOW, and should have been bought. I expand this construct to include gold and oil. Around 2005, these were relatively low, and should have been bought over stocks and real estate. On the other hand, ALL FOUR are high right now, and offer comparable dangers.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d006258069669f318941d0f314281530",
"text": "Your experience is anecdotal (outside Australia things are different). There are many companies and real estate investment trusts (REITs) that own residential properties (as well as commercial in many cases to have a balanced portfolio). They are probably more common in higher-density housing like condos, apartment buildings, flats, or whatever you like to call them, but they are certainly part of the market for single family units in the suburbs as well. What follows is all my own opinion. I have managed and rented a couple of properties that I had lived in but wasn't ready to sell yet when I moved out. In most cases, I wish I would have sold sooner, rather than renting them out. I think that there are easier/less risky ways to get a good return on your money. Sometimes the market isn't robust enough to quickly sell when it's time to move, and some people like the flexibility of having a property that a child could occupy instead of moving back in at home. I understand those points of view even if I disagree with them.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3da43b5fef21f1219c04418d4457f804",
"text": "\"I work for an international real estate consulting firm in Shanghai. After graduation I worked in their Research Department for two years before switching to Commercial Brokerage 3 months ago. Since my background was in Economics, I had to learn a lot about how the industry worked. I found this book to be very helpful: \"\"Commercial Real Estate Analysis & Investments\"\" by David Geltner. I will admit that it's probably more than what you want to know, but it seriously gives an in depth breakdown of the entire industry. About one year into starting, a major Real Estate iBank commissioned our company to due diligence on an office building acquisition in Shanghai. I was the only person capable of doing it as everyone else was either busy or couldn't speak English properly. With 1 year under my belt in Research and that book, I took the entire thing on. Had to walk into that meeting by myself with all the big wigs from New York, London, Hong Kong and Shanghai questioning every single number and assumption. I fucking nailed it. While credit towards understanding the market through work is deserved, a lot of the development of that report came from constantly consulting that book. It's worth every penny if your interested in commercial real estate investment. That being said, if you want to track deals, the best place is called Real Estate Capital Analytics. Unfortunately you have to fork over a decent amount of cash to get access. For your situation I would recommend the following: - \"\"The Urban Land Institute & PwC Emerging Trends in Real Estate\"\": I believe you need to be a member but I can always find it online for free. - Brokerage firms: I work in one and we cover residential, commercial and retail reports on cities throughout the world (I actually wrote the ones for China for two years). You can find a wealth of information in them. If you are seriously looking at buying with capital, call up the research department and ask if they have some time to discuss the market face to face; if you don't have capital, they won't talk to you. Fortunately however, most let you download their reports for free from their website so here's the list of the major ones in the US: CBRE, Colliers, CRESA, Cushman & Wakefield, Jones Lang LaSalle, etc. - The Loop - www.loopnet.com has a wealth of information from Commercial properties on the market to previous deals. Please let me know if I can further advise.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8ad733f3555fc53581d86d18951d3956",
"text": "\"If you're trying to hedge the ups and downs of your local residential real estate market, a REIT fund holding commercial properties across the country is not the ideal match. Here's a comparison of an index tracking single-family home prices in one region (Los Angeles) and VNQ (another popular REIT fund). There's some correlation but there's clearly different magnitudes and sometimes different directions. With a national home price index, the correlation is only 68%, and it would be lower for individual cities. You could still use it for hedging, but there's significant \"\"tracker error\"\" risk to be considered. Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with any investment that would be a better match for individual residential markets. So, if you decide to use this, I'd also adjust the level of exposure to get a closer result. E.g. using approx. 50% VNQ and 50% cash results in a closer result after 2 years (compared to national single-family home price changes) than either 0% VNQ and 100% cash, or 100% VNQ and 0% cash.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a0cd7730d095a4ebac6e95aabb354f31",
"text": "Buying a property and renting it out can be a good investment if it matches your long term goals. Buying an investment property is a long term investment. A large chunk of your money will be tied up with the property and difficult to access. If you put your money into dividend producing stocks you can always sell the stock and have your money back in a matter of days this is not so with a property. (But you can always do a Home equity line of credit (HELOC)) I would also like to point out landlording is not a passive endeavor as JohnFx stated dealing with a tenant can be a lot of work. This is not work you necessarily have to deal with, it is possible to contract with a property management company that would place tenants and take care of those late night calls. Property management companies often charge 10% of your monthly rent and will eat a large portion of your profits. It could be worth the time and headache of tenant relations. You should build property management into you expenses anyway in case you decide to go that route in the future. There are good things about owning an investment property. It can produce returns in a couple of ways. If you choose this route it can be lucrative but be sure to do your homework. You must know the area you are investing very well. Know the rent, and vacancy rates for Single family homes, look at multifamily homes as a way of mitigating risk(if one unit is vacant the others are still paying).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3bcc297d2ceaa81a2066b4adbf028eab",
"text": "\"Other individuals answered how owning an REIT compares to an individual real estate investment, but did not answer your second question as readily, \"\"are REITs a good option to generate passive income for awhile?\"\". The \"\"awhile\"\" part is quite important in answering this question. If your intentions are to invest for a relatively short time period (say, 7 years or less), it may be especially advantageous to invest in a REIT. The foremost advantage comes from significantly lower transaction fees (stock/ETF trades are practically/potentially free today) compared to purchasing real estate, which involves inspection+titling fees/taxes/broker fees, which in a round-trip transaction (purchase and sale) would come to ~10%. The secondary advantage to owning a REIT is they are much more liquid than a property. If you wanted to sell your investment at a given point in time, you can easily log into your brokerage and execute your transaction, while liquidating an investment property will take time on market/potentially tossing tenants/fixing up place, etc. On the other hand, illiquid investments have generally yielded higher historical returns according to past research.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
2fb6a8aa11d26cb4df8b86e1264741d3
|
What does a Dividend “will not be quoted ex” mean?
|
[
{
"docid": "7cd658efe13f546416355d54366b9a68",
"text": "\"The ex indicator is meant to be a help for market participants. On the ex-day orders will go into a different order book, the ex order book, which at the start of the ex day will be totally empty, i.e. no orders from the non-ex day book have been copied over. Why does this help? Well imagine you had a long-standing buy order in the book, well below the current price, and now the share price halves due to a 2-for-1 split, would you want to see your order executed? If so, your order should have gone into the ex-book which is only active on the ex-day (and orders in the ex book are usually copied over to the normal book on the day after the ex-day but this is exchange-specific). Think of it as an additional safety net to tell the exchange: \"\"I know what I'm doing: I want to buy this stock totally overpriced after the 2-for-1 split\"\". Now some exchanges and/or some securities (mostly derivatives) linked with the security in question don't have this notion of ex or the ex-book, and they will tell you by \"\"will not be quoted ex\"\" or \"\"the ex indicator is missing\"\". In your case (SNE) it is a sponsored ADR, the ex-date was Mar 28 2016, one day before the ex date of the Japanese original. According to my understanding of NYSE rules, there is no specific rule for or against omitting the ex-indicator. It seems to be a decision on a case by case basis. Looking through the dividends of other Japanese ADRs I drew the conclusion none of them have an ex-book and so all of them are announced as: \"\"Will not be quoted ex by the exchange\"\". Again, this is based on my observations.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7eb7730a7c26c05af8e6b6c769e9e020",
"text": "\"One occastion where \"\"will not be quoted ex\"\" is used is when a corporate action is occurring such as a spin-off. In such a case, the rights to, and the spin-off itself may be quoted separately on the home country exchange. However, if the company is based abroad, it may not be worth the expense for them to have an additional securities listing on the local (US) exchange. For example: In November 2016, Yamana Gold (TSX: YRI, NYSE: AUY) announced it will have an initial public offering of a spin-off (Brio Gold, to be listed on TSX as BRIO). Existing shareholders received a right to one share of the spin-off for every 16 shares they held of YRI (or AUY). These rights were separately traded in advance of the IPO of the spin-off on TSX under \"\"YRI.RT\"\", but the prospectus they stated that the rights \"\"will not be quoted ex\"\" on NYSE, i.e. there was no separate listing on NYSE for these rights. The wording seems counter-intuitive, but I suspect that is the attorneys who were preparing the prospectus used those specific words as they may have a very specific meaning (e.g. from a statute or previous case).\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "4cd52462210155725b224dd03e71f866",
"text": "\"Why do these stories use the word \"\"avoid\"\" instead of \"\"delay\"\". It's only \"\"avoided\"\" if they never bring the money into the US and instead find some way to spend it off shore. If their stockpile gets too big, investors are going to want some sort of return.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "99825cc0512d53c6007815c9a8faf37e",
"text": "The ex-dividend date is the first date on which you may sell without losing your dividend. In this case that date is August 5th (thanks, Victor). The price opens on the ex-dividend date lower than it closed on the previous day (by the amount of the dividend). Therefore you may sell any time on August 5th (including during pre-market trading) and still get the dividend. You must be the owner of the stock as of the end of after-hours trading on the 4th (and therefore overnight) in order to get the dividend. Intel's Dividend Dates The record date isn't important to your trading decision.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "efb66dcd4b165d602a86a88e6d70d4de",
"text": "You only have to hold the shares at the opening of the ex-dividend date to get the dividends. So you can actually sell the shares on ex-dividend date and still get the dividends. Ex-dividend date occurs before the record date and payment date, so you will get the dividend even if you sold before the record date.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aa896ef199e1088f7bdc3a379dbc2767",
"text": "Less shares outstanding means that, holding the dividend per share constant you would have a lower total dividend expenditure. The more likely outcome is that, if you want to return capital to shareholders through a dividend, you just pay a higher amount per share.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "972477431e58893d9d8e5cb7f9dea618",
"text": "\"Most companies are taken over. One can reasonably guess that company X will be taken over for a price P, at some future point in time. Then the company has a value today, that is less than price P, by a large enough margin so that the investor will likely \"\"make out\"\" when the company finally is taken over at some unknown point in time. The exception is a company like Microsoft or Apple that basically grow too large to be taken over. But then they eventually start paying dividends when they become \"\"mature.\"\" Again, the trick, during the non-dividend paying period (e.g. ten or fifteen years ago) is to guess what dividends will be paid in some future time, and price the stock low enough today so that it will be worthwhile for the buyer.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "caaa941e38ec9ee827a9992f82a54e8c",
"text": "\"Usually there are annual or semi-annual reports for a mutual fund that may give an idea for when a fund will have \"\"distributions\"\" which can cause the NAV to fall as this is when the fund passes the taxable liabilities to shareholders in the form of a dividend. Alternatively, the prospectus of the fund may also have the data on the recent distribution history that is likely what you want. If you don't understand why a fund would have a distribution, I highly suggest researching the legal structure of an open-end mutual fund where there more than a few rules about how taxes are handled for this case.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "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": "4731dfb1db064ae942c8e2fd7c36e757",
"text": "\"Dividends are declared by the board of directors of a corporation on date A, to stock holders of record on date B (a later date). These stockholders then receive the declared dividend on date C, the so-called payment date. All of these dates are announced on the first (declaration) date. If there is no announcement, no dividend will be paid. The stock typically goes down in price by approximately the amount of the dividend on the date it \"\"goes ex,\"\" but then moves in price to reflect other developments, including the possibility of another declaration/payment, three months hence. Dividends are important to some investors, especially those who live on the income. They are less important to investors who are out for capital gains (and who may prefer that the company reinvest its money to seek such gains instead of paying dividends). In actual fact, dividends are one component of \"\"total\"\" or overall return. The other component is capital gains, and the sum of the two represents your return.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "df3614b753ae87a1a270d904003756f7",
"text": "\"Yahoo's \"\"Adj Close\"\" data is adjusted for splits, but not for dividends. Despite Yahoo's webpage's footnote saying *Close price adjusted for dividends and splits. we can see empirically that the \"\"Adj Close\"\" is only adjusted for splits. For example, consider Siemens from Jan 27, 2017 to Mar 15, 2017: The Adj Close adjusts for splits: On any particular day, the \"\"Adj Close\"\" is equal to the \"\"Close\"\" price divided by the cumulative product of all splits that occurred after that day. If there have been no splits after that day, then the \"\"Adj Close\"\" equals the \"\"Close\"\" price. Since there is a 2-for-1 split on Mar 14, 2017, the Adj Close is half the Close price for all dates from Jan 27, 2017 to Mar 13, 2017. Note that if Siemens were to split again at some time in the future, the Adj Close prices will be readjusted for this future split. For example, if Siemens were to split 3-for-1 tomorrow, then all the Adj Close prices seen above will be divided by 3. The Adj Close is thus showing the price that a share would have traded on that day if the shares had already been split in accordance with all splits up to today. The Adj Close does not adjust for dividends: Notice that Siemens distributed a $1.87 dividend on Feb 02, 2017 and ~$3.74 dividend on Jan 30, 2017. If the Adj Close value were adjusted for these dividends then we should expect the Adj Close should no longer be exactly half of the Close amount. But we can see that there is no such adjustment -- the Adj Close remains (up to rounding) exactly half the Close amount: Note that in theory, the market reacts to the distribution of dividends by reducing the trading price of shares post-dividend. This in turn is reflected in the raw closing price. So in that sense the Adj Close is also automatically adjusted for dividends. But there is no formula for this. The effect is already baked in through the market's closing prices.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "15052046367c653d0b7d6798a687236f",
"text": "No. You can sell anytime. I am in pedantic mode, sorry, the way the question is worded implies that you can sell only if it rises. You are welcome to sell at a loss, too. Yes. The fund will not issue a dividend with every dividend it receives. It's more typical that they issue dividends quarterly. So the shares will increase by the amount of the undistributed dividends and on the ex-div date, drop by that amount. The remaining value goes up and down, of course, I am speaking only of the extra value created by the retained dividends.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b5800f63f0c10a1e5baba7f2a38d43ef",
"text": "From the hover text of the said screen; Latest dividend/dividend yield Latest dividend is dividend per share paid to shareholders in the most recent quarter. Dividend yield is the value of the latest dividend, multiplied by the number of times dividends are typically paid per year, divided by the stock price. So for Ambev looks like the dividend is inconsistantly paid and not paid every quarter.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7d5640f96bdf2bf846685c49832d2410",
"text": "Here is the definition of Ex-dividend date from the SEC: Once the company sets the record date, the stock exchanges or the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. fix the ex-dividend date. The ex-dividend date is normally set for stocks two business days before the record date. If you purchase a stock on its ex-dividend date or after, you will not receive the next dividend payment. Instead, the seller gets the dividend. If you purchase before the ex-dividend date, you get the dividend. The linked document discusses weekend, and holidays involved in the calculation. The difference between the record date and the ex-dividend is to allow for the three days of settlement.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1af8f838d7041ba6c1066ea564d306ff",
"text": "\"In the case of mutual funds, Net Asset Value (NAV) is the price used to buy and sell shares. NAV is just the value of the underlying assets (which are in turn valued by their underlying holdings and future earnings). So if a fund hands out a billion dollars, it stands to reason their NAV*shares (market cap?) is a billion dollars less. Shareholder's net worth is equal in either scenario, but after the dividend is paid they are more liquid. For people who need investment income to live on, dividends are a cheap way to hold stocks and get regular payments, versus having to sell part of your portfolio every month. But for people who want to hold their investment in the market for a long long time, dividends only increase the rate at which you have to buy. For mutual funds this isn't a problem: you buy the funds and tell them to reinvest for free. So because of that, it's a prohibited practice to \"\"sell\"\" dividends to clients.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0340e55ae44f6f61d356c797d8a3d9be",
"text": "It means a 3% return on the value of the stock. If a stock has a $10 share price, the dividend would be $0.30. Normally though, the dividends are announced as a fixed amount per share, because the share price fluctuates. If a percentage were announced, then the final cost would not be known as the share priced could change radically before the dividend date.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
80b4c707c07d67f215529a023066f7bd
|
Get financial reports on Canadian companies
|
[
{
"docid": "f8e7ca107e1a1d1f35f319f46ddcfa25",
"text": "www.sedar.com is the official site that provides access to most public securities documents and information filed by public companies and investment funds with the Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA) in the SEDAR filing system. Now, I'm guessing - I think the doc is MDA - Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations. At least this is what appears listed for many companies.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "9528e4647d83f5288834b20c80d961b0",
"text": "In addition, since you asked for Montreal, you can get the quotes directly. http://www.m-x.ca/nego_cotes_en.php",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "52bcdcdb22ca4ebc3f8a311642f32b3c",
"text": "All websites pull Statement data line by line from central databases. They get to choose which line items to pull, and sometimes they get the plus/minus wrong and sometimes the Statements they recreate don't add up. Nothing you can do about it. All the sites have problems. I personally think the best is Morningstar eg http://financials.morningstar.com/income-statement/is.html?t=POT®ion=can&culture=en-US Use these summary sites at the start of your decision process, but later confirm the facts straight from the Edgar or Sedar for Cdn companies http://www.sedar.com/search/search_form_pc_en.htm",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "812a21841968b8016fe9dddda33b9b22",
"text": "Is there one out there that doesn't suffer from massive survivorship bias? Most that I've looked at gather their data from discretionary reporting from the manager themselves, and many stop reporting after bad months when they aren't going to be raising capital anyway.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4fa92ad0902f38740df9ef82aa632621",
"text": "\"**[Toronto, 1 August 2014](http://www.rbc.com/newsroom/news/2014/20140801-pmi.html)** - kanadiske produsenter erfarne en ytterligere bedring i hele virksomhetsforhold i juli, ifølge den **[RBC Canadian Manufacturing Purchasing Managers Index (RBC PMI)](https://www.rbcwmfa.com/thewoogroup/)**, drevet av raskere stiger, nye ordrer og sysselsetting i begynnelsen av tredje kvartal. I mellomtiden input kostnadsinflasjon fortsatte til moderat, som i sin tur bidro til laveste veksten i produsentenes produksjon kostnader så langt i år. En månedlig undersøkelse, i samarbeid med Markit og tjenester ledende global finansiell informasjon i Supply Chain Management Association (SCMA), RBCPMI tilbyr en omfattende og tidlig indikator på trender i kanadiske industrien. På 54.3 i juli handelspartnere opp fra 53.5 i juni, overskriften RBC kanadiske Manufacturing PMI postet over nøytral 50.0 verdien for sekstende påfølgende måned. Siste lesing var høyest siden November 2013 og signaliserte en robust generell forbedring i produksjon sektor forretningsforhold. \"\"Canadas produsenter sparket av andre halvdel av 2014 sterkere fotfeste, tydelig fordel fra bedre global økonomisk aktivitet-det er oppmuntrende å se momentum,\"\" sa Paul Ferley, assisterende sjef økonom, RBC. \"\"Med den amerikanske økonomien dytter videre, vi forventer denne trenden vil fortsette.\"\" Overskriften RBC PMI gjenspeiler endringer, nye ordrer, sysselsetting, varelager og leveringstid for leverandør. Viktige funn fra juli undersøkelsen inkluderer: - Skarpeste forbedring i forretningsvilkår siden November 2013 - En pick up i produksjon og nye bestillinger vekst - Bemanningen steg for sjette etterfølgende måned Sterkere priser av produksjon og ny vekst var nøkkelen positiv innflytelse på overskriften indeksen i juli. Siste data signaliserte at produksjonsvekst i industrien akselerert for andre måned kjører og var den raskeste siden November 2013. Ny vekst også gjenvunnet fart så langt i sommer, med den siste økningen i innkommende nytt arbeid de bratteste på åtte måneder. Rapporter fra spørreundersøkelsen sitert underliggende etterspørselen og større tillit blant klienter. Videre ble nye business inntak også støttet av sterkere eksport salg i juli, med nye eksport ordre vekstraten den mest merkede siden mars. Økt etterspørsel mønstre bidro til en økning i ordrereserven arbeid over industrien sjette påfølgende måned i juli. Gjeldende periode av økende mengder uferdig arbeid er den lengste opptak av undersøkelsen for tre år, som i sin tur støttes videre produksjon jobb etableringen. Nyeste dataene viser til en solid økning i lønn tall med hastighet på vekst i sysselsettingen nådde sin sterkeste siden September 2013. Juli data indikerte at produsentene fortsatte å øke volumene inngang kjøpe i juli, og den siste utvidelsen av kjøper aktiviteten var de bratteste i 2014 hittil. Til tross for en solid økning i input kjøpe, pre-produksjon lager volumer dyppet for tredje måned kjører. I mellomtiden bestander av ferdigvarer også redusert i juli. Siste reduksjon i post-produksjon varelager var den skarpeste for 12 måneder, med noen firmaer Siterer sterkere enn forventet salg på sine fabrikker. I mellomtiden input kostnadsinflasjon lettet videre fra nær-tre år høy sett i løpet av mars. Selv om fortsatt skarp, var den siste økningen i gjennomsnittlig kostnad byrder den minste merkede siden januar. En mykere økning i input prisene i juli bidratt til svakeste økningen i produsentenes produksjon kostnader siden desember 2013. Regionale høydepunkter inkluderer: - Quebec fortsatte å registrere sterkeste oppgangen i generelle forretningsvilkår - Alle fire regioner signaliserte en økning i produksjon sysselsetting nivåer... - .. .led av Quebec og Ontario - Nye eksportere ordrer steg i alle fire regioner overvåket av undersøkelsen \"\"Canadian produsenter har laget en lyse start til tredje kvartal 2014, som fremhevet av sterkere vekst og en annen bedring salgsvolum i juli, sier Cheryl Paradowski, president og administrerende direktør, SCMA. \"\"Derfor den siste undersøkelsen tyder en avgjørende dreining mot raskere vekst over industrien i sommer, med produksjon, ny virksomhet og sysselsetting alle stiger på raskeste priser sett så langt i år. Videre er forretningsforhold bedre mot en bakgrunn av mykgjørende kostnadspress, som i sin tur bidro til laveste økningen i produsentenes produksjon kostnader siden slutten av 2013.\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4aed3075c497077d08f6a1db8c7a9b20",
"text": "\"Edgar Online has this information for companies under SEC regulations and they are reported in \"\"Form 4\"\" so that should help guide your search\"",
"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": "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": "e77cd1d257a008d29e784d3e629b0e6a",
"text": "Trading data can be had cheaply from: http://eoddata.com/products/historicaldata.aspx The SEC will give you machine readable financial statements for American companies for free, but that only goes back 3 or 4 years. Beyond that, you will have to pay for a rather expensive service like CapitalIQ or CRSP or whatever. Note that you will need considerable programming knowledge to pull this off.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4d0a5ec79a19cac0b8b3e5a05ca08dd0",
"text": "\"I would recommend \"\"How to Read a Financial Report : For Managers, Entrepreneurs, Lenders, Lawyers, and Investors\"\" by John A. Tracy for the following reasons: I also think the book would bridge the gap nicely between a broad understanding of finance and a more serious technical know-how.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f399e7e9098c6bbad3d22e8ddc292eba",
"text": "Google finance will allow you to import earnings report dates directly to your Google calendar. See screenshot with calendar import button circled in red below.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b81f264b75ed4b2f443dd090e38ece66",
"text": "Every listed company needs to maintain book of accounts, when you are investing in companies you would have to look at what is stated in the books and along with other info decide to invest in it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a99bc6c33eeaaadfb126a6526747c7ed",
"text": "\"Spend your first 50 euros on research materials. Warren Buffett got started as a boy by reading every book in the Library of Congress on investing and stock market analysis. You can research the company filings for Canadian companies at http://www.sedar.com, U.S companies at http://www.edgar.com, and European companies at https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/companies-house. Find conflicting arguments and strategies and decide for yourself which ones are right. The Motley Fool http://www.fool.ca offers articles on good stocks to add to your portfolio and why, as well as why not. They provide a balanced judgement instead of just hype. They also sell advice through their newsletter. In Canada the Globe & Mail runs a daily column on screening stocks. Every day they present a different stock-picking strategy and the filters used to reach their end list. They then show how much that portfolio would have increased or decreased as well as talking about some of the good & bad points of the stocks in the list. It's interesting to see over time a very few stocks show up on multiple lists for different strategies. These ones in my opinion are the stocks to be investing in. While the Globe's stock picks focus on Canadian and US exchanges, you might find the strategies worthwhile. You can subscribe to the digital version at http://www.theglobeandmail.com Once you have your analytical tools ready, pick any bank or stock house that offers a free practice account. Use that account and their screening tools to try out your strategies and see if you can make money picking stocks. My personal stock-picking strategy is to look for companies with: - a long uninterrupted history of paying dividends, - that are regularly increased, - and do not exceed the net profit per share of the company - and whose share price has a long history of increasing These are called unicorn companies, because there are so very few of them. Another great read is, \"\"Do Stocks Outperform Treasury Bills?\"\" by Hendrik Bessembinder. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2900447 In this paper the author looks at the entire history of the U.S. stock universe and finds that less than 4% of stocks are responsible for 100% of the wealth creation in the U.S. stock market. He discusses his strategies for picking the winners, but it also suggests that if you don't want to do any research, you could pick pretty much any stock at random, short it, and wait. I avoid mutual funds because they are a winner only for the fellas selling them. A great description on why the mutual fund industry is skewed against the investor can be found in a book called \"\"The RRSP Secret\"\" by Greg Habstritt. \"\"Unshakeable\"\" by Tony Robbins also discusses why mutual funds are not the best way to invest in stocks. The investor puts up 100% of the money, takes 100% of the risk, and gets at best 30% of the return. Rich people don't invest like that.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0426f28fe3338906029840877b17c603",
"text": "I think the OP is getting lost in designations. Sounds to me that what he wants is a 'financial advisor' not an 'investment advisor'. Does he even have investments? Does he want to be told which securities to buy? Or is he wanting advice on overall savings, insurance, tax-shelters, retirement planning, mortgages, etc. Which is a different set of skills - the financial advisor skill set. Accountants don't have that skill set. They know operating business reporting, taxes and generally how to keep it healthy and growing. They can do personal tax returns (as a favour to only the owners of the business they keep track of usually). IMO they can deal with the reporting but not the planning or optimization. But IMO the OP should just read up and learn this stuff for himself. Accreditation mean nothing. Eg. the major 'planner' brand teaches factually wrong stuff about RRSPs - which are the backbone of Canadian's finances.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "519dc6c871476bd0233b65cd144646c3",
"text": "Also, you need to figure out what sort of comparable data to use that would be best. Meaning, will you have to use just call report data or are there some publicly traded banks your size that would be good matches? I assume you'll have plenty of publicly traded companies to use. I would suggest listening to the latest earnings calls too. The analysts that asks questions of the CEOor cfo are focusing on meaningful topics that might give you ideas. For example, they may ask about energy concentrations or other issues that are meaningful in today's environment.",
"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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
431a36921b869038fe2abf62eabf0f82
|
What tax law loophole is Buffet referring to?
|
[
{
"docid": "ac70de86f7432cca214663a85920e3dc",
"text": "A Section 1256 contract is any: Non-equity options include debt options, commodity futures options, currency options, and broad-based stock index options. A broad-based stock index is based upon the value of a group of diversified stocks or securities (such as the Standard and Poor's 500 index). 60% of the capital gain or loss from Section 1256 Contracts is deemed to be long-term capital gain or loss and 40% is deemed to be short-term capital gain or loss. What this means is a more favorable tax treatment of 60% of your gains. http://www.tradelogsoftware.com/tax-topics/futures/ It's a really wierd rule (arbitraty 60% designation, so broad, etc), but section 1256 contracts get preferential tax treatment and that's what Buffett's talking about.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "57296981569f8b7f4358c2884380af9a",
"text": "\"The first article you link clearly refers to Warren Buffet and doesn't, in regard to taxes, refer in any way to Berkshire Hathaway. The second article you link is titled, \"\"Ways Professional Traders Can Save Big At Tax Time.\"\" Berkshire Hathaway is not a firm primarily engaged in trading. It is engaged in investing in companies that it feels offer long-term growth and appreciation. In some cases, their investment is in the entire company; in others, a very large percentage of its total capitalization. Trading, on the other hand, involves buying stocks, bonds, futures, etc. for near-term resale, ideally at a profit. Stock speculation is a risky and complex occupation because the direction of the markets are generally unpredictable and lack transparency. As has been mentioned above, we are confident that Berkshire Hathaway use every technique at its disposal to reduce its tax burden. I am confident, as well, that they spend considerable effort and expense to be certain that they are never discovered making errors in their tax returns.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "94252359092b4dc77e5efa300f41a9fa",
"text": "The difference is when the companies can make their own loop holes via legislation that they propose and get passed. You can make a law that only effects only one company or circumstance. Apple could sponsor a law that allows a 5% tax rate on companies that run digital downloads, sell over 5 flat screen devices, incorporated in Northern California and named after a fruit.",
"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": "80ff84f70c603c9485dcda399617bb2a",
"text": "No one pays 35%, due to the loopholes. Effective tax rates (what they ACTUALLY pay) are lower for major corps than most individuals. > Does it not make more sense to lower the corporate tax rate while reducing loop holes etc... to make the American corporation more competitive. This makes sense, but people put those loopholes in there to help themselves and they'll fight to keep them. It's such a mess of tax code.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6a79cda350d7160731ebebf084b0ff5c",
"text": "\"I believe that an understanding of the taxation system can help to understand our place in it, and how that impacts each of our personal finances. I will try to remain unbiased here but this is a somewhat subjective question, so please bear with me if you disagree on any point. Some of these tax savings are well-advertised, and can be used by many people, such as tax credits for mass-transit passes which exists in some countries. But some of these tax savings are things you never heard of before, until it winds up on the news. Why do some people seem to get tax savings that you and I cannot get, and why do those people always seem to have so much more money than us? A simplistic answer can show this in three parts: (1) The source of one's income; (2) Transaction costs; and (3) \"\"tax loopholes\"\". Tax savings occur proportionately to one's income, and if the savings apply to investment income, they occur proportionately to one's wealth. If someone living paycheck to paycheck with a minimal amount in a bank account \"\"saves tax on investment income\"\", they might reduce their taxable interest from $50 to $0. That's because they simply don't have any other investment income to reduce. All of their income comes in the form of employment, which is typically very hard to save taxes on. Most governments have a very firm grasp on the taxation of employment income, because it is a huge proportion of income in the country (and therefore has the largest amount of tax associated), and because it is very straightforward (work for someone = employment income). A more cynical person than I might point out that investment income is earned by the very wealthy, who can afford to lobby for politicians to pass favourable investment income laws. Even very straightforward tax saving opportunities may cost money to enable. The simplest example would be: if a tax saving opportunity is so complicated that an average person can't understand it themselves, then an accountant, lawyer, or banker will need to be the one to explain it. And that can cost you money. If your tax isn't so much to begin with, then the transaction costs to achieve the tax savings could be higher than the tax savings themselves. For example, most countries have tax savings / deferrals if you start a corporation. These rules typically exist to promote investment in the local economy. But someone who earns $10k in a side-business might not be able to afford the $3k in incorporation costs just to save $2k in taxes. The more income and wealth you have, the more these transaction costs become worthwhile. I'm going to generally define \"\"tax loopholes\"\" for the purposes of this answer as something where a somewhat arbitrary situation allows for taxes that a layman would consider unfair or unexpected. This often occurs with good intentions but poor legislation - the government tries to provide a benefit to a deserving group or to promote an activity, but ends up allowing another group to take advantage. For example in Canada, there existed until a few years ago tax saving rules about passing on wealth to children at lower tax rates, only when a close family member is near-death [setting up a 'testamentary trust' between a grandparent and a grandchild could in some circumstances allow that trust to be created with additional 'tax brackets', meaning more income would be taxed at a less-than top tax rate before being distributed to the grandchildren]. The rules were put in place with the idea that \"\"oh gee, a family member has died, and the dang ol' family is grieving so hard they can't distribute the wealth to the next generation for a few months on account of all the crying. We should make it so that the estate is taxed like a person, and if they earn only a little income, they have a low tax rate, and they only get taxed at the full rate if they have a lot of income\"\". Seems reasonable enough, but if a family is ready to pass on wealth at the same time as someone is nudging the bucket with their foot, a morbid discussion with your lawyer and accountant could set your children up for life with forever reduced taxes on massive inheritances. In the case of the Panama / Paradise leaks, tax savings are due to all 3 of the above: Those who have massive wealth (and therefore earn the majority of their income from investments instead of employment) can afford the transaction costs associated with taking advantage of specific \"\"tax loopholes\"\". The simplest example of which is just that income earned in a foreign country might have a lower tax rate than income earned domestically. This is often a result of \"\"cracks\"\" in the foreign tax treaties between countries, which exist generally to promote business between countries and prevent double-taxing individuals who need activity in both countries for whatever reason. Take for example the \"\"Apple loophole\"\". Apple has operations around the world. Some activity occurs in low-tax jurisdictions. Apple reports a high percentage of the value of R&D as being associated with those jurisdictions. Those branches in low-tax jurisdictions charge the high-tax branches (such as the US) with fees for use of their valuable research. So much of Apple's income is reported in those foreign jurisdictions. It won't be taxed in the US until Apple \"\"repatriates\"\" the cash back to the US. Until then, the cash sits in the foreign jurisdiction, accruing less tax. This and similar rules can be used by individuals wealthy enough to hold corporations in foreign jurisdictions with low tax rates. How each particular rule / \"\"loophole\"\" works will depend on the nature of a specific case - tax law is complex, and the rules between countries are even more so. These foreign tax loopholes are closing every year. It is getting harder and harder to hide money offshore, and it is getting less and less likely that you will be able to find a country with juuuust the right loopholes for your own offshore wealth. These types of news leaks will only help to expedite those changes.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0547d634c41c67c4e534023f63c6e5ac",
"text": "\"> A corporation should be taxed based on where it does business and not where the corporate headquarters are located. But... but.. that's the whole point of the inversions. The US government tries to claim taxes on income from revenue generated overseas. So right now if BK repatariates it's overseas earnings, the US government will double dip beyond it's fair share and tax already taxed revenue just because it was taxed by non-US governments. All BK is doing is moving their headquarters to to a more business friendly economy that doesn't do similar double dipping. That way when they repatriate overseas money they are not being forced to pay taxes unjustly like they would be in the US. They will still pay taxes in the US for earnings in the US, they just won't pay US taxes on earnings foreign earnings. I don't think you Americans get just how fucked up and hostile your tax structure is. It has nothing to do with \"\"fair share\"\".\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4aa71bc5470147597db83be59cdb3e56",
"text": "\"The scenario you mention regarding capital gains is pretty much the core of the issue. Here's a run-down from PolitiFact.com that explains it a bit. It's important to focus on it being the tax rate, not the tax amount (which I think you get, but I want to reinforce that for other readers). Basically, most of Buffett's income comes from capital gains and dividends, income from investments he makes with the money he already has. Income earned by buying and selling stocks or from stock dividends is generally taxed at 15 percent, the rate for long-term capital gains and qualified dividends. Buffett also mentioned that some of the \"\"mega-rich\"\" are hedge fund managers \"\"who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as 'carried interest,' thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate.\"\" We don't know the taxes paid by Buffett's secretary, who was mentioned by Obama but not by Buffett. Buffet's secretary would have to make a high salary, or else typical deductions (such as the child tax credit) would offset taxes owed. Let's say the secretary is a particularly well-compensated executive assistant, making adjusted income more than $83,600 in income. (Yes, that sounds like a lot to us, too, but remember: We're talking about the secretary to one of the richest people in the world.) In that case, marginal tax rates of 28 percent would apply. Then, there would be payroll taxes of 6.25 percent on the first $106,800, money that goes to Social Security, and another 1.45 percent on all income, which goes to Medicare. The secretary’s overall tax rate would be lower than 28 percent, since not all the income would be taxed at that rate, only the income above $83,600. Buffett, meanwhile, would pay very little, if anything, in payroll taxes. In the New York Times op-ed, Buffett said he paid 17.4 percent in taxes. Thinking of the secretary, it gets a little complicated, given how the tax brackets work, but basically, people who make between $100,000 and $200,000 are paying around 20 percent in federal taxes, including payroll and income taxes, according to an analysis from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. So in this case, the secretary's rate is higher because so much of Buffett's income comes from investments and is taxed at the lower capital gains rate. Here's Buffet's original Op-Ed in the NYT for those of you that aren't familiar.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5310fface8bb37b3483ae6025765a039",
"text": "\"I believe that is the purpose of write-offs aka \"\"loopholes\"\", to save people money on their taxes. The tax code is an incentive system, right now there are huge incentives for corporations to organize themselves in odd ways to avoid taxes. If we restructure the tax code, the behavior will change. No sense in blaming companies for playing by the rules.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aaa3ec379f9df134bba3510cf8516729",
"text": "Why would such a large discount make business sense to the restaurant? The legit reasons could be; Or can I assume that the restaurant is trying to avoid leaving a paper trail so that they could avoid paying tax? The illegal reasons could be;",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "22ce9d27bceb925253dd69b181e4470f",
"text": "Q: If I call a tail a leg, then how many legs does a dog have? A: 4. You can call it whatever you want, it's still a tail. The scenario is nonsense. There is a quid pro quo, the waitress served the customer and he tipped her. A $7 tip on a $24.47 check. He was generous, but misguided if he thought that this note would let the tip go untaxed. And even though the article you link is fresh, the author has the gift threshold incorrect. This year it's $14,000, and has been so since 2013. A cute story, and unlikely to be an issue for $7, but the IRS would take notice if this idea gained any traction. Two references - If Gifts Are Not Income, Why Tax Gratuities? From the Tax Court Files: Is That Money a Gift or Income?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "91bf4d21c9eafabdb90f6b9d2044efd1",
"text": "\">Taxes make money disappear from the economy. But those taxes are used to pay for labor, in most cases. The state workers that fix the roads are paid with tax money. As are all the supplies and equipment, for example. I think I understand the debt bit - If I buy a house and default on it, that money is \"\"gone\"\", but the house remains to be sold by the bank later. Only the interest is really missing, right?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6df8cd70429f5684a7e83090776d634f",
"text": "This is the point of the article. Somehow a company which is so successful has, for tax purposes, such a razor thin margin. So their taxation clearly isn't in keeping with its actual ability to pay, passing along the burden to other businesses and individuals.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "84526a5376e772e1f7468fe10d77e098",
"text": "\"Why would you give them the money and borrow it back? If you didn't give it to them in the first place you wouldn't need to borrow! It makes no sense at all. It USED to have a different use--as a tax dodge. You would buy \"\"life insurance\"\" for a low amount of coverage and way overfund it. Let the money grow and in your later years you would \"\"borrow\"\" against the extra value you had built up in the policy. Since this was a loan rather than a payout it wasn't income. When you died the tax liability went poof. Thus so long as what you had to pay in life insurance + the inefficiency of the insurance company was less than the tax rate it was a good deal. Congress closed this loophole a long time ago by prohibiting too great overfunding.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "af270b2335d6e937c9393a6935864f2f",
"text": "\"I can't find any specific loopholes listed there that he plans to close. The only use of the word is >Meanwhile, loopholes favor those with the best lobbyists. If we close loopholes and lower the tax rate, the American people and corporations will win. which is the same generic stuff he's been saying all along. I'm guessing from your name \"\"optiontrader\"\" you know a lot more about this than I do so if there's something in there that I'm missing please point me to it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7fb048d4397732c75d785459abe3dff7",
"text": "Most inversion and tax sheltering deals like this are structured whereby their US division sends any profits to their offshore division as intellectual property licensing payments, or some form of financial instrument like inter-company loans, and the interest payments just so happen to be about as large as the US profits in that particular year. Every time rules have been proposed to try and limit these sorts of arrangements, either they get killed in congress or additional loopholes are discovered and the same behavior continues.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
2b4f6fe0db1ec0105f6bf7a6378a0dd9
|
Limits and taxation of receiving gift money, in India, from a friend in Italy?
|
[
{
"docid": "eff5d5616a66d62ac0f3092c35d49274",
"text": "\"He wants to send me money, as a gift. Do you know this friend? It could easily be a scam. What I don't know is that how much money can he send and what are the taxes that would be applicable in this case? There is no limit; you have to pay taxes as per your tax brackets. This will be added as \"\"income from other sources\"\". I'll probably be using that money to invest in stock market. If the idea is you will make profits from stock market and pay this back, you need to follow the Foreign Exchange Management Act. There are restrictions on transfer of funds outside of India.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "09eb4f9f059e4efdb43ffc2f2f3b3b82",
"text": "\"You mention that \"\"A great friend and couple's family\"\" which makes me think this is a couple. For gift tax concerns, you can give a couple 2 x the gift tax exemption ($28,000 in 2015). Your example of $22k would fit in this amount. To give this money anonymously, I know that people have reached out to a pastor in the area who will deliver an envelope with the gift and not disclose the source. Talking to a pastor who has done this, he said the call came out of the blue and he was happy to be able to help.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9100a3e1cee41f47fc7d15a0ffe99996",
"text": "So I want to sell my 100 shares of AAPL to him at a price of 10 or even 1 US Dollar. Is that legal/allowed? Of course. It's your stocks - do with it what you want. if the two persons are not served by a same broker. You'll have to talk to your broker about the technicalities of the transaction. if the person who sell are US citizen and the person who buy are not, and and vice-versa Since you asked specifically about US citizenship, I'll assume you're in the US or the transaction is taking place in the US. Citizenship has nothing to do with it (except may be for economic sanctions against Russians or Iranians that may come into play). What is important is the tax residency status. Such a transfer is essentially a gift, and if you're a US tax resident (which doesn't correlate to your immigration status necessarily) - you'll have to deal with the gift tax consequences on the discount value. For example - you have 100 shares of AAPL which you sold to your friend for $1 each when the fair market value (FMV) was $501. So essentially, the friend got $50,100 value for $100. I.e.: $50K gift. Since this amount is above the annual $14K exemption - you'll have to deal with the gift tax and file gift tax return. There are also consequences for the capital gains tax for both you and your friend. I suggest you talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) about the specifics given your circumstances. If you (or the recipient) are also a foreign citizen/tax resident - then that country's laws also may affect your situation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "16975eb82ac74d9be6a9f09e50a0f753",
"text": "Yes, if you gift him with a large amount you may be liable for gift tax. I believe the current limit is still $17k per person per person per year, so between you and your spouse you could give him up to $34k per year without triggering gift tax. If you want to give a larger sum, the standard workaround is an intra-family loan. Websearch for that phrase to learn more about it, but basically you loan the money and then gift the payments on the loan. This gives him the money up front, spreading the gift over subsequent years --but it requires that you declare the interest that he is supposedly paying you as income. There is a lower limit on the interest rate for these loans, but it's a fraction of a percent so this generally isn't a significant cost. (If you are able to structure the loan as a mortgage, he may be able to deduct the interest from his taxes. That usually requires a few hundred dollars if paperwork to set up.) I've done it. It works. And one of the advantages is that it puts the exact terms of the lian on paper where everyone can agree to them, which could be useful should there be arguments later on. When doing business with friends and relatives, keeping it on a clear business contract basis is the best way to avoid destroying the friendship.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "57d4489b43813e8a8647b8eae5668e65",
"text": "From what I understand, you have money earned in US and after paying taxes that are due in the US, you have transferred a portion of this to your brother. As you have earned this money outside India, there is not tax liability of this amount in India. Your giving it to your brother would at best be treated as GIFT [and not Income]. As you are giving it to your brother there is no limit on the amount of money that can be gifted. There is no tax liability for your brother. For more details read the http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/tax/gift-tax-whatsa-gift_664238.html http://www.thehindubusinessline.in/bline/blnri/exp-tax.htm",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7eb30cb6efa624792fd394c546d3bf4d",
"text": "Like for example I use transferwise to send $x to my dad's account in India, would it show my name as the depositor ? That would depend from bank to bank, it may or may not show your name. Would it be considered as income for my dad ? Assuming your parents are Indian Residents for tax purposes. No. It would be considered as Gift. Gifts between father and son are tax free in India and there is no limit. Any special care/precaution to take before using such services ? Not really. Just to be safe, keep a copy of the transfer instruction / details of debit to you account etc, so that if there is enquiry you have all the data handy. Edit: Clarifying the comment, if you are Resident Alien in US for tax purposes, you would be liable to Gift Tax [Not your parents as they are Indian Residents and would follow Indian tax rules]. As per IRS the liability of Gift tax is on Donor subject to limit of $14000 per year per Donee. So you and your wife can gift your father and mother $14000 each. i.e. $56000 each year. Anything more will be taxable or can be reduced from the overall estate limit.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6e6eb756cc10517e78138928fe576fa8",
"text": "\"Depositum irregulare is a Latin phrase that simply means \"\"irregular deposit.\"\" It's a concept from ancient Roman contract law that has a very narrow scope and doesn't actually apply to your example. There are two distinct parts to this concept, one dealing with the notion of a deposit and the other with the notion of irregularity. I'll address them both in turn since they're both relevant to the tax issue. I also think that this is an example of the XY problem, since your proposed solution (\"\"give my money to a friend for safekeeping\"\") isn't the right solution to your actual problem (\"\"how can I keep my money safe\"\"). The currency issue is a complication, but it doesn't change the fact that what you're proposing probably isn't a good solution. The key word in my definition of depositum irregulare is \"\"contract\"\". You don't mention a legally binding contract between you and your friend; an oral contract doesn't qualify because in the event of a breach, it's difficult to enforce the agreement. Legally, there isn't any proof of an oral agreement, and emotionally, taking your friend to court might cost you your friendship. I'm not a lawyer, but I would guess that the absence of a contract implies that even though in the eyes of you and your friend, you're giving him the money for \"\"safekeeping,\"\" in the eyes of the law, you're simply giving it to him. In the US, you would owe gift taxes on these funds if they're higher than a certain amount. In other words, this isn't really a deposit. It's not like a security deposit, in which the money may be held as collateral in exchange for a service, e.g. not trashing your apartment, or a financial deposit, where the money is held in a regulated financial institution like a bank. This isn't a solution to the problem of keeping your money safe because the lack of a contract means you incur additional risk in the form of legal risk that isn't present in the context of actual deposits. Also, if you don't have an account in the right currency, but your friend does, how are you planning for him to store the money anyway? If you convert your money into his currency, you take on exchange rate risk (unless you hedge, which is another complication). If you don't convert it and simply leave it in his safe, house, car boot, etc. you're still taking on risk because the funds aren't insured in the event of loss. Furthermore, the money isn't necessarily \"\"safe\"\" with your friend even if you ignore all the risks above. Without a written contract, you have little recourse if a) your friend decides to spend the money and not return it, b) your friend runs into financial trouble and creditors make claim to his assets, or c) you get into financial trouble and creditors make claims to your assets. The idea of giving money to another individual for safekeeping during bankruptcy has been tested in US courts and ruled invalid. If you do decide to go ahead with a contract and you do want your money back from your friend eventually, you're in essence loaning him money, and this is a different situation with its own complications. Look at this question and this question before loaning money to a friend. Although this does apply to your situation, it's mostly irrelevant because the \"\"irregular\"\" part of the concept of \"\"irregular deposit\"\" is a standard feature of currencies and other legal tender. It's part of the fungibility of modern currencies and doesn't have anything to do with taxes if you're only giving your friend physical currency. If you're giving him property, other assets, etc. for \"\"safekeeping\"\" it's a different issue entirely, but it's still probably going to be considered a gift or a loan. You're basically correct about what depositum irregulare means, but I think you're overestimating its reach in modern law. In Roman times, it simply refers to a contract in which two parties made an agreement for the depositor to deposit money or goods with the depositee and \"\"withdraw\"\" equivalent money or goods sometime in the future. Although this is a feature of the modern deposit banking system, it's one small part alongside contract law, deposit insurance, etc. These other parts add complexity, but they also add security and risk mitigation. Your arrangement with your friend is much simpler, but also much riskier. And yes, there probably are taxes on what you're proposing because you're basically giving or loaning the money to your friend. Even if you say it's not a loan or a gift, the law may still see it that way. The absence of a contract makes this especially important, because you don't have anything speaking in your favor in the event of a legal dispute besides \"\"what you meant the money to be.\"\" Furthermore, the money isn't necessarily safe with your friend, and the absence of a contract exacerbates this issue. If you want to keep your money safe, keep it in an account that's covered by deposit insurance. If you don't have an account in that currency, either a) talk to a lawyer who specializes in situation like this and work out a contract, or b) open an account with that currency. As I've stated, I'm not a lawyer, so none of the above should be interpreted as legal advice. That being said, I'll reiterate again that the concept of depositum irregulare is a concept from ancient Roman law. Trying to apply it within a modern legal system without a contract is a potential recipe for disaster. If you need a legal solution to this problem (not that you do; I think what you're looking for is a bank), talk to a lawyer who understands modern law, since ancient Roman law isn't applicable to and won't pass muster in a modern-day court.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1bf53e6c27697f6de6412b09db05e702",
"text": "It depends a lot on the specific country and its laws, but generally the receiver needs to be able to proof on request that Not every payment you get is taxable income; if you owned it before, that is typically easy to verify. Note that gifts (donations are gifts) are taxable income in most countries once they are above a certain limit. In practice, law and tax authorities seldom look at that if there is no other reason to check you out, or if the amounts are not several millions at least.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3a4cc3eaf1069e19f85c4ffa4fbb2426",
"text": "From an India Tax perspective, someone may add the US aspect; As you have given your Father-In-Law [FIL] some money, and do not have loan documents, the amount your FIL has repaid will be treated as GIFT to you. Gift Tax by Father-In-Law to Son-in-Law is 100% tax free and there is no limit of amount. The funds can be got into NRO account and not in NRE account. There is limit of USD 125,000 that can be reptriated outside India. Refer the RBI Q&A 56",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "44a85d3ea44d8387f4232a5f7de85379",
"text": "From India Tax Point of view, your parents can Gift you the money. There is no tax due to this in India for your parents or for you. Transferring the funds out of India is also possible. Under the Liberalized Remittance Scheme by RBI, one can transfer upto 200,000 USD. Please check with your Bank for the exact paperwork. Typically PAN and a CA certificate mentioning the relevant clauses and certifying the purpose is required. Bank may have some more paperwork on its own.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b71820880b93dab670918282f1115cc2",
"text": "I wouldn't send it to India in the first place because their financial system is a bit sketchy, I would look into countries like Germany to send the money to you if you're looking to avoid high taxes with a very stable financial system",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "43cc8bc27d099e616f7caa21a347e45a",
"text": "No state taxes, but Italy also has a favorable treaty with the US Federal Government. Look into to lowering your federal taxes to 5% ;) its a thick read, http://www.irs.gov/businesses/international/article/0,,id=169601,00.html and also try to determine if the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion applies to you, reducing your Federal tax to ZERO on the first $95,100 earned abroad. http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/international/article/0,,id=97130,00.html but then you may be subject to a 20%+ italy tax. so maybe you should just try for the tax treaty",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b4a9f359372c7bca8b88b5456e089885",
"text": "Let's define better the situation and then analyze it: Start with: End with: Process: So B has the same amount of money, just in a different bank account, but A and C changed states. A now doesn't have money, and C does, as the result of the transaction between A, B and C. The gift tax issue I see is the transfer of money from A (you) to C (your brother). If you're a US tax resident then you have $14K exemption from gift tax per person per year. £20K is more than that, so it will be subject to the tax. The fact that a third person was involved as an intermediary is irrelevant - for the purpose of gift tax there's no distinction between using a bank for transfers or a private party. Keep in mind that paying tuition directly to the institution on behalf of your brother may help you mitigate your gift tax liability - tuition payment made on behalf of your brother is exempt from gift tax. But it has to be made directly to the institution, it cannot pass through your brother.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "902175a618268269d197835f4027f20c",
"text": "\"Under current US tax code, you can receive $14K from an unlimited number of people with no tax consequence to them. Yes, the burden is on the giver. There's an exception to most rules. If I gift you a large sum and don't fill out the required paperwork, paying the tax due, the IRS can go after the recipient for their cut. \"\"Follow the money\"\" is still going to be applied. Even if over $14K, a tax isn't always due. Form 709 is required, and will allow a credit against one's lifetime gifting, currently $5.34M. In effect, the current limits mean that 99%+ of us will never worry about this limit, just file the paperwork. Last, the 529 College Savings accounts permit a 5 year look ahead, i.e. a parent can deposit $70K to jump start her child's account. Then no gift for next 4 years.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f94662aeaa3d3dff589fa8f186152c7b",
"text": "As much as I understand you friend is giving you $100 [Say Rs 6000] as gift. There are 2 taxes; Service tax: If your friend is using Remittance service. Around 0.12% of amount Rs 6000/-. Around Rs 7.20/-. Normally deducted from Rs 6000. Gift Tax: The transfer is treated as Gift to you as its from Non-Relative, without any occasion. If the amount of Gift is more than Rs 50,000 a financial year, then you have to pay tax as per your tax slab for the entire amount. As the transfer in question is less than Rs 50,000 there is no tax liability. Further you are paying this to your friend, which again is looked upon as a Gift and if you friend receives more than the specified amount.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cf058eee9c4834b7292b367fd3c1f15a",
"text": "As much as you want. There's no tax on gifts you receive. Gift tax is on the donor, i.e.: the person giving the gift. The $100K limit is for reporting. Gifts of $100K or more per year from foreign sources must be disclosed on form 3520 attached to your tax return. But there's no tax. Read more here.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
eaf83aae90e74cebe4befd99e7028523
|
Is there a legal deadline for when your bank/brokerage has to send your tax forms to you?
|
[
{
"docid": "034e29cd4e755643f5e95ac6daae8337",
"text": "I got notice from Charles Schwab that the forms weren't being mailed out until the middle of February because, for some reason, the forms were likely to change and rather than mail them out twice, they mailed them out once. Perhaps some state tax laws took effect (such as two Oregon bills regarding tax rates for higher incomes) and they waited on that. While I haven't gotten my forms mailed to me yet, I did go online and get the electronic copies that allowed me to finish my taxes already.",
"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": "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": "b8689edb31a7e0c75924dee7d22a68e8",
"text": "As a relatively recent nonimmigrant visa holder (O1), I was able to open an ETrade brokerage account without problems. I have full tax residence in the USA so have an SSN, and a credit history so it was no problem. Later, as a greencard holder, I opened IRA accounts with them, too. Again, there were no issues as I had all the information that the IRS paperwork required at hand.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "33815eb947ceaf1d6ce9d49424d4d5eb",
"text": "As was once famously said, Our new Constitution is now established, and has an appearance that promises permanency; but in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes. — Benjamin Franklin, 1789 It's very likely that either the company or you personally is going to have to pay taxes on that money. Really the only way to avoid it would be if the company spent that money on next year's expenses, and paid the bill before the end of this year. Of course you can only do that if the recipient is willing to receive their money so far in advance, which isn't necessarily the case since they would pay more taxes this year as a result. As for whether it's better to have the company pay the tax or for you to do as your accountant suggests, there are a lot of factors that go into that equation, and my gut feeling is that your accountant already ran it both ways and is suggesting the better choice.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8d993890289505b5f6a9d42cd48978ea",
"text": "\"In Canada, for example, they are expected or required to find out. They call it, The “Know Your Client” rule, part of which is knowing your \"\"Investment knowledge and experience\"\". They say it is, \"\"to ensure their advice is suitable for you\"\". I have always been given that kind of form to fill in, when opening an account.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f60760cdf7ae4938f7de3f0c56f80baf",
"text": "Based on the statement in your question you think it should have been on the 2014 W-2 but it was included on the 2015 W-2. If you are correct, then you are asking them to correct two w-2 forms: the 2014 form and the 2015 form. You will also have to file form 1040-x for 2014 to correct last years tax forms. You will have to pay additional tax with that filing, and there could be penalties and interest. But if you directed them on the last day of the year, it is likely that the transaction actually took place the next year. You will have to look at the paperwork for the account to see what is the expected delay. You should also be able to see from the account history when it actually took place, and when the funds were credited to your account. or you could just pay the tax this year. This might be the best if there is no real difference in the result. Now if you added the sale to your taxes lat year without a corresponding tax statement from your account, that is a much more complex situation. The IRS could eventually flag the discrepancy, so you may have to adjust last year filing anyway.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "da86b2a6326a363f8c2b145ab436c8c8",
"text": "\"First of all, since you're 16 - you will not invest in anything. You cannot, you're a minor. You cannot enter contracts, and as such - you cannot transact in property. Your bank accounts are all UGMA accounts. I.e.: your guardian (or someone else who's the trustee on the account) will be the one transacting, not you. You can ask them to do trades, but they don't have to. They must make decisions in your best interest, which trades may not necessarily be. If however they decide to make trades, or earn interest, or make any other decision that results in gains - these are your gains, and you will be taxed on them. The way taxes work is that you're taxed on income. You're free to do with it whatever you want, but you're taxed on it. So if you realized gains by selling stocks, and reinvested them - you had income (the gains) which you did with whatever you felt like (reinvested). The taxman doesn't care what you did with the gains, the taxman cares that you had them. For losses it is a bit more complicated, and while you can deduct losses - there are limitations on how much you can deduct, and some losses cannot be deducted at all when realized (like wash sale losses or passive activity losses). When you have stock transactions, you will probably need to file a tax return reporting the transactions and your gains/losses on them. You may end up not paying any tax at all, but since the broker is reporting the transactions - you should too, if only to avoid IRS asking why you didn't. This, again, should be done by your guardian, since you personally cannot legally sign documents. You asked if your gains can affect your parents' taxes. Not exactly - your parents' taxes can affect you. This is called \"\"Kiddie Tax\"\" (unofficially of course). You may want read about it and take it into account when discussing your investments with your guardian/parents. If kiddie tax provisions apply to you - your parents should probably discuss it with their tax adviser.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "04468a78b190230604ded783ba3cbc6c",
"text": "There are too many nuances to the question asked to explore fully but here are a few points to keep in mind. If you are a cash-basis taxpayer (most individuals are), then you are not required to pay taxes on the money that has been billed but not received as yet. If you operate on an accrual basis, then the income accrues to you the day you perform the service and not on the day you bill the client. You can make four equal payments of estimated tax on the due dates, and if these (together with any income tax withholding from wage-paying jobs) are at least 90% of your tax liability for that year, then you owe no penalties for underpayment of tax regardless of how your income varied over the year. If your income does vary considerably over the year (even for people who only have wages but who invest in mutual funds, the income can vary quite a bit since mutual funds typically declare dividends and capital gains in December), then you can pay different amounts in each quarterly installment of estimated tax. This is called the annualization method (a part of Form 2210 that is best avoided unless you really need to use it). Your annualized income for the payment due on June 15 is 2.4 = 12/5 times your taxable income through May 31. Thus, on Form 2210, you are allowed to assume that your average monthly taxable income through May 31 will continue for the rest of the year. You then compute the tax due on that annualized income and you are supposed to have paid at least 45% of that amount by June 15. Similarly for September 15 for which you look at income through August 31, you use a multiplier of 1.5 = 12/8 and need to pay 67.5% of the tax on the annualized income, and so on. If you miscalculate these numbers and pay too little tax in any installment, then you owe penalties for that quarter. Most people find that guesstimating the tax due for the entire year and paying it in equal installments is simpler than keeping track of nuances of the annualized method. Even simpler is to pay 100% of last year's tax in four equal installments (110% for high earners) and then no penalty is due at all. If your business is really taking off and your income is going to be substantially higher in one year, then this 100%/110% of last year's tax deal could allow you to postpone a significant chunk of your tax bill till April 15.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "915ee91396f3b08a0d4af728c8f3d5da",
"text": "\"According to the IRS, you must have written confirmation from your broker \"\"or other agent\"\" whenever you sell shares using a method other than FIFO: Specific share identification. If you adequately identify the shares you sold, you can use the adjusted basis of those particular shares to figure your gain or loss. You will adequately identify your mutual fund shares, even if you bought the shares in different lots at various prices and times, if you: Specify to your broker or other agent the particular shares to be sold or transferred at the time of the sale or transfer, and Receive confirmation in writing from your broker or other agent within a reasonable time of your specification of the particular shares sold or transferred. If you don't have a stockbroker, I'm not sure how you even got the shares. If you have an actual stock certificate, then you are selling very specific shares and the purchase date corresponds to the purchase date of those shares represented on the certificate.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b2ba7e62423d2a5034918ec4625a3eab",
"text": "It looks like it has to deal with an expiration of rights as a taxable event. I found this link via google, which states that Not only does the PSEC shareholder have a TAXABLE EVENT, but he has TWO taxable events. The net effect of these two taxable events has DIFFERENT CONSEQUENCES for DIFFERENT SHAREHOLDERS depending upon their peculiar TAX SITUATIONS. The CORRECT STATEMENT of the tax treatment of unexercised PYLDR rights is in the N-2 on page 32, which reads in relevant part as follows: “…, if you receive a Subscription Right from PSEC and do not sell or exercise that right before it expires, you should generally expect to have (1) taxable dividend income equal to the fair market value (if any) of the Subscription Right on the date of its distribution by PSEC to the extent of PSEC’s current and accumulated earnings and profits and (2) a capital loss upon the expiration of such right in an amount equal to your adjusted tax basis (if any) in such right (which should generally equal the fair market value (if any) of the Subscription Right on the date of its distribution by PSEC).” Please note, for quarterly “estimated taxes” purposes, that the DIVIDEND taxable events occur “ON THE DATE OF ITS DISTRIBUTION BY PSEC (my emphasis),” while the CAPITAL LOSS occurs “UPON EXPIRATION OF SUCH RIGHT” (my emphasis). They do NOT occur on 31 December 2015 or some other date. However, to my knowledge, neither of the taxable events he mentions would be taxed by 4/15. If you are worried about it, I would recommend seeing a tax professional. Otherwise I'd wait to see the tax forms sent by your brokerage.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f1001e5e487558fbab42ce5422ceda4a",
"text": "Assuming a USA taxable account: Withdrawing funds from a brokerage account has nothing to do with taxes. Taxes are owed on the profit when you sell a stock, no matter what you do with the funds. Taxes are owed on any dividends the stock produces, no matter what you do with the dividend. The brokerage sends you a form 1099 each year that shows the amounts of dividends and profits. You have to figure out the taxes from that.",
"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": "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": "eee85617d9f7703bd2ff2ab36fa2e38a",
"text": "Unless you are a client with boatloads of money, I don't think service like you are asking about is very common. And I kind of assume that if you did have the boatloads of money, you would already have had such a relationship with a brokerage or accountant or similar financial professional. When I have taken money from brokerage accounts, I have had to call them to ask for it or requested it online. For both, the only option was to receive a check in the mail made out to the account holder (me). This usually takes about a week, although that does include waiting for the funds to settle after a stock sale which itself is about 3 business days. I know a lot of brokerages do have banks affiliated with them and one of the benefits of having a bank account with that affiliated bank is quicker transfers in and out of your bank account. But if you aren't willing to do that, I don't think you have many other choices other than receive a check in the mail.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7455173c32b84deeccb016729e52c76d",
"text": "You don't have to wait. If you sell your shares now, your gain can be considered a capital gain for income tax purposes. Unlike in the United States, Canada does not distinguish between short-term vs. long-term gains where you'd pay different rates on each type of gain. Whether you buy and sell a stock within minutes or buy and sell over years, any gain you make on a stock can generally be considered a capital gain. I said generally because there is an exception: If you are deemed by CRA to be trading professionally -- that is, if you make a living buying and selling stocks frequently -- then you could be considered doing day trading as a business and have your gains instead taxed as regular income (but you'd also be able to claim additional deductions.) Anyway, as long as your primary source of income isn't from trading, this isn't likely to be a problem. Here are some good articles on these subjects:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "cfdd30822408ce6a64caca92a58fd09d",
"text": "I assume I can/will need to file an 83(b) election, in order to avoid tax repercussions? What exactly will this save me from? 83(b) election is for restricted stock grants, not for stock purchases. For restricted stocks, you generally pay income tax when they vest. For startups the price difference between the time of the grant and the time of the vesting can be astronomical and by choosing 83(b) you effectively pay income tax on the value of the grant instead of the value of the vest. Then, you only pay capital gains tax on the difference between the sale price and the grant value when you sell. In your case you're exercising an option, i.e.: you're buying a stock, so 83(b) is irrelevant. What you will pay though is the tax on the difference between the strike price and the stock FMV (unless the stocks you end up buying are restricted - which would have been the case if you exercised your options early, but I don't think is going to be the case now). What steps should I take to (in the eyes of the law) guarantee that the board has received my execution notice? The secretary of the board is a notorious procrastinator and can be very unorganized. You should read what the grant contract/company policy says on that. Ask the HR/manager. Usually, a certified letter with return receipt should be enough, but you should verify the format, the address, and the timeframe.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
753708abd2b9e01c127eb7b2c6056e27
|
Is there a widely recognized bond index?
|
[
{
"docid": "631a51f311776fed607cd64ae31816d9",
"text": "Multiple overlapping indices exist covering various investment universes. Almost all of the widely followed indices were originally created by Lehman Brothers and are now maintained by Barclays. The broadest U.S. dollar based bond index is known as the Universal. The Aggregate (often abbreviated Agg), which is historically the most popular index, more or less includes all bonds in the Universal rated investment grade. The direct analog to the S&P 500 would be the U.S. Corporate Investment Grade index, which is tracked by the ETF LQD, and contains exactly what it sounds like. Citigroup (formerly Salomon Brothers) also has a competitor index to the Aggregate known as Broad Investment Grade (BIG), and Merrill Lynch (now Bank of America) has the Domestic Master. Multiple other indices also exist covering other bond markets, such as international (non-USD) bonds, tax-exempts (municipal bonds), securitized products, floating rate, etc.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "89cc2b6694f315a40c76c1cee002a052",
"text": "\"The iShares Barclays Aggregate Bond - ticker AGG, is a ETF that may fit the bill for you. It's an intermediate term fund with annual expenses of .20%. It \"\"seeks investment results that correspond generally to the price and yield performance, before fees and expenses, of the Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d156356356a6817ede7064657b1d9b6d",
"text": "Keep in mind that the bond market is dominated by US Treasury securities... if there were an S&P 500 for bonds, the US would take positions 1-400. Be careful that you understand what's in your bond funds -- you may not be as diversified as you think.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "d6b8944581bb291c1e2b63f38afbdb03",
"text": "\"Yes, the \"\"effective\"\" and \"\"market\"\" rates are interchangeable. The present value formula will help make it possible to determine the effective interest rate. Since the bond's par value, duration, and par interest rate is known, the coupon payment can be extracted. Now, knowing the price the bond sold in the market, the duration, and the coupon payment, the effective market interest rate can be extracted. This involves solving large polynomials. A less accurate way of determining the interest rate is using a yield shorthand. To extract the market interest rate with good precision and acceptable accuracy, the annual coupon derived can be divided by the market price of the bond.\"",
"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": "3c37c24f30645f6131887178f02722dc",
"text": "FINRA lets you view recent trades, but as stated in the other answer bonds are illiquid and often do not trade frequently. Therefore recent trades prices are only a rough estimate of the current price that would be accepted. http://finra-markets.morningstar.com/BondCenter/Default.jsp",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "11d7b3a389522f80d9d899b9bff4ec81",
"text": "\"You quickly run into issues of what denotes \"\"similar\"\", and how to construct an appropriate index methodology. For example, do you group all CB arb funds together globally or separate them by country? Is long-bias equity long-short different to no-bias and variable-bias? Is a fund that concentrates on sovereign debt more like a macro fund or a fixed income fund? And so on. By definition, hedge funds try not to mimic their peers, with varying degrees of success. Even if you get through that problem, how do you create the index? You may not be able to get return numbers for all the \"\"similar\"\" funds, and even if you do, how do you weight them? By AUM, or equal weight? There are commercial indices out there (CSFB, Eurekahedge, Marhedge, Barclays, MSCI, etc) but there's no one accepted standard, and it's unlikely that there ever will be as a result. It's certainly interesting to look at your performance versus one of these indices, and many investors do monitor fund performance this way, but to demand strict benchmarking to one of them is a big ask...\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "82ea0d1ce78d1bcdea1963a057b8a119",
"text": "I wrote one to check against the N3 to N6 bonds: http://capitalmind.in/2011/03/sbi-bond-yield-calculator/ Things to note:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f8b09becad77e75ae4672acfab2fd135",
"text": "From wikipedia: In finance, a high-yield bond (non-investment-grade bond, speculative-grade bond, or junk bond) is a bond that is rated below investment grade at the time of purchase. These bonds have a higher risk of default or other adverse credit events, but typically pay higher yields than better quality bonds in order to make them attractive to investors. In terms of your second question, you have the causality backwards. They are called junk bonds because they have a higher risk of default.",
"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": "96c20301e3d9cce0e80714e7dbe7ede1",
"text": "You could look up the P/E of an equivalent ETF, or break the ETF into components and look those up. Each index has its own methodology, usually weighted by market cap. See here: http://www.amex.com/etf/prodInf/EtAllhold.jsp?Product_Symbol=DIA",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "090ed6997c691d1e11adbbeebebc1a50",
"text": "Dow Jones is a meaningless index that is only ever referenced in the media. It’s fundamentally flawed because the index constituents are weighted by share price, which is nonsensical (ie a $100 stock has a bigger impact on the index than a $50 stock) as opposed to the S&P500 which is market cap weighted (a $100 billion company has a bigger impact than a $50 billion company). People in the investment industry focus on the S&P index and pay zero attention to the Dow.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "96802f64aee75a2dff0c7b4c113c4323",
"text": "John Bogle never said only buy the S&P 500 or any single index Q:Do you think the average person could safely invest for retirement and other goals without expert advice -- just by indexing? A: Yes, there is a rule of thumb I add to that. You should start out heavily invested in equities. Hold some bond index funds as well as stock index funds. By the time you get closer to retirement or into your retirement, you should have a significant position in bond index funds as well as stock index funds. As we get older, we have less time to recoup. We have more money to protect and our nervousness increases with age. We get a little bit worried about that nest egg when it's large and we have little time to recoup it, so we pay too much attention to the fluctuations in the market, which in the long run mean nothing. How much to pay Q: What's the highest expense ratio that one should pay for a domestic equity fund? A: I'd say three-quarters of 1 percent maybe. Q: For an international fund? A: I'd say three-quarters of 1 percent. Q: For a bond fund? A: One-half of 1 percent. But I'd shave that a little bit. For example, if you can buy a no-load bond fund or a no-load stock fund, you can afford a little more expense ratio, because you're not paying any commission. You've eliminated cost No. 2....",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "12c634220fc3e2dc46fc247bc28c4557",
"text": "I couldn't find historical data either, so I contacted Vanguard Canada and Barclays; Vanguard replied that This index was developed for Vanguard, and thus historical information is available as of the inception of the fund. Unfortunately, that means that the only existing data on historical returns are in the link in your question. Vanguard also sent me a link to the methodology Barclay's uses when constructing this index, which you might find interesting as well. I haven't heard from Barclays, but I presume the story is the same; even if they've been collecting data on Canadian bonds since before the inception of this index, they probably didn't aggregate it into an index before their contract with Vanguard (and if they did, it might be proprietary and not available free of charge).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5d8ce6cb85bbe08d91f8b2fd2803b45e",
"text": "well, you know the problem lies with bonds maturing. The issue is not the function COMP but the security itself. You have to use existing total return indices that reflect a constant 10yr maturity position. >perpetually rolled the principal once the bond matured until the present? That would mean your 10y becomes 7y, 5y, 3y, 1y, matured then you reinvest. Not the same. Use SECF to find something like MLT1US10 Index or go to the IND page to see Merrill Lynch's bond indices. They're some of the best.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bc7a11ffe10bae183558cb1ee4887bd4",
"text": "Well, define shitty. The assumption of perfect competition should imply that only the firms that can manage to breakeven while still owing outstanding bonds will continue to issue bonds in the first place, as the competing monetary systems themselves will become a competitive market of their own. Information on the specific bond you're using as a medium of exchange/legal tender should be easily be easy to find or public information. If it's kind of bondnote has existed for five years with no substantial changes, my safe bet is on that bond being worth something.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2dc8c9f027bfc2cc21bc6b1d146bfccf",
"text": "Apple is currently the most valuable company in the world by market capitalisation and it has issued bonds for instance. Amazon have also issued bonds in the past as have Google. One of many reasons companies may issue bonds is to reduce their tax bill. If a company is a multinational it may have foreign earnings that would incur a tax bill if they were transferred to the holding company's jurisdiction. The company can however issue bonds backed by the foreign cash pile. It can then use the bond cash to pay dividends to shareholders. Ratings Agencies such as Moody's, Fitch and Standard & Poor's exist to rate companies ability to make repayments on debt they issue. Investors can read their reports to help make a determination as to whether to invest in bond issues. Of course investors also need to determine whether they believe the Ratings Agencies assesments.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7ac0e1168515e6446b54b437506ecba4",
"text": "\"Are you on Twitter? If so, the first thing I'd do is tweet this question to @Orbitz and/or @AmericanAir (AA). I'll edit it to be a bit nicer english-wise. Tweeting (or Facebooking or Instgramming or ...) is one of the most effective ways to get customer service in 'edge' cases. Explain your case in a nice, tight narrative that has the pertinent facts, why you should get an exception. Social media tends to get results that you can't get just talking on the phone; in part because you're effectively talking with a higher-up person, and because you can make your case a bit more clearly. You can actually tweet this StackExchange question directly, or word it yourself in a tweet/FB post/etc. On Twitter i'd link to here or somewhere else (too short), with something like \"\"@Orbitz @AmericanAir, you changed our trip and now it doesn't work with our special needs child. Any way you can help us out? [link to this q or a blog post somewhere]\"\". As far as a merchant dispute; it would realistically depend on the agreement you signed with Orbitz when you bought the tickets. Likely it includes some flexibility for them to change your plans if the airline cancels the flight. If it does, and they followed all of their policies correctly, then technically you shouldn't dispute the charge. It is possible that Chase might have some recourse on your behalf, though I don't think this qualifies for Trip Cancellation Insurance (Which you have through your Sapphire card ). It might be worth calling them, just to see. In the future, I would recommend booking through their site - not only do you get 25% bonus rewards when you use miles through there, which often is enough to offset the advantages of discount travel sites, but they're quite good at helping deal with these sorts of problems (as Sapphire is one of their top cards).\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
4363e7ad50157e49a199ff7a0160bc6a
|
Does a bond etf drop by the amount of the dividend just like an equity etf
|
[
{
"docid": "c8e6b1e733931958f9180e8ad4a2b7d7",
"text": "No, they do not. Stock funds and bonds funds collect income dividends in different ways. Stock funds collect dividends (as well as any capital gains that are realized) from the underlying stocks and incorporates these into the funds’ net asset value, or daily share price. That’s why a stock fund’s share price drops when the fund makes a distribution – the distribution comes out of the fund’s total net assets. With bond funds, the internal accounting is different: Dividends accrue daily, and are then paid out to shareholders every month or quarter. Bond funds collect the income from the underlying bonds and keep it in a separate internal “bucket.” A bond fund calculates a daily accrual rate for the shares outstanding, and shareholders only earn income for the days they actually hold the fund. For example, if you buy a bond fund two days before the fund’s month-end distribution, you would only receive two days’ worth of income that month. On the other hand, if you sell a fund part-way through the month, you will still receive a partial distribution at the end of the month, pro-rated for the days you actually held the fund. Source Also via bogleheads: Most Vanguard bond funds accrue interest to the share holders daily. Here is a typical statement from a prospectus: Each Fund distributes to shareholders virtually all of its net income (interest less expenses) as well as any net capital gains realized from the sale of its holdings. The Fund’s income dividends accrue daily and are distributed monthly. The term accrue used in this sense means that the income dividends are credited to your account each day, just like interest in a savings account that accrues daily. Since the money set aside for your dividends is both an asset of the fund and a liability, it does not affect the calculated net asset value. When the fund distributes the income dividends at the end of the month, the net asset value does not change as both the assets and liabilities decrease by exactly the same amount. [Note that if you sell all of your bond fund shares in the middle of the month, you will receive as proceeds the value of your shares (calculated as number of shares times net asset value) plus a separate distribution of the accrued income dividends.]",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b962d0c6c11e5ca3e77f09acaddf793b",
"text": "Most bond ETFs have switched to monthly dividends paid on the first of each month, in an attempt to standardize across the market. For ETFs (but perhaps not bond mutual funds, as suggested in the above answer) interest does accrue in the NAV, so the price of the fund does drop on ex-date by an amount equal to the dividend paid. A great example of this dynamic can be seen in FLOT, a bond ETF holding floating rate corporate bonds. As you can see in this screenshot, the NAV has followed a sharp up and down pattern, almost like the teeth of a saw. This is explained by interest accruing in the NAV over the course of each month, until it is paid out in a dividend, dropping the NAV sharply in one day. The effect has been particularly pronounced recently because the floating coupon payments have increased significantly (benchmark interest rates are higher) and mark-to-market changes in credit spreads of the constituent bonds have been very muted.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7c73f3efee233cebf09efa70a897dd2c",
"text": "It may be true for a bond fund. But it is not true for bond etf. Bond etf will drop by the same amount when it distribute dividend on ex-dividend date.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "a6ee4e5de0eaac8cd605fe3bd7730482",
"text": "\"You seem to be assuming that ETFs must all work like the more traditional closed-end funds, where the market price per share tends—based on supply and demand—to significantly deviate from the underlying net asset value per share. The assumption is simplistic. What are traditionally referred to as closed-end funds (CEFs), where unit creation and redemption are very tightly controlled, have been around for a long time, and yes, they do often trade at a premium or discount to NAV because the quantity is inflexible. Yet, what is generally meant when the label \"\"ETF\"\" is used (despite CEFs also being both \"\"exchange-traded\"\" and \"\"funds\"\") are those securities which are not just exchange-traded, and funds, but also typically have two specific characteristics: (a) that they are based on some published index, and (b) that a mechanism exists for shares to be created or redeemed by large market participants. These characteristics facilitate efficient pricing through arbitrage. Essentially, when large market participants notice the price of an ETF diverging from the value of the shares held by the fund, new units of the ETF can get created or redeemed in bulk. The divergence quickly narrows as these participants buy or sell ETF units to capture the difference. So, the persistent premium (sometimes dear) or discount (sometimes deep) one can easily witness in the CEF universe tend not to occur with the typical ETF. Much of the time, prices for ETFs will tend to be very close to their net asset value. However, it isn't always the case, so proceed with some caution anyway. Both CEF and ETF providers generally publish information about their funds online. You will want to find out what is the underlying Net Asset Value (NAV) per share, and then you can determine if the market price trades at a premium or a discount to NAV. Assuming little difference in an ETF's price vs. its NAV, the more interesting question to ask about an ETF then becomes whether the NAV itself is a bargain, or not. That means you'll need to be more concerned with what stocks are in the index the fund tracks, and whether those stocks are a bargain, or not, at their current prices. i.e. The ETF is a basket, so look at each thing in the basket. Of course, most people buy ETFs because they don't want to do this kind of analysis and are happy with market average returns. Even so, sector-based ETFs are often used by traders to buy (or sell) entire sectors that may be undervalued (or overvalued).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e68cfb5a28d39979c5839becde274e73",
"text": "\"First, it's an exaggeration to say \"\"every\"\" dollar. Traditional mutual funds, including money-market funds, keep a small fraction of their assets in cash for day-to-day transactions, maybe 1%. If you invest $1, they put that in the cash bucket and issue you a share. If you and 999 other people invest $100 each, not offset by people redeeming, they take the aggregated $100,000 and buy a bond or two. Conversely, if you redeem one share it comes out of cash, but if lots of people redeem they sell some bond(s) to cover those redemptions -- which works as long as the bond(s) can in fact be sold for close enough to their recorded value. And this doesn't mean they \"\"can't fail\"\". Even though they are (almost totally) invested in securities that are thought to be among the safest and most liquid available, in sufficiently extreme circumstances those investments can fall in market value, or they can become illiquid and unavailable to cover \"\"withdrawals\"\" (redemptions). ETFs are also fully invested, but the process is less direct. You don't just send money to the fund company. Instead: Thus as long as the underlyings for your ETF hold their value, which for a money market they are designed to, and the markets are open and the market maker firms are operating, your ETF shares are well backed. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exchange-traded_fund for more.\"",
"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": "a8ec31c8e05e9102812438ff56dd99ca",
"text": "The answer, for me, has to do with compounding. That drop in price post-ex-div is not compounded. But if you reinvest your dividends back into the stock then you buy on those post-ex-div dips in price and your money is compounded because those shares you just bought will, themselves, yeald dividends next quarter. Also, with my broker, I reinvest the dividend incurring no commission. My broker has a feature to reinvest dividends automatically and he charges no commission on those buys. Edit:I forgot to mention that you do not incurr the loss from a drop in price until you sell the security. If you do not sell post-ex-div then you have no loss. As long as the dividend remains the same (or increases) then the theoretical ROI on that security goes up. The drop in price is actually to your benefit because you are able to acquire more shares with the money you just received in the dividend So the price coming down post-ex-div is a good thing (if you buy and hold).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6cea60b302b70be03bb12fc814eafffe",
"text": "SPY does not reinvest dividends. From the SPY prospectus: No Dividend Reinvestment Service No dividend reinvestment service is provided by the Trust. Broker-dealers, at their own discretion, may offer a dividend reinvestment service under which additional Units are purchased in the secondary market at current market prices. SPY pays out quarterly the dividends it receives (after deducting fees and expenses). This is typical of ETFs. The SPY prospectus goes on to say: Distributions in cash that are reinvested in additional Units through a dividend reinvestment service, if offered by an investor’s broker-dealer, will be taxable dividends to the same extent as if such dividends had been received in cash.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "593d3f385dbb52c6f01b17d9c60e39a2",
"text": "One of the often cited advantages of ETFs is that they have a higher liquidity and that they can be traded at any time during the trading hours. On the other hand they are often proposed as a simple way to invest private funds for people that do not want to always keep an eye on the market, hence the intraday trading is mostly irrelevant for them. I am pretty sure that this is a subjective idea. The fact is you may buy GOOG, AAPL, F or whatever you wish(ETF as well, such as QQQ, SPY etc.) and keep them for a long time. In both cases, if you do not want to keep an on the market it is ok. Because, if you keep them it is called investment(the idea is collecting dividends etc.), if you are day trading then is it called speculation, because you main goal is to earn by buying and selling, of course you may loose as well. So, you do not care about dividends or owning some percent of the company. As, ETFs are derived instruments, their volatility depends on the volatility of the related shares. I'm wondering whether there are secondary effects that make the liquidity argument interesting for private investors, despite not using it themselves. What would these effects be and how do they impact when compared, for example, to mutual funds? Liquidity(ability to turn cash) could create high volatility which means high risk and high reward. From this point of view mutual funds are more safe. Because, money managers know how to diversify the total portfolio and manage income under any market conditions.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "86187aff29a5958bb1351d248820ce19",
"text": "NO. All the leveraged ETFs are designed to multiply the performance of the underlying asset FOR THAT DAY, read the prospectus. Their price is adjusted at the end of the day to reflect what is called a NAV unit. Basically, they know that their price is subject to fluctuations due to supply and demand throughout the day - simply because they trade in a quote driven system. But the price is automatically corrected at the end of the day regardless. In practice though, all sorts of crazy things happen with leveraged ETFs that will simply make them more and more unfavorable to hold long term, the longer you look at it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8cb549009ae9d2f1a8976238da587253",
"text": "\"My knowledge relates to ETFs only. By definition, an ETF's total assets can increase or decrease based upon how many shares are issued or redeemed. If somebody sells shares back to the ETF provider (rather than somebody else on market) then the underlying assets need to be sold, and vice-versa for purchasing from the ETF provider. ETFs also allow redemptions too in addition to this. For an ETF, to determine its total assets, you need to you need to analyze the Total Shares on Issue multipled by the Net Asset Value. ETFs are required to report shares outstanding and NAV on a daily basis. \"\"Total assets\"\" is probably more a function of marketing rather than \"\"demand\"\" and this is why most funds report on a net-asset-value-per-share basis. Some sites report on \"\"Net Inflows\"\" is basically the net change in shares outstanding multiplied by the ETF price. If you want to see this plotted over time you can use a such as: http://www.etf.com/etfanalytics/etf-fund-flows-tool which allows you to see this as a \"\"net flows\"\" on a date range basis.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ec6a3464c58d2dafda4f0dc6ea41e07e",
"text": "\"If anything, the price of an ETF is more tightly coupled to the underlying holdings or assets than a mutual fund, because of the independent creation/destruction mechanism. With a mutual fund, the price is generally set once at the end of each day, and the mutual fund manager has to deal with investments and redemptions at that price. By the time they get to buying or selling the underlying assets, the market may have moved or they may even move the market with those transactions. With an ETF, investment and redemption is handled by independent \"\"authorized participants\"\". They can create new units of the ETF by buying up the underlying assets and delivering them to the ETF manager, and vice versa they can cancel units by requesting the underlying assets from the ETF manager. ETFs trade intraday (i.e. at any time during trading hours) and any time the price diverges too far from the underlying assets, one of the authorized participants has an incentive to make a small profit by creating or destroying units of the ETF, also intraday.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "633f12b72b94b8c2b1f01afeba5ecc19",
"text": "The S&P 500 is an index, you can't buy shares of an index, but you can find index funds to invest in. Each company in that fund that pays dividends will do so on their own schedule, and the fund you've invested in will either distribute dividends or accumulate them (re-invest), this is pre-defined, not something they'd decide quarter to quarter. If the fund distributes dividends, they will likely combine the dividends they receive and distribute to you quarterly. The value you've referenced represents the total annual dividend across the index, dividend yield for S&P500 is currently ~1.9%, so if you invested $10,000 a year ago in a fund that matched the S&P 500, you'd have ~$190 in dividend yield.",
"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": "bbda2280304228ee54efc1f6aa7d9d0b",
"text": "No. Investors purchase ETFs' as they would any other stock, own it under the same circumstances as an equity investment, collecting distributions instead of dividends or interest. The ETF takes care of the internal operations (bond maturities and turnover, accrued interest, payment dates, etc.).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "71e70c6c3d426e2f03e616d2b9f7092d",
"text": "\"Let me provide a general answer, that might be helpful to others, without addressing those specific stocks. Dividends are simply corporate payouts made to the shareholders of the company. A company often decides to pay dividends because they have excess cash on hand and choose to return it to shareholders by quarterly payouts instead of stock buy backs or using the money to invest in new projects. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by \"\"dividend yield traps.\"\" If a company has declared an dividend for the upcoming quarter they will almost always pay. There are exceptions, like what happened with BP, but these exceptions are rare. Just because a company promises to pay a dividend in the approaching quarter does not mean that it will continue to pay a dividend in the future. If the company continues to pay a dividend in the future, it may be at a (significantly) different amount. Some companies are structured where nearly all of there corporate profits flow through to shareholders via dividends. These companies may have \"\"unusually\"\" high dividends, but this is simply a result of the corporate structure. Let me provide a quick example: Certain ETFs that track bonds pay a dividend as a way to pass through interest payments from the underlying bonds back to the shareholder of the ETF. There is no company that will continue to pay their dividend at the present rate with 100% certainty. Even large companies like General Electric slashed its dividend during the most recent financial crisis. So, to evaluate whether a company will keep paying a dividend you should look at the following: Update: In regards to one the first stock you mentioned, this sentence from the companies of Yahoo! finance explains the \"\"unusually\"\" dividend: The company has elected to be treated as a REIT for federal income tax purposes and would not be subject to income tax, if it distributes at least 90% of its REIT taxable income to its share holders.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b0d570729d6309ccf9878653379d3654",
"text": "The literal answer to your question 'what determines the price of an ETF' is 'the market'; it is whatever price a buyer is willing to pay and a seller is willing to accept. But if the market price of an ETF share deviates significantly from its NAV, the per-share market value of the securities in its portfolio, then an Authorized Participant can make an arbitrage profit by a transaction (creation or redemption) that pushes the market price toward NAV. Thus as long as the markets are operating and the APs don't vanish in a puff of smoke we can expect price will track NAV. That reduces your question to: why does NAV = market value of the holdings underlying a bond ETF share decrease when the market interest rate rises? Let's consider an example. I'll use US Treasuries because they have very active markets, are treated as risk-free (although that can be debated), and excluding special cases like TIPS and strips are almost perfectly fungible. And I use round numbers for convenience. Let's assume the current market interest rate is 2% and 'Spindoctor 10-year Treasury Fund' opens for business with $100m invested (via APs) in 10-year T-notes with 2% coupon at par and 1m shares issued that are worth $100 each. Now assume the interest rate goes up to 3% (this is an example NOT A PREDICTION); no one wants to pay par for a 2% bond when they can get 3% elsewhere, so its value goes down to about 0.9 of par (not exactly due to the way the arithmetic works but close enough) and Spindoctor shares similarly slide to $90. At this price an investor gets slightly over 2% (coupon*face/basis) plus approximately 1% amortized capital gain (slightly less due to time value) per year so it's competitive with a 3% coupon at par. As you say new bonds are available that pay 3%. But our fund doesn't hold them; we hold old bonds with a face value of $100m but a market value of only $90m. If we sell those bonds now and buy 3% bonds to (try to) replace them, we only get $90m par value of 3% bonds, so now our fund is paying a competitive 3% but NAV is still only $90. At the other extreme, say we hold the 2% bonds to maturity, paying out only 2% interest but letting our NAV increase as the remaining term (duration) and thus discount of the bonds decreases -- assuming the market interest rate doesn't change again, which for 10 years is probably unrealistic (ignoring 2009-2016!). At the end of 10 years the 2% bonds are redeemed at par and our NAV is back to $100 -- but from the investor's point of view they've forgone $10 in interest they could have received from an alternative investment over those 10 years, which is effectively an additional investment, so the original share price of $90 was correct.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "332c0e2dd0ab9fe874874b49d36618da",
"text": "Protest opinions aside. Will taking this away from the team's actually help? The article mentions rent payments they make. Are they actually renting space he owns or do they subsidize it as a sort of here's some extra money type thing? According to the article excluding what they call rent payments leaves about 12 million. Would the economic stimulus from that not out weigh what they would get from cutting him off?",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
1c72afa3c25fadfc0e240fb38f6ccdaf
|
Calculating profits on a covered call. What method do you use?
|
[
{
"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": "e9343d55d9c40a3883063ddba8f15f63",
"text": "\"at $8.50: total profit = $120.00 *basis of stock, not paid in cash, so not included in \"\"total paid\"\" at $8.50: total profit = $75.00\"",
"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": "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": "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": "3c289a96ce11b904b67bfafb42f5a1aa",
"text": "If the buyer exercises your option, you will have to give him the stock. If you already own the stock, the worst that can happen is you have to give him your stock, thus losing the money you spend to buy it. So the most you can lose is what you already spent to buy the stock (minus the price the buyer paid for your option). If you don't own the stock, you will have to buy it. But if the stock skyrockets in value, it will be very expensive to buy it. If for instance you buy the stock when it is worth $100, sell your covered call, and the next day the stock shoots to $1000, you will lose the $100 you got from the purchase of the stock. But if you had used a naked call, you would have to buy the stock at $1000, and you would lose $900. Since there is no limit to how high the stock can go, there is no limit to how much money you may lose.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fcc31591b34e898d6a5aa473f7b6a16e",
"text": "One answer in four days tells you this is a niche, else there should be many replies by now. The bible is McMillan on Options Note - I link to the 1996 edition which starts at 39 cents, the latest revision will set you back $30 used. The word bible says it all, it offers a great course in options, everything you need to know. You don't get a special account for option trading. You just apply to your regular broker, so depending what you wish to do, the amount starts at You sell calls against stock you own in your IRA. You see, selling covered calls always runs the risk of having your stock called away, and you'd have a gain, I'd hope. By doing this within the IRA, you avoid that. Options can be, but are not always, speculative. Covered calls just change the shape of your return curve. i.e. you lower your cost by the option premium, but create a fixed maximum gain. I've created covered calls on the purchase of a stock or after holding a while depending on the stock. Here's the one I have now: MU 1000 shares bought at $8700, sold the $7.50 call (jan12) for $3000. Now, this means my cost is $5700, but I have to let it go for $7500, a 32% return if called. (This was bought in mid 2010, BTW.) On the flip side, a drop of up to 35% over the time will still keep me at break even. The call seemed overpriced when I sold it. Stock is still at $7.20, so I'm close to maximum gain. This whole deal was less risky than just owning one risky stock. I just wrote a post on this trade Micron Covered Call, using today's numbers for those actually looking to understand this as new position. (The article was updated after the expiration. The trade resulted in a 42% profit after 491 days of holding the position, with the stock called away.) On the other hand, buying calls, lots of them, during the tech bubble was the best and worst thing I did. One set of trades' value increased by a factor of 50, and in a few weeks blew up on me, ended at 'only' triple. I left the bubble much better off than I went in, but the peak was beautiful, I'd give my little toe to have stayed right there. From 99Q2 to 00Q2, net worth was up by 3X our gross salary. Half of that (i.e. 1.5X) was gone after the crash. For many, they left the bubble far far worse than before it started. I purposely set things up so no more than a certain amount was at risk at any given time, knowing a burst would come, just not when. If nothing else, it was a learning experience. You sell calls against stock you own in your IRA. You see, selling covered calls always runs the risk of having your stock called away, and you'd have a gain, I'd hope. By doing this within the IRA, you avoid that. Options can be, but are not always, speculative. Covered calls just change the shape of your return curve. i.e. you lower your cost by the option premium, but create a fixed maximum gain. I've created covered calls on the purchase of a stock or after holding a while depending on the stock. Here's the one I have now: MU 1000 shares bought at $8700, sold the $7.50 call (jan12) for $3000. Now, this means my cost is $5700, but I have to let it go for $7500, a 32% return if called. (This was bought in mid 2010, BTW.) On the flip side, a drop of up to 35% over the time will still keep me at break even. The call seemed overpriced when I sold it. Stock is still at $7.20, so I'm close to maximum gain. This whole deal was less risky than just owning one risky stock. I just wrote a post on this trade Micron Covered Call, using today's numbers for those actually looking to understand this as new position. (The article was updated after the expiration. The trade resulted in a 42% profit after 491 days of holding the position, with the stock called away.) On the other hand, buying calls, lots of them, during the tech bubble was the best and worst thing I did. One set of trades' value increased by a factor of 50, and in a few weeks blew up on me, ended at 'only' triple. I left the bubble much better off than I went in, but the peak was beautiful, I'd give my little toe to have stayed right there. From 99Q2 to 00Q2, net worth was up by 3X our gross salary. Half of that (i.e. 1.5X) was gone after the crash. For many, they left the bubble far far worse than before it started. I purposely set things up so no more than a certain amount was at risk at any given time, knowing a burst would come, just not when. If nothing else, it was a learning experience.",
"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": "0ffe8ab536e991492536dd5471efba9d",
"text": "Just a few observations within the Black-Scholes framework: Next, you can now use the Black-Scholes framework (stock price is a Geometric Brownian Motion, no transaction costs, single interest rate, etc. etc.) and numerical methods (such as a PDE solver) to price American style options numerically, but not with a simple closed form formula (though there are closed-form approximations).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3c5b5925153a18d5096370e6a655ef1d",
"text": "\"Covered calls, that is where the writer owns the underlying security, aren't the only type of calls one can write. Writing \"\"uncovered calls,\"\" wherein one does NOT own the underlying, are a way to profit from a price drop. For example, write the call for a $5 premium, then when the underlying price drops, buy it back for $4, and pocket the $1 profit.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8d85cbd49a26fad0d5e4d4c03fe7a962",
"text": "I sell a put for a strike price at the market. The stock rises $50 over the next couple months. I've gotten the premium, but lost the rest of the potential gain, yet had the downside risk the whole time. There's no free lunch. Edit - you can use a BS (Black-Scholes) calculator to create your own back testing. The calculator shows a 1% interest rate, 2% yield, and 15% volatility produce a put price almost identical to the pricing I see for S&P (the SPY ETF, specifically) $205 put. No answer here, including mine, gave any reference to a study. If one exists, it will almost certainly be on an index, not individual stocks. Note that Jack's answer referencing PUTX does exactly that. The SPY ETF and it put options. My suggestion here would, in theory, let you analyze this strategy for individual stock options as well. For SPY - With SPY at 204.40, this is the Put you'd look at - 12 times the premium is $33.36 or 16% the current price. The next part of the exercise is to see how the monthly ups and downs impact this return. A drop to $201 wipes out that month's premium. It happens that it now March 18th, and despite a bad start to the year, we are at break-even YTD. A peek back shows In Dec you picked up $2.87 premium, (1.4% the current price then) but in Jan, it closed for a loss of $12. Ouch. Now, if you started in January, you'd have picked up 2 month's premiums and today or Monday sell the 3rd. You'd have 2.8% profit so far, vs the S&P break even. Last, for now, when selling a naked put, you have to put up margin money. Not sure how much, but I use percent of the value of underlying stock to calculate returns. That choice is debatable, it just keeps percents clean. Else you put up no money and have infinite return.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7c5e4cc3f975021d306cac2f5730af64",
"text": "It's very simple. Use USDSGD. Here's why: Presenting profits/losses in other currencies or denominations can be useful if you want to sketch out the profit/loss you made due to foreign currency exposure but depending on the audience of your app this may sometimes confuse people (like yourself).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3e216977de5a27ef791d6d21d696ed8e",
"text": "\"Here are some things to consider if you want to employ a covered call strategy for consistent returns. The discussion also applies to written puts, as they're functionally equivalent. Write covered calls only on fairly valued stock. If the stock is distinctly undervalued, just buy it. By writing the call, you cap the gains that it will achieve as the stock price gravitates to intrinsic value. If the stock is overvalued, sell it, or just stay away. As the owner of a covered call position, you have full exposure to the downside of the stock. The premium received is normally way too small to protect against much of a drop in price. The ideal candidate doesn't change in price much over the life of the position. Yes, this is low volatility, which brings low option premiums. As a seller you want high premiums. But this can't be judged in a vacuum. No matter how high the volatility in absolute terms, as a seller you're betting the market has overpriced volatility. If volatility is high, so premiums are fat, but the market is correct, then the very real risk of the stock dropping over the life of the position offsets the premium received. One thing to look at is current implied volatility for the at-the-money (ATM), near-month call. Compare it to the two-year historical volatility (Morningstar has this conveniently displayed). Moving away from pure volatility, consider writing calls about three months out, just slightly out of the money. The premium is all time value, and the time value decay accelerates in the final few months. (In theory, a series of one-month options would be higher time value, but there are frictional costs, and no guarantee that today's \"\"good deal\"\" will be repeatable twelve time per year.) When comparing various strikes and expirations, compare time value per day. To compare the same statistic across multiple companies, use time value per day as a percent of capital at risk. CaR is the price of the stock less the premium received. If you already own the stock, track it as if you just bought it for this strategy, so use the price on the day you wrote the call. Along with time value per day, compare the simple annualized percent return, again, on capital at risk, measuring the return if a) the stock is called away, and b) the stock remains unchanged. I usually concentrate more on the second scenario, as we get the capital gain on the stock regardless, without the option strategy. Ideally, you can also calculate the probability (based on implied volatility) of the stock achieving these price points by expiration. Measuring returns at many possible stock prices, you can develop an overall expected return. I won't go into further detail, as it seems outside the scope here. Finally, I usually target a minimum of 25% annualized if the stock remains unchanged. You can, of course, adjust this up or down depending on your risk tolerance. I consider this to be conservative.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6750caf3b3fe1f4073faf6793ceaa7f3",
"text": "There are different perspectives from which to calculate the gain, but the way I think it should be done is with respect to the risk you've assumed in the original position, which the simplistic calculation doesn't factor in. There's a good explanation about calculating the return from a short sale at Investopedia. Here's the part that I consider most relevant: [...] When calculating the return of a short sale, you need to compare the amount the trader gets to keep to the initial amount of the liability. Had the trade in our example turned against you, you (as the short seller) would owe not only the initial proceeds amount but also the excess amount, and this would come out of your pocket. [...] Refer to the source link for the full explanation. Update: As you can see from the other answers and comments, it is a more complex a Q&A than it may first appear. I subsequently found this interesting paper which discusses the difficulty of rate of return with respect to short sales and other atypical trades: Excerpt: [...] The problem causing this almost uniform omission of a percentage return on short sales, options (especially writing), and futures, it may be speculated, is that the nigh-well universal and conventional definition of rate of return involving an initial cash outflow followed by a later cash inflow does not appear to fit these investment situations. None of the investment finance texts nor general finance texts, undergraduate or graduate, have formally or explicitly shown how to resolve this predicament or how to justify the calculations they actually use. [...]",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "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": "2d57b94528708b873e6c4f0334140a20",
"text": "\"SELL -10 VERTICAL $IYR 100 AUG 09 32/34 CALL @.80 LMT 1) we are talking about options, these are a derivative product whose price is based on 6 variables. 2) options allow you to create risk out of thin air, and those risks come with shapes, and the only limit is your imagination (and how much your margin/borrowing costs are). Whereas a simple asset like the shares for $IYR only has a linear risk profile. stock goes up, you make money, stock goes down, you lose money, and that risk graph looks linear. a \"\"vertical\"\" has a nonlinear risk profile 3) a vertical is a type of \"\"spread\"\" that requires holding options that expire at the same time, but at different strike prices. 3b) This particular KIND of vertical is called a bear call spread (BCS). Since you are bearish (this makes money if the stock goes down, or stays in a very specific range) but are using calls which are a bullish options product. 4) -10 means you are selling the vertical. +10 means you are buying the vertical. A \"\"long\"\" vertical is initiated by buying an option closer to the money, and selling an option at a higher strike price. This would be +X A \"\"short\"\" vertical is initiated by selling an option closer to the money and buying an option at a higher strike price. The quantity would be -X 5) 32/34 stands for the strike prices. so you would be selling 10 call options at the 32 strike price, and buying 10 call options at the 34 strike price, both options expire in August 6) LMT stands for limit order, and $.80 is the limit order price that is desired. OPENING a vertical spread requires knowledge of options as well as how to send orders. MANAGING a vertical requires even more finesse, as you can \"\"leg-in\"\" and \"\"leg-out\"\" of spreads, without sending the entire order to the exchange floor at once. There is much to learn.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
e04774d8873151ce556e9acdd9fd5e92
|
How can I determine if my portfolio's rate of return has been “good”, or not?
|
[
{
"docid": "62c2505b9c73061efe7702f188ad3fbd",
"text": "It's important to realize that any portfolio, if sufficiently diversified should track overall GDP growth, and anything growing via a percentage per annum is going to double eventually. (A good corner-of-napkin estimate is 70/the percentage = years to double). Just looking at your numbers, if you initially put in the full $7000, an increase to $17000 after 10 years represents a return of ~9.3% per annum (to check my math $7000*1.09279^10 ≈ $17000). Since you've been putting in the $7000 over 10 years the return is going to be a bit more than that, but it's not possible to calculate based on the information given. A return of 9.3% is not bad (some rules of thumb: inflation is about 2-4% so if you are making less than that you're losing money, and 6-10% per annum is generally what you should expect if your portfolio is tracking the market)... I wouldn't consider that rate of return to be particularly amazing, but it's not bad either, as you've done better than you would have if you had invested in an ETF tracking the market. The stock market being what it is, you can't rule out the possibility that you got lucky with your stock picks. If your portfolio was low-risk, a return of 9%ish could be considered amazing, but given that it's about 5-6 different stocks what I'd consider amazing would be a return of 15%+ (to give you something to shoot for!) Either way, for your amount of savings you're probably better off going with a mutual fund or an ETF. The return might be slightly lower, but the risk profile is also lower than you picking your stocks, since the fund/ETF will be more diversified. (and it's less work!)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7d37a5bec434f81123ee2dc78271aab3",
"text": "There isn't really enough information here to go on. Without knowing when you invested that money we can't find your rate of return at all, and it's important to measure your rate against risk. If you take on significantly more risk than the overall market but only just barely outperform it, you probably got a lousy rate of return. If you underperform the market but your risk is significantly lower then you might have gotten a very good rate of return. A savings account earning a guaranteed 4% might be a better return than gambling on the roulette wheel and making 15%.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "380f21f9edb7c7516ee980b8661608fa",
"text": "\"Historically, the market's average rate of return has been about 8%. (Serakfalcon's \"\"6% to 10%\"\" is essentially the same number.) You should be able to get into that range for long-term investments with minimal risk. \"\"5 or 6 companies\"\", unless you know a heck of a lot about those companies, is fairly high risk. If any one of those runs into trouble, a considerable amount of your net investment is riding on it. Of course if any of them invents the Next Big Thing you could hit it big; that's the tradeoff. Diversification isn't sexy, but it buffers you from single-company disasters, and if you diversify across kinds of investment that buffers you from single-sector disasters. Index funds aren't sexy, but they're a low-cost way to diversify, especially if you go with a mix of funds in different categories (large cap, small cap, bond, international, real estate) or a fund which has that mix built into it such as a target date fund.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "3e29cffd92873ce7bd0d57d81102cb04",
"text": "You need to do a few things to analyze your results. First, look at the timing of the deposits, and try to confirm the return you state. If it's still as high as you think, can you attribute it to one lucky stock purchase? I have an account that's up 863% from 1998 till 2013. Am I a genius? Hardly. That account, one of many, happened to have stocks that really outperformed, Apple among them. If you are that good, a career change may be in order. Few are that good. Joe",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0943e45e3c60536cea418a843e1c6250",
"text": "There are at least a couple of ways you could view this to my mind: Make an Excel spreadsheet and use the IRR function to compute the rate of return you are having based on money being added. Re-invested distributions in a mutual fund aren't really an additional investment as the Net Asset Value of the fund will drop by the amount of the distribution aside from market fluctuation. This is presuming you want a raw percentage that could be tricky to compare to other funds without doing more than a bit of work in a way. Look at what is the fund's returns compared to both the category and the index it is tracking. The tracking error is likely worth noting as some index funds could lag the index by a sizable margin and thus may not be that great. At the same time there may exist cases where an index fund isn't quite measuring up that well. The Small-Growth Indexing Anomaly would be the William Bernstein article from 2001 that has some facts and figures for this that may be useful.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "198ed04523c8fccd9e40079232c52c8f",
"text": "There is no typical return for an IRA. Understand that an IRA is not an investment type, it is just an account that gets special tax treatment by the Federal Government. The money in the IRA could be invested in almost anything including Gold, Stocks, Bonds, Cash, CDs, etc. So the question as phrased isn't exactly meaningful. It is kind of like asking what is the typical price of things if I use $10 bills. As for a 10.6% annualized return on your portfolio. That's not a bad return. At that rate you will double your investment (with compounding) every 7.2 years. Again, however, some context is needed. You can really only evaluate investment returns with your risk profile in mind. If you are invested in super safe investments like CDs, that is an absolutely incredible return. You compare it to several indexes, which is a good way to do it if you are investing in the types of investments tracked by those indexes.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6bb6cc39fc29a550c12b6215f91af9d9",
"text": "\"I was going to ask, \"\"Do you feel lucky, punk?\"\" but then it occurred to me that the film this quote came from, Dirty Harry, starring Clint Eastwood, is 43 years old. And yet, the question remains. The stock market, as measured by the S&P has returned 9.67% compounded over the last 100 years. But with a standard deviation just under 20%, there are years when you'll do better and years you'll lose. And I'd not ignore the last decade which was pretty bad, a loss for the decade. There are clearly two schools of thought. One says that no one ever lost sleep over not having a mortgage payment. The other school states that at the very beginning, you have a long investing horizon, and the chances are very good that the 30 years to come will bring a return north of 6%. The two decades prior to the last were so good that these past 30 years were still pretty good, 11.39% compounded. There is no right or wrong here. My gut says fund your retirement accounts to the maximum. Build your emergency fund. You see, if you pay down your mortgage, but lose your job, you'll still need to make those payments. Once you build your security, think of the mortgage as the cash side of your investing, i.e. focus less on the relatively low rate of return (4.3%) and more on the eventual result, once paid, your cash flow goes up nicely. Edit - in light of the extra information you provided, your profile reads that you have a high risk tolerance. Low overhead, no dependents, and secure employment combine to lead me to this conclusion. At 23, I'd not be investing at 4.3%. I'd learn how to invest in a way I was comfortable with, and take it from there. Disclosure (Updated) - I am older, and am semi-retired. I still have some time left on the mortgage, but it doesn't bother me, not at 3.5%. I also have a 16 year old to put through college but her college account i fully funded.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c0a93a2864c882c0bd2a61c81dce41d0",
"text": "I like to look at Alpha, Beta, St. Dev., Sharpe Ratio, and R-Squared. It's also good to know how they work together. i.e.: Say you're comparing a fund to an index and the fund has a low beta, but the r-squared is low (<70 is low for my usage). The beta loses some significance in that instance. You want to be able to look at these 5 metrics, know what they mean on their own, and what they say about each other. Sorry if that was poorly worded, Mondays...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "15e9d51f5d01bddba46fc1ea96a54e20",
"text": "\"When you invest in a property, you pay money to purchase the property. You didn't have to spend the money on the property though - you could have invested it in the stock market instead, and expected to make a 4% annualized real rate of return or thereabouts. So if you want to know whether something's a \"\"good investment\"\", ask whether your annual net income will be more or less than 4% of the money you put into it, and whether it is more or less risky than the stock market, and try to judge accordingly. Predicting the net income, though, is a can of worms, doubly so when some of your expenses aren't dollar-denominated (e.g. the time you spend dealing with the property personally) and others need to be amortized over an unpredictable period of time (how long will that furnace repair really last?). Moreover your annualized capital gain and rental income is also unpredictable; rent increases in a given area cannot be expected to conform to a predetermined mathematical formula. Ultimately it is impossible to predict in the general case - if it were possible we probably would have skipped that last housing bubble, so no single simple formula exists.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9b138a5fa6a06ef00012efc7b4a477e3",
"text": "I don't know, maybe saving for 30+ years you'd want to see how your investments are doing to plan for retirement? Or should I just use an interest calc on google and expect that average market return on my deposits will be there in 2045. Looking at the statements builds trust with the advisor. What makes them trusted?",
"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": "0905df12631772350b672e32f143dc23",
"text": "Here are a few things I've already done, and others reading this for their own use may want to try. It is very easy to find a pattern in any set of data. It is difficult to find a pattern that holds true in different data pulled from the same population. Using similar logic, don't look for a pattern in the data from the entire population. If you do, you won't have anything to test it against. If you don't have anything to test it against, it is difficult to tell the difference between a pattern that has a cause (and will likely continue) and a pattern that comes from random noise (which has no reason to continue). If you lose money in bad years, that's okay. Just make sure that the gains in good years are collectively greater than the losses in bad years. If you put $10 in and lose 50%, you then need a 100% gain just to get back up to $10. A Black Swan event (popularized by Nassim Taleb, if memory serves) is something that is unpredictable but will almost certainly happen at some point. For example, a significant natural disaster will almost certainly impact the United States (or any other large country) in the next year or two. However, at the moment we have very little idea what that disaster will be or where it will hit. By the same token, there will be Black Swan events in the financial market. I do not know what they will be or when they will happen, but I do know that they will happen. When building a system, make sure that it can survive those Black Swan events (stay above the death line, for any fellow Jim Collins fans). Recreate your work from scratch. Going through your work again will make you reevaluate your initial assumptions in the context of the final system. If you can recreate it with a different medium (i.e. paper and pen instead of a computer), this will also help you catch mistakes.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d22eb12a1a71861cce34e25a62856f18",
"text": "I've used prosper for a while and have a pretty good return based purely on shotgun approach. I recently invested a few thousand with their automated tool. Some people will default, but that's expected and part of their expected return calculation.",
"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": "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": "d7f81b996bf1dc02be851206dfcc3183",
"text": "\"Unfortunately for investors, returns for equity-based investments are not linear - you'll see (semi-random) rises and dips as you look at the charted per-share price. Without knowing what the investments are in the target date retirement fund that you've invested in, you could see a wide range of returns (including losses!) for any given period of time. However, over the long term (usually 10+ years), you'll see the \"\"average\"\" return for your fund as your gains and losses accumulate/compound over that period.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8eaa1beac198c1174558a938a1f6a71f",
"text": "I think that's a bad way to look at it. What if the price of that asset never fails below that value again? Do you just never buy? I think a better way to operate is to do your due diligence, and if the asset you're looking at holds value for you at its current price, then jump in. Otherwise - look somewhere else.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e0fd5f580d29bb7dc0d3a235d31ffdf2",
"text": "\"All of these frameworks, Markowitz, Mean/CVaR, CARA, etc sit inside a more general framework which is that \"\"returns are good\"\" and \"\"risk/lack of certainty in the returns is bad\"\", and there's a tradeoff between the two encoded as some kind of risk aversion number. You can measure \"\"lack of certainty in returns\"\" by vol, CVaR, weighted sum of higher moments, but even sector/region concentration. Similarly do I want more \"\"returns\"\" or \"\"log returns\"\" or \"\"sqrt returns\"\" in the context of this tradeoff? You don't need any formal notion of utility at that point - and I don't know what formal ideas of utility beyond \"\"I want more returns and less risk\"\" really buys you. The Sharpe ratio only really gets its meaning because you've got some formal asset-pricing notion of utility. In my view the moment that you're putting constraints on the portfolio (e.g. long only, max weights, don't deviate too much from the benchmark ...) - really you're operating in this more general framework anyway and you're not in \"\"utility-land\"\" anymore.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
cf9118f72d804575aa473276c2e9ddd1
|
How to calculate a mutual fund's yield
|
[
{
"docid": "0bc7bf81dd64d65d686433804ef5568f",
"text": "If the expense ratio of the fund is 0.00% then yes. However, if the fund has expenses of 1% then if the NAV of the fund is $10/share the expenses would cause you to see only $.002 a share and thus you'd have $.10 in total as the expenses first cut down the yield.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "c4f7c8ce1fa7c6b9b2e7b2b7670828a4",
"text": "\"To try and address your 'how' it goes a bit like this. You need to first assess how your stuff is invested, if for example half is in stocks, and the other half is in bonds, then you will need to calculate a 'blended' rate for what are reasonable 'average return' for both. That might mean looking at the S&P500 or Russell 3000 for the stock portion, and some bond index for that portion, then 'blend the rates', in this case using a formula like this then compare the blended rate with the return in your IRA. It is generally a lot more useful to compare the various components of your total return separately, especially if you investing with a particular style such as 'agressive growth' or you are buying actual bonds and not a bond fund since most of the bond oriented indexes are for bond funds, which you can't really compare well with buying and holding bonds to maturity. Lets say your stock side was two mutual funds with different styles, one 'large cap' the other 'aggressive growth'. In that case you might want to compare each one of those funds with an appropriate index such as those provided by Morningstar If you find one of them is consistently below the average, you might want to consider finding an alternative fund who's manager has a better track record (bearing in mind that \"\"past performance....\"\") For me (maybe someone has a good suggestion here) bonds are the hard thing to judge. The normal goal of actually owning bonds (as opposed to a fund) is to retain the entire principal value because there's no principal fluctuation if you hold the bond to maturity (as long as you choose well and the issuer doesn't default) The actual value 'right now' of a bond (as in selling before maturity) and bond funds, goes up and down in an inverse relationship with interest rates. That means the indexes for such things also go up and down a lot, so it's very hard to compare them to a bond you intend to hold to maturity. Also, for such a bond, there's not a lot of point to 'switch out' unless you are worried about the issuer defaulting. If rates are up from what you are getting on your bonds, then you'll have to sell your bond at a discount, and all that happens is you'll end up holding a different bond that is worth less, but has higher interest (basically the net return is likely to be pretty much the same). The better approach there is generally to 'ladder' your maturity dates so you get opportunities to reinvest at whatever the prevailing rates are, without having to sell at a discount.. anyway the point is that I'm not sure there's a lot of value to comparing return on the bond portion of an IRA unless it's invested in bond funds (which a lot of people wanting to preserve principal tend to avoid)\"",
"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": "5a9a5dcc1532513df50baedcb611b3ce",
"text": "Thanks for the answer/comments! The time-based method was something we mooted and something I almost went with. But just to wrap this up, the method we settled on was this: Every time there is an entry or exit into the fund, we divvy out any unrealised market profits/losses according to each person's profit share (based on % of the asset purchased at buy-in) JUST BEFORE the entry/exit. These realised profits are then locked in for those particpants, and then the unrealised profits/loss counter starts at zero, we do a fresh recalculation of shareholding after the entry/exit, and then we start again. Hope this helps anyone with the same issue!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5bfedbdd63f74534043d2d59fcef16b4",
"text": "Like others have said, mutual funds don't have an intraday NAV, but their ETF equivalents do. Use something like Yahoo Finance and search for the ETF.IV. For example VOO.IV. This will give you not the ETF price (which may be at a premium or discount), but the value of the underlying securities updated every 15 seconds.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2062d8a92e3151241257c925fd0c2a15",
"text": "One way that is common is to show the value over time of an initial investment, say $10,000. The advantage of this is that it doesn't show stock price at all, so handles splits well. It can also take into account dividend reinvestment. Fidelity uses this for their mutual funds, as can be seen here. Another option would be to compute the stock price as if the split didn't happen. So if a stock does a 2:1 split, you show double the actual price starting at that point.",
"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": "705edc8917c352edfecb5356b6058ef2",
"text": "I'm not entirely sure about some of the details in your question, since I think you meant to use $10,000 as the value of the futures contract and $3 as the value of the underlying stock. Those numbers would make more sense. That being said, I can give you a simple example of how to calculate the profit and loss from a leveraged futures contract. For the sake of simplicity, I'll use a well-known futures contract: the E-mini S&P500 contract. Each E-mini is worth $50 times the value of the S&P 500 index and has a tick size of 0.25, so the minimum price change is 0.25 * $50 = $12.50. Here's an example. Say the current value of the S&P500 is 1,600; the value of each contract is therefore $50 * 1,600 = $80,000. You purchase one contract on margin, with an initial margin requirement1 of 5%, or $4,000. If the S&P 500 index rises to 1,610, the value of your futures contract increases to $50 * 1,610 = $80,500. Once you return the 80,000 - 4,000 = $76,000 that you borrowed as leverage, your profit is 80,500 - 76,000 = $4,500. Since you used $4,000 of your own funds as an initial margin, your profit, excluding commissions is 4,500 - 4,000 = $500, which is a 500/4000 = 12.5% return. If the index dropped to 1,580, the value of your futures contract decreases to $50 * 1,580 = $79,000. After you return the $76,000 in leverage, you're left with $3,000, or a net loss of (3,000 - 4000)/(4000) = -25%. The math illustrates why using leverage increases your risk, but also increases your potential for return. Consider the first scenario, in which the index increases to 1,610. If you had forgone using margin and spent $80,000 of your own funds, your profit would be (80,500 - 80,000) / 80000 = .625%. This is smaller than your leveraged profit by a factor of 20, the inverse of the margin requirement (.625% / .05 = 12.5%). In this case, the use of leverage dramatically increased your rate of return. However, in the case of a decrease, you spent $80,000, but gained $79,000, for a loss of only 1.25%. This is 20 times smaller in magnitude than your negative return when using leverage. By forgoing leverage, you've decreased your opportunity for upside, but also decreased your downside risk. 1) For futures contracts, the margin requirements are set by the exchange, which is CME group, in the case of the E-mini. The 5% in my example is higher than the actual margin requirement, which is currently $3,850 USD per contract, but it keeps the numbers simple. Also note that CME group refers to the initial margin as the performance bond instead.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "35ec6ed1d2beb27b9ab3d584c9de8470",
"text": "Dividend yield is a tough thing to track because it's a moving target. Dividends are paid periodically the yield is calculated based on the stock price when the dividend is declared (usually, though some services may update this more frequently). I like to calculate my own dividend by annualizing the dividend payment divided by my cost basis per share. As an example, say you have shares in X, Co. X issues a quarterly dividend of $1 per share and the share price is $100; coincidentally this is the price at which you purchased your shares. But a few years goes by and now X issues it's quarterly dividend of $1.50 per share, and the share price is $160. However your shares only cost you $100. Your annual yield on X is 6%, not the published 3.75%. All of this is to say that looking back on dividend yields is somewhat similar to nailing jello to the wall. Do you look at actual dividends paid through the year divided by share price? Do you look at the annualized dividend at the time of issue then average those? The stock price will fluctuate, that will change the yield; depending on where you bought your stock, your actual yield will vary from the published amount as well.",
"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": ""
},
{
"docid": "9764ba3afd9210806de741e49eaf845a",
"text": "\"Google Docs spreadsheets have a function for filling in stock and fund prices. You can use that data to graph (fund1 / fund2) over some time period. Syntax: =GoogleFinance(\"\"symbol\"\", \"\"attribute\"\", \"\"start_date\"\", \"\"num_days|end_date\"\", \"\"interval\"\") where: This analysis won’t include dividends or distributions. Yahoo provides adjusted data, if you want to include that.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "68eb08f84bf9bb435c3a622500d4f932",
"text": "The net return reported to you (as a percentage) by a mutual fund is the gross return minus the expense ratio. So, if the gross return is X% and the expense ratio is Y%, your account will show a return of (X-Y)%. Be aware that X could be negative too. So, with Y = 1, If X = 10 (as you might get from a stock fund if you believe historical averages will continue), then the net return is 9% and you have lost (Y/X) times 100% = 10% of the gross return. If X = 8 (as you might get from a bond fund if you believe historical averages will continue), then the net return is 7% and you have lost (Y/X) times 100% = 12.5% of the gross return. and so on and so forth. The numbers used are merely examples of the returns that have been obtained historically, though it is worth emphasizing that 10% is an average return, averaged over many decades, from investments in stocks, and to believe that one will get a 10% return year after year is to mislead oneself very badly. I think the point of the illustrations is that expense ratios are important, and should matter a lot to you, but that their impact is proportionately somewhat less if the gross return is high, but very significant if the gross return is low, as in money-market funds. In fact, some money market funds which found that X < Y have even foregone charging the expense ratio fee so as to maintain a fixed $1 per share price. Personally, I would need a lot of persuading to invest in even a stock fund with 1% expense ratio.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e14cd27d6b05d9599f2137aff319240f",
"text": "Is my math correct? The Math is correct, however Dividends don't work this way. The Yield is Post Facto. i.e. Given the dividend that is declared every quarter, once calculates the yield. The dividends are not fixed or guaranteed. These change from Quarter to Quarter or at times they are not given at all. The yield is 3.29% and the value is $114 per share. Assuming that the price remains exactly the same for an entire year, and that I purchase only one share, then this should be the math for calculating the yield: 114 x 0.0329 = 3.7506 What the Link is showing is that last dividend of MCD was 0.94 for Q3; that means total for a year will be 0.94*4 [3.76], this means yield will be 3.29%. Note this year there were only 3 Dividend was 0.89 on 26-Feb, 0.89 on 2-Jun and 0.94 on 29-Nov. It is unlikely that there will be one more dividend this year. So for this year the correct post facto calculation would be 0.89+0.89+.94 = 2.72 and hence an yield of 2.38% Also, are there any fees/deductions, or would I receive the amount in full, which should be $3.75? There are no fee deducted. Not sure about US tax treatment on Dividends.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "abdd072491ef76018f5ae6da88ba5c38",
"text": "The solution is x = 8.92. This assumes that Chuck's six years of deposits start from today, so that the first deposit accumulates 10 years of gain, i.e. 20*(1 + 0.1)^10. The second deposit gains nine years' interest: 20*(1 + 0.1)^9 and so on ... If you want to do this calculation using the formula for an annuity due, i.e. http://www.financeformulas.net/Future-Value-of-Annuity-Due.html where (formula by induction) you have to bear in mind this is for the whole time span (k = 1 to n), so for just the first six years you need to calculate for all ten years then subtract another annuity calculation for the last four years. So the full calculation is: As you can see it's not very neat, because the standard formula is for a whole time span. You could make it a little tidier by using a formula for k = m to n instead, i.e. So the calculation becomes which can be done with simple arithmetic (and doesn't actually need a solver).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "75f914274e0dd57bcb5f30258ce50a8c",
"text": "One estimate is to sell today, estimate the taxes, and determine how much cash you need to set aside over the next 12 months. The is no way to calculate what impact dividends and capital gains the funds will have, because unlike interest they aren't guaranteed. The other complexity is that the funds themselves could drop in value. In that case the dividends and capital gains may not even be enough to get you back to even. I use mutual funds to invest over the long term, with the idea of spending the funds over decades. When needing to save for a short term goal, I use banking products. They are guaranteed not to lose value, and the interest changes are slowerand thus easier to predict.",
"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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
484c8db666503ab2e0810f073201cc32
|
Zero volatility stocks in intraday trading in India
|
[
{
"docid": "2e0f31f94cf52b627aa07e0d9adb7d98",
"text": "\"Find a stock screener that has data for the BSE and NSE. You may be able to look directly at volatility but a good stock screener will have the technical analysis indicator called \"\"average true range\"\", ATR for short. This will let you see the average range of price moves over several days.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e8346166ad4430c242e3026cd03fbdfc",
"text": "you need to use easy programming language to imply onto a scan where you enter Scan all stocks display if volume < (less than) 100",
"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": "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": "256d8f8b963c74af0ba8ce2a97db7681",
"text": "based on my understanding of your query...well you need to understand ATM and ITM options. The delta and gamma factor specifically. Usually delta of ATM is around 0.5 while ITM option is above than that say 0.6 or 0.8 or 0.9 and deep ITM is very close to 1. for every movement of 1 buck the ITM will move say 1.6, ATM 0.5 and OTM 0.3 approx Say a ABC stock price is Rs. 300 so if you check option chart you try to see which one is closer. Suppose you find strikeprice of 320 / 300 / 280. So 320 is ITM, 300 is ATM and 280 is OTM for call options. So will the delta value (e.g 0.66 / 0.55 / 0.35). So suppose if stock price rise by 7% i.e Rs. 321 then strikeprice will rise simultaneously. Say ATM CE300 is rs.10 it will start rising by 0.55 i.e. Rs.10.55. The moment the share price move from Rs.300 to Rs.320 your ATM will turn to ITM. Now the tricker part if you buy OTM and the share price rise by 15% your OTM will now become ITM and your profit will roll around 100% to 120% approx. Hope it answers your query",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4eeeb700522713da024781f45893656f",
"text": "Interactive Brokers provides historical intraday data including Bid, Ask, Last Trade and Volume for the majority of stocks. You can chart the data, download it to Excel or use it in your own application through their API. EDIT: Compared to other solutions (like FreeStockCharts.com for instance), Interactive Brokers provides not only historic intraday LAST**** trades **but also historic BID and ASK data, which is very useful information if you want to design your own trading system. I have enclosed a screenshot to the chart parameter window and a link to the API description.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "02b333afdcebbf23ab44336b569546c4",
"text": "The mathematics make it easier to understand why this is the case. Using very bad shorthand, d1 and d2 are inputs into N(), and N() can be expressed as the probability of the expected value or the most probable value which in this case is the discounted expected stock price at expiration. d1 has two σs which is volatility in the numerator and one in the denominator. Cancelling leaves one on top. Calculating when it's infinity gives an N() of 1 for S and 0 for K, so the call is worth S and the put PV(K). At 0 for σ, it's the opposite. More concise is that any mathematical moment be it variance which mostly influences volatility, mean which determines drift, or kurtosis which mostly influences skew are all uncertanties thus costs, so the higher they are, the higher the price of an option. Economically speaking, uncertainties are costs. Since costs raise prices, and volatility is an uncertainty, volatility raises prices. It should be noted that BS assumes that prices are lognormally distributed. They are not. The closest distribution, currently, is the logVariance Gamma distribution.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "50c49f869e78d0d9127483535402bb32",
"text": "December, 9, 2011 (01:30pm) :- December rally comes to be end yesterday. on 1st December Nifty starts with the bullish mark of 5000 but all these rally are hurted by the non - confidence on the FDI policy in multi brand but little bit effect also comes from the hearing on 2G spectrum case in which our home minister Mr. Chidambaram are on the accused on the trials. That's why investors are dissatisfy and starts selling on the Nifty. Our domestic Institutional investors are totally in selling position on 7th December, they sold Rs 190.11 & on 8th December, they are sold Rs 197.51 in stock market. Nifty have strong support at 4850 above this level it's trend totally bullish side.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3f4550d72779d20e482043a4521b1a41",
"text": "\"I know its not legal to have open long and short position on specific security (on two stock exchanges - NSE/BSE) There is nothing illegal about it. There are prescribed ways on how this is addressed. In Cash Segment / Intra Day trades: One can short sell a security. If by end of day he does not buy the security; it goes into Auction. The said security is purchased on your behalf. Any profit or loss arising out of this is charged to you. Similarly one can buy a security; if one does not pay the amount by end of day; it would go into auction and sold. Any profit or loss arising out of this is charged to you. If you short sell a security on one exchange; you have to buy it on same exchange. If you buy on other exchange; it will not be adjusted against this short position. Also is it legal to have long position on stock and short its derivative (future/option)? There are no restrictions. Edit: @yety Party A shorts 10 shares of HDFC today in Intra-Day Cash Segment purchased by Party B. Rather than buying back 10 shares or allowing it to go into auction... Party A borrows 10 HDFC Shares from \"\"X\"\" via SLB for a period of say 6 months [1 month to 1 year]. This is recorded as Party A obligation to \"\"X\"\". These 10 borrowed shares are transferred to Party B. So Party \"\"X\"\" doesn't have any HDFC shares at this point in time. However in exchange, Party X receives fees for borrowing from Party A. If there is dividend, are declared, Company pays Party B. However SLB recovers identical amount from Party A and pays Party X. If there is 1:1 split, now party A owes Party X 20 HDFC Shares. On maturity [after 6 months], Party A has to buy these from market and given back the borrowed shares to Party X. If there are some other corporate actions, i.e. mergers / amalgamations ... the obligation of Party A to Party X is closed immediately and position settled. Of course there are provisions whereby party A can pay back the shares earlier or party X can ask for shares earlier and there are rules/trades/mechanisms to facilitate this.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "45743fe1204527eb442e748805b613fa",
"text": "\"Not cumulative volatility. It's cumulative probability density. Time value isn't linear because PDFs (probability distribution function) aren't linear. It's a type of distribution e.g. \"\"bell-curves\"\") These distributions are based on empirical data i.e. what we observe. BSM i.e. Black-Scholes-Merton includes the factors that influence an option price and include a PDF to represent the uncertainty/probability. Time value is based on historical volatility in the underlying asset price, in this case equity(stock). At the beginning, time value is high since there's time until expiration and the stock is expected to move within a certain range based on historical performance. As it nears expiration, uncertainty over the final value diminishes. This causes probability for a certain price range to become more likely. We can relate that to how people think, which affects the variation in the stock market price. Most people who are hoping for a value increase are optimistic about their chances of winning and will hold out towards the end. They see in the past d days, the stock has moved [-2%,+5%] so as a call buyer, they're looking for that upside. With little time remaining though, their hopes quickly drop to 0 for any significant changes beyond the market price. (Likewise, people keep playing the lottery up until a certain age when they're older and suddenly determine they're never going to win.) We see that reflected in the PDF used to represent options price movements. Thus your time value which is a function of probability decreases in a non-linear fashion. Option price = intrinsic value + time value At expiration, your option price = intrinsic value = stock price - strike price, St >= K, and 0 for St < K.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e72fec842579c94379154c5c9e31b87d",
"text": "IESC has a one-time, non-repeatable event in its operating income stream. It magnifies operating income by about a factor of five. It impacts both the numerator and the denominator. Without knowing exactly how the adjustments are made it would take too much work for me to calculate it exactly, but I did get close to their number using a relatively crude adjustment rule. Basically, Yahoo is excluding one-time events from its definitions since, although they are classified as operating events, they distort the financial record. I teach securities analysis and have done it as a profession. If I had to choose between Yahoo and Marketwatch, at least for this security, I would clearly choose Yahoo.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5732b0f0f50104e563b3b42a890c2b29",
"text": "IFTY VIEW WITH SUPPORT AND RESISTANCE LEVEL FOR TOMORROW 26 Dec(NIFTY TREND):-Last hour trading session in the nifty took the all gains of the day and closed with some losses at 4714, down 20 points.For Monday Stock Market has resistance level at 4789.65 and last resistance level at",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d6bf11b0627d73cbea9659cfedae9210",
"text": "\"The calculation and theory are explained in the other answers, but it should be pointed out that the video is the equivalent of watching a magic trick. The secret is: \"\"Stock A and B are perfectly negatively correlated.\"\" The video glasses over that fact that without that fact the risk doesn't drop to zero. The rule is that true diversification does decrease risk. That is why you are advised to spread year investments across small-cap, large-cap, bonds, international, commodities, real estate. Getting two S&P 500 indexes isn't diversification. Your mix of investments will still have risk, because return and risk are backward calculations, not a guarantee of future performance. Changes that were not anticipated will change future performance. What kind of changes: technology, outsourcing, currency, political, scandal.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5ae06451df0a095d66d02dd73776f07a",
"text": "\"Trading on specific ECNs is the easy part - you simply specify the order routing in advance. You are not buying or selling the *exact* same shares. Shares are fungible - so if I simultaneously buy one share and sell another share, my net share position is zero - even if those trades don't settle until T+3. PS \"\"The Nasdaq\"\" isn't really an exchange in the way that the CME, or other order-driven markets are. It's really just a venue to bring market makers together. It's almost like \"\"the internet,\"\" as in, when you buy something from Amazon, you're not buying it from \"\"the internet,\"\" but it was the internet that made your transaction with Amazon possible.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9c544c0eb4ec07e6e467f7e47f29f5ab",
"text": "I am relative newbie in the financial market trading and as I understand it, the response from Victor is accurate in respect of trading CFD contracts. However, there is also the option to 'trade' through a financial spread betting platform which as its name suggests is purely a bet based upon the price of the underlying stock/asset. As such, I believe that your theory to short a stock just prior to its ex-dividend date may be worth investigating further... Apart from that, it's worthwhile mentioning that financial spread betting is officially recognised by HMRC as gambling and therefore not currently [2015/16] subject to capital gains tax. This info is given in good faith and must not be relied upon when making any investment and/or trading decision(s). I hope this helps you make a fortune - if it does; then please remember me!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "53b920a8744acc0df88502e7a62a2264",
"text": "A lot of questions, but all it boils down to is: . Banks usually perform T+1 net settlements, also called Global Netting, as opposed to real-time gross settlements. That means they promise the counterparty the money at some point in the future (within the next few business days, see delivery versus payment) and collect all transactions of that kind. For this example say, they will have a net outflow of 10M USD. The next day they will purchase 10M USD on the FX market and hand it over to the global netter. Note that this might be more than one transaction, especially because the sums are usually larger. Another Indian bank might have a 10M USD inflow, they too will use the FX market, selling 10M USD for INR, probably picking a different time to the first bank. So the rates will most likely differ (apart from the obvious bid/ask difference). The dollar rate they charge you is an average of their rate achieved when buying the USD, plus some commission for their forex brokerage, plus probably some fee for the service (accessing the global netting system isn't free). The fees should be clearly (and separately) stated on your bank statement, and so should be the FX rate. Back to the second example: Obviously since it's a different bank handing over INRs or USDs (or if it was your own bank, they would have internally netted the incoming USDs with the outgoing USDs) the rate will be different, but it's still a once a day transaction. From the INRs you get they will subtract the average FX achieved rate, the FX commissions and again the service fee for the global netting. The fees alone mean that the USD/INR sell rate is different from the buy rate.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b6c7b57b4c708099bbf82caed964b5cb",
"text": "December, 5, 2011 ( 03:00pm ) :- All markets including stocks & Commodities are moving towards upward direction on the strong cues comes on the expiring today. Little bit Volatile comes over the settlement in MCX today. Gold & Silver contracts are expiring today. Dow Jones Industrial average future up by80 points from the optimism coming from the European Countries. All European Countries getting financial aid from the side of IMF which is provided through the European Central Bank. Nifty have strong resistance at 5150 levels under this level short term trend still bearish side. Gold have strong support at Rs 28960 above this trend bullish under this trend down for short term.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
7a08c335526d1617809339439814ec72
|
How can I find a report of dividend earned in a FY?
|
[
{
"docid": "2f60e9abbe4ad0a75271938671911ca7",
"text": "I know this question is old. I also have a kotak trading account. There is no way to get the dividend report from the trading account. The dividend is directly credited to your bank account by the companies through registrar. There is no involvement of trading account in there. So the best possible way will be to get the bank account statement for the financial year and filter out the dividend transactions manually. I know it is tedious, but there doesn't seem to be any easy way out there for this. Few days back I started using portfolio manager provided by economic times. It lists all the dividend earned in my stocks automatically.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d0d208b70366c997e730081aa27d0fe0",
"text": "Log in to kotak securities demat account. THere, you can find statement of your sell purchase and dividend received.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "4abb004cd0c36e66aa7992fff17d8e99",
"text": "\"The full holdings will be listed in the annual report of the fund, obviously the holdings would only be completely accurate as of the date of the reporting. This is the most recent annual report for FMAGX. I got it from my Schwab research section under \"\"All Fund Documents\"\" but I'm sure you can find it other ways. When I use google to search for \"\"fmagx annual report\"\" this link was the first result.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "752fe43fec044c6a3eeae40070f42528",
"text": "You may be able to find the answers to your question on the IRS web site: http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=98263,00.html Specifically, using this form to estimate taxes for salary: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1120w.pdf and this form to estimate taxes for dividends: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040es.pdf",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "34e4ff8c31dc911644bb906c3fa47495",
"text": "No - there are additional factors involved. Note that the shares on issue of a company can change for various reasons (such as conversion/redemption of convertible securities, vesting of restricted employee shares, conversion of employee options, employee stock purchase programs, share placements, buybacks, mergers, rights issues etc.) so it is always worthwhile checking SEC announcements for the company if you want an exact figure. There may also be multiple classes of shares and preferred securities that have different levels of dividends present. For PFG, they filed a 10Q on 22 April 2015 and noted they had 294,385,885 shares outstanding of their common stock. They also noted for the three months ended March 31 2014 that dividends were paid to both common stockholders and preferred stockholders and that there were Series A preferred stock (3 million) and Series B preferred stock (10 million), plus a statement: In February 2015, our Board of Directors authorized a share repurchase program of up to $150.0 million of our outstanding common stock. Shares repurchased under these programs are accounted for as treasury stock, carried at cost and reflected as a reduction to stockholders’ equity. Therefore the exact amount of dividend paid out will not be known until the next quarterly report which will state the exact amount of dividend paid out to common and preferred shareholders for the quarter.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "b5800f63f0c10a1e5baba7f2a38d43ef",
"text": "From the hover text of the said screen; Latest dividend/dividend yield Latest dividend is dividend per share paid to shareholders in the most recent quarter. Dividend yield is the value of the latest dividend, multiplied by the number of times dividends are typically paid per year, divided by the stock price. So for Ambev looks like the dividend is inconsistantly paid and not paid every quarter.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d304e33e18f5f22766283a4d16a7ca8b",
"text": "http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=EDV+Historical+Prices shows this which matches Vanguard: Mar 24, 2014 0.769 Dividend Your download link doesn't specify dates which makes me wonder if it is a cumulative distribution or something else as one can wonder how did you ensure that the URL is specifying to list only the most recent distribution and not something else. For example, try this URL which specifies date information in the a,b,c,d,e,f parameters: http://real-chart.finance.yahoo.com/table.csv?s=EDV&a=00&b=29&c=2014&d=05&e=16&f=2014&g=v&ignore=.csv",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f546a579450b87a61ba2b7d0f2569303",
"text": "\"I have 3 favorite sites that I use. http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/mcd/dividend-history - lists the entire history of dividends and what dates they were paid so you can predict when future dividends will be paid. http://www.dividend.com/dividend-stocks/services/restaurants/mcd-mcdonalds/ - this site lists key stats like dividend yield, and number of years dividend has increased. If the next dividend is announced, it shows the number of days until the ex-dividend date, the next ex-div and payment date and amount. If you just want to research good dividend stocks to get into, I would highly recommend the site seekingalpha.com. Spend some time reading the articles on that site under the dividends section. Make sure you read the comments on each article to make sure the author is not way off base. Finally, my favorite tool for researching good dividend stocks is the CCC Lists produced by Seeking Alpha's David Fish. It is a giant spreadsheet of stocks that have been increasing dividends every year for 5+, 10+, or 25+ years. The link to that spreadsheet is here: http://dripinvesting.org/tools/tools.asp under \"\"U.S. Dividend Champions\"\".\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fab78c04a66a89ee0cd7467bfa6429fa",
"text": "In the context of EDV, 4.46 is the indicated dividend rate. The indicated dividend rate is the rate that would be paid per share throughout the next year, assuming dividends stayed the same as prior payment. sources:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3d94891f7db8bc509b8384492dbb6104",
"text": "according to the SEC: Shareholder Reports A mutual fund and a closed-end fund respectively must provide shareholders with annual and semi-annual reports 60 days after the end of the fund’s fiscal year and 60 days after the fund’s fiscal mid-year. These reports contain updated financial information, a list of the fund’s portfolio securities, and other information. The information in the shareholder reports will be current as of the date of the particular report (that is, the last day of the fund’s fiscal year for the annual report, and the last day of the fund’s fiscal mid-year for the semi-annual report). Other Reports A mutual fund and a closed-end fund must file a Form N-Q each quarter and a Form N-PX each year on the SEC’s EDGAR database, although funds are not required to mail these reports to shareholders. Funds disclose portfolio holdings on Form N-Q. Form N-PX identifies specific proposals on which the fund has voted portfolio securities over the past year and discloses how the fund voted on each. This disclosure enables fund shareholders to monitor their funds’ involvement in the governance activities of portfolio companies. which means that sixty days after the end of each quarter they will tell you what they owned 60 days ago. This makes sense; why would they want to tell the world what companies they are buying and selling.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "468f1945e30dd4d58e90a92d1a6d3953",
"text": "\"The way the post is worded, coca cola wouldn't count towards either, although it's not entirely clear. If the dividends are considered under capital gains (which isn't technically an appropriate term) he's earning only 500Million a year from his stake in coca cola. If he sold his shares, he'd receive capital gains of ~15Billion, which would probably outpace his operations business. The best graph would probably be something like \"\"net worth of operations vs net worth of equity in other companies\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5f5707476dff29e1c64892d4c4ab68be",
"text": "Check out the NASDAQ and NYSE websites(the exchange in which the stock is listed) for detailed information. Most of the websites which collate dividend payments generally have cash payments history only e.g. Dividata. And because a company has given stock dividends in the past doesn't guarantee such in the future, I believe you already know that.",
"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": "74f1a239bcc0d9bbad7d9f5ed35dbb9c",
"text": "Dividends are normally paid in cash, so don't generally affect your portfolio aside from a slight increase to 'cash'. You get a check for them, or your broker would deposit the funds into a money-market account for you. There is sometimes an option to re-invest dividends, See Westyfresh's answer regarding Dividend Re-Investment Plans. As Tom Au described, the dividends are set by the board of directors and announced. Also as he indicated just before the 'record' date, a stock which pays dividends is worth slightly more (reflecting the value of the dividend that will be paid to anyone holding the stock on the record date) and goes down by the dividend amount immediately after that date (since you'd now have to hold the stock till the next record date to get a dividend) In general unless there's a big change in the landscape (such as in late 2008) most companies pay out about the same dividend each time, and changes to this are sometimes seen by some as 'indicators' of company health and such news can result in movement in the stock price. When you look at a basic quote on a ticker symbol there is usually a line for Div/yeild which gives the amount of dividend paid per share, and the relative yeild (as a percentage of the stock price). If a company has been paying dividends, this field will have values in it, if a company does not pay a dividend it will be blank or say NA (depending on where you get the quote). This is the easiest way to see if a company pays a dividend or not. for example if you look at this quote for Google, you can see it pays no dividend Now, in terms of telling when and how much of a dividend has been paid, most financial sites have the option when viewing a stock chart to show the dividend payments. If you expand the chart to show at least a year, you can see when and how much was paid in terms of dividends. For example you can see from this chart that MSFT pays dividends once a quarter, and used to pay out 13 cents, but recently changed to 16 cents. if you were to float your mouse over one of those icons it would also give the date the dividend was paid.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5ef9589f70c394dd722cea35986d83a7",
"text": "Many things I buy from Amazon I could get cheaper from Walmart but I pay more from Amazon just so I don't have to go to Walmart. It isn't the company itself that keeps me away, its the people that frequent the establishment and the lines. Funny you should mention the locker. I remember when they first started rolling this out and until just now, I had no idea I actually have 2 in my area.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
3f46091bd6f91b20497aaa674331bef5
|
Where can I find a good online fundamental data provider for Hong Kong stocks?
|
[
{
"docid": "b20bcc87aaf2e168aa3e45dbcbdffd65",
"text": "If you check out China Stock Markets Web provides details on all things that trade on there. It covers the Hang Seng Index, SSE Index, and SSE Component Index. There is also tons of information for investors on the exchange website here.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "42a6227caae2ab12663e34c5bcc7f38b",
"text": "Check out WorldCap.org. They provide fundamental data for Hong Kong stocks in combination with an iPad app. Disclosure: I am affiliated with WorldCap.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "ce74473919d8ee1c40037ea199392734",
"text": "An alternative to paying thousands of dollars for historical prices by the minute: Subscribe to real time data for as low as USD$1.5/month from your broker, then browse the chart.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c83ab56176a53cc349d933f86728f74c",
"text": "\"I use Google Finance too. The only thing I have problem with is dividend info which it wouldn't automatically add to my portfolio. At the same time, I think that's a lot to ask for a free web site tool. So when dividend comes, I manually \"\"deposit\"\" the dividend payment by updating the cash amount. If the dividend comes in share form, I do a BUY at price 0 for that particular stock. If you only have 5 stocks, this additional effort is not bad at all. I also use the Hong Kong version of it so perhaps there maybe an implementation difference across country versions. Hope this helps. CF\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ea53f26fcd0dbb82c5c79e8ebe2c3638",
"text": "I think Infochimps has what you are looking for: NYSE and NASDAQ.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2cb0c9006f2d4e792506e81e91ac60f5",
"text": "Think I had to sign an NDA on pricing w them so can't get specific. Depends if you want realtime or just historical data. Historical obviously cheaper, realtime more. The prices aren't crushing though, one of cheapest tick data vendors around. You get pros and cons to that though - data is time stamped at 25ms and sent over WAN. But they also have self healing tapes w backfill etc so if your server knocks offline for a while you fill the gap when back up etc.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2379e2f1e6f178d08404ad68f7796fef",
"text": "http://www.moneysupermarket.com/shares/CompareSharesForm.asp lists many. I found the Interactive Investor website to be excruciatingly bad. I switched to TD Waterhouse and found the website good but the telephone service a bit abrupt. I often use the data presented on SelfTrade but don't have an account there.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2229df26d0604672093af0428f8b7c9a",
"text": "I found a possible data source. It offers fundamentals i.e. the accounting ratios you listed (P/E, dividend yield, price/book) for international stock indexes. International equity indices based on EAFE definitions are maintained by Professor French of French-Fama fame, at Dartmouth's Tuck Business School website. Specifics of methodology, and countries covered is available here. MSCI is the data source. Historical time interval for most countries is from 1975 onward. (Singapore was one of the countries included). Obtaining historical ratios for international stock indices is not easily found for free. Your question didn't specify free though. If that is not a constraint, you may wish to check the MSCI Barra international stock indices also.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "244082b525c3e0b52022e26c339e7810",
"text": "\"In the US, stocks are listed on one exchange but can be traded on multiple venues. You need to confirm exactly what your data is showing: a) trades on the primary-listed exchange; or b) trades made at any venue. Also, the trade condition codes are important. Only certain trade condition codes contribute towards the day's open/high/low/close and some others only contribute towards the volume data. The Consolidated Tape Association is very clear on which trades should contribute towards each value - but some vendors have their own interpretation (or just simply an erroneous interpretation of the specifications). It may surprise you to find that the majority of trading volume for many stocks is not on their primary-listed exchange. For example, on 2 Mar 2015, NASDAQ:AAPL traded a total volume across all venues was 48096663 shares but trading on NASDAQ itself was 12050277 shares. Trades can be cancelled. Some data vendors do not modify their data to reflect these busted trades. Some data vendors also \"\"snapshot\"\" their feed at a particular point in time of the data. Some exchanges can provide data (mainly corrections) 4-5 hours after the closing bell. By snapshotting the data too early and throwing away any subsequent data is a typical cause of data discrepancies. Some data vendors also round prices/volumes - but stocks don't just trade to two decimal places. So you may well be comparing two different sets of trades (with their own specific inclusion rules) against the same stock. You need to confirm with your data sources exactly how they do things. Disclosure: Premium Data is an end-of-day daily data vendor.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4fcf665ffa10c9f80ce5d25907cfd42c",
"text": "The following have been recommended to me for the UK: When I was doing my investigations, all had good reputations but Interactive Investor looked to have the nicer service and their fees seemed a bit more reasonable. TD Waterhouse has the advantage of a number of sites serving local markets (TD Ameritrade for the US, for instance).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7978a163ea6fbead1bd037bcc1a14902",
"text": "I also searched for some time before discovering Market Archive, which AFAIK is the most affordable option that basically gives you a massive multi-GB dump of data. I needed sufficient data to build a model and didn't want to work through an API or have to hand-pick the securities to train from. After trying to do this on my own by scraping Yahoo and using the various known tools, I decided my time was better spent not dealing with rate-limiting issues and parsing quirks and whatnot, so I just subscribed to Market Archive (they update the data daily).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fe41bd844ccdd880ae9b1f59abe82487",
"text": "\"Google Finance certainly has data for Tokyo Stock Exchange (called TYO on Google) listings. You could create a \"\"portfolio\"\" consisting of the stocks you care about and then visit it once per day (or write a script to do so).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5ff0d2b58a0072ba0922d31010282b2d",
"text": "There are companies who sell data gleaned in aggregate from credit card providers to show how much of what category of product is sold online or offline, but that data is not cheap. 1010data is one such data aggregator we are talking to right now. Haven’t seen pricing yet but I expect 6 figures to access the data",
"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": "812a21841968b8016fe9dddda33b9b22",
"text": "Is there one out there that doesn't suffer from massive survivorship bias? Most that I've looked at gather their data from discretionary reporting from the manager themselves, and many stop reporting after bad months when they aren't going to be raising capital anyway.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "511e8057b45ed3161ca616adc928c2ff",
"text": "Ok the black suit being for funerals and weddings only thing freaks me out because I've worn black suits to two interviews already. I'm gonna check out suit supply, there's a location nearby. What exactly is dark navy and medium gray (as opposed to what, light navy and dark gray?) What about those suits that are very lightly striped and black",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4830aaf75a25d06ab7211b1830786118",
"text": "One simple calculation to determine your life insurance need: D.I.M.E. method D: Debt All your car loan balances, credit card balances, student loans, business loans, etc. I: Income Your annual income times 10 (for 10 years of income replacement). M: Mortgage Your home mortgage balance. E: Education Your children's education expenses. You add up all these items, and you'll come up with a proper amount of life insurance coverage. This should be sufficient model for a majority of people. Yes, your life insurance needs will change as you move through life. Therefore you should sit down with your life insurance agent to review your policy every year and adjust it accordingly.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
6b87355bf70b727c9a7f342cdb2fc997
|
Buy Php in Malaysia and sell to Philippines
|
[
{
"docid": "b36f4593a562c7419d44757c8d067e94",
"text": "I noticed the buy/sell board table. Where did you notice this. Generally for a pair of currencies, there is Unit associated along with direction. The Unit is generally constant. These are only revised when there is large devaluation of a particular currency. Buying Php for MYR 8.52, Selling MYR 8.98. So in this case the Unit of PHP is 100, so Bank is Buying 100 PHP from you [you are selling PHP] and will give you MYR 8.52. If you now want to buy 100 PHP [so the Bank is selling you], you have to pay MYR 8.98. So you loose MYR 0.46 Why are they selling it way beyond the exchange rate? Why is this? As explained above, they are not. Its still within the range. The quote on internet are average price. This means before going back to Philippines, I can buy a lot of peso that I can buy and exchange it for higher price right? Generally an individual cannot make money by buying in one currency and selling in other. There are specialist who try and find arbitrage between multiple pair of currencies and make money out of it. Its a continuous process, if they start making profit, the market will react and put pressure on a pair and the prices would move to remove the arbitrage.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "78bbc8793f5582d6416f7c29a1969548",
"text": "basically the selling (for banks) means you will exchange PHP to MYR buying simply MYR to PHP the bank will buy your MYR in exchange to PHP. and you will sell your MYR to PHP. I think it has something to do with processing fee..",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "6bb5409ce375190d4102c600b999193c",
"text": "First decide if the best route is to distribute as a middle man (eg.land an Amazon or Walmart contract), or to distribute it through yourself (your own company). Is it more profitable to form your own corporation or have the mother company establish a international entity in N.A? (fees apply but they could be minuscule to your projected margins(eg.$5000 fee to open up a market of $1,000,000+ GP)) If you decide you want to establish your own means of distribution, you will have to decide if your going to build physical locations or do online distribution. Depending on what the product or service your providing, you generally have more possibilities and opportunities with online market. You can run an online website, incorporate an online store that accept online payments, and shipping products for less than $5000 a year. (Monthly payments for the services provided, excluding any shipping/import costs) This would be done with the means of website hosts such as GoDaddy, or retail hosts like Shopify.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4fdc05017bf72e9d071694448159aa6c",
"text": "If you prefer the stock rather than cash, you might find it easier to take the cash, report it, and then buy the same stock from within your own country.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a51983803160439f6066f0ef2c496667",
"text": "The Hong Kong Dollar has been pegged to the USD for nearly 30 years and the Hong Kong authorities have fairly strong means to defend the peg. So at first glance it would appear that there is really no difference as long as you are getting 7.75 HKD for each USD that you used to receive. However, the peg is arbitrary and could be lifted at any time like the removal of the CHF peg to EUR surprised a lot of people in early 2015. As mainland China becomes more integrated it is unclear what will happen to the HKD in the long run. Whether this matters really depends on your contracts. if your contracts are short dated you may only take a discount relative to USD for a few payments before you can try to renegotiate. It's also worth noting trading HKD for your local INR can be more expensive. Check your local rates.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e6c723d9270816257b82bf1b4ecf93d7",
"text": "\"If I buy the one from NSY, is it the \"\"real\"\" Sinopec? No - you are buying an American Depository Receipt. Essentially some American bank or other entity holds a bunch of Sinopec stock and issues certificates to the American exchange that American investors can trade. This insulates the American investors from the cost of international transactions. The price of these ADRs should mimic the price of the underlying stock (including changes the currency exchange rate) otherwise an arbitrage opportunity would exist. Other than that, the main difference between holding the ADR and the actual stock is that ADRs do not have voting rights. So if that is not important to you then for all intents and purposes trading the ADR would be the same as trading the underlying stock.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c393b2a11daf7865f68881dbb8913a11",
"text": "Wiring is the best way to move large amounts of money from one country to another. I am sure Japanese banks will allow you to exchange your Japanese Yen into USD and wire it to Canada. I am not sure if they will be able to convert directly from JPY to CND and wire funds in CND. If you can open a USD bank account in Canada, that might make things easier.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5985a7c041ca425986510e782c5f88bc",
"text": "\"This page from TripAdvisor may be of interest. Look at what fees are charged on your ATM cards and credit cards, and consider overpaying your credit card so you have a credit balance that you can draw on for cash \"\"advances\"\" from ATMs that will dispense in local currency. Depending on what fees your bank charges, you may get a better rate than the forex cash traders at the airport. Edit: Cards may not always have the best rate. I recently heard from a traveler who was able to use a locally but not globally dominant currency to buy cash of a major currency at a shopping mall (with competitive forex traders) at rates even better than the mid-market rates posted at xe.com and similar places; I don't think you'll have that experience going from Australia to Malaysia (but another traveler reading this might have a different pair). In my experience the card rates are slightly worse than those and the airport forex traders significantly worse.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "28409171ea6205d636f9f30e07fba1f0",
"text": "\"Yes and no. There are two primary ways to do this. The first is known as \"\"cross listing\"\". Basically, this means that shares are listed in the home country are the primary shares, but are also traded on secondary markets using mechanisms like ADRs or Globally Registered Shares. Examples of this method include Vodafone and Research in Motion. The second is \"\"dual listing\"\". This is when two corporations that function as a single business are listed in multiple places. Examples of this include Royal Dutch Shell and Unilever. Usually companies choose this method for tax purposes when they merge or acquire an international company. Generally speaking, you can safely buy shares in whichever market makes sense to you.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6a43868c11cef3decde5fc0f457434ab",
"text": "Hi there. I think China is recommended for premanufactured products given their GDP output. The specific products may exist in the US too. The key is networking. Starting online retail, you are essentially ecommerce and or sales. There may be people seeking sales reps for their products. You should have a specific business plan targetting the niche you plan to sell and cater to. Thomasnet has US manufacturers. You may have to get clever and work out deals selling manufactured goods but with work it can be done. I personally have seen way too many issues result of dealing with imports and know of many rookie mistakes in business where people have gone this route due to price. Sources: MBA, marketing apprentice for multi millionaire, business apprentice working with manufacturing operations director with civil and military experience; former freelance design, project management and product manufacturing experience.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a41efbee5c826099835787e354a813b0",
"text": "I just tried doing that on my PP which is in the Netherlands, I have added a USD bank account (from my dutch bank) and they sent the verification amount in Euros, I called the bank and wonder why they didn't let me choose account currency they said it's not possible and if I cashout Dollars that I have in my PP (cause we usually do international business so we set it to dollars) it will be changed to Euros, So we decided to keep the dollars in account to pay our bills instead of getting ripped off by PayPal in xchange rates.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a3dda95b6fe5e60b7c1a455d81fc346f",
"text": "\"I cannot speak for Paypal specifically and I doubt anyone who doesn't actually work on their internal automated payment systems could. However, I can speak from experiencing in working on automated forex transaction systems and tell you what many institutions do and it is often NOT based on live rates. There is no law stating an institution must honor a specific market exchange rate. Institutions can determine their own rates how and when they want to. However, there is some useful information on their website: https://www.paypal.com/an/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=p/sell/mc/mc_convert-outside \"\"The most readily available information on currency exchange rates is based on interbank exchange rates. Interbank exchange rates are established in the course of currency trading among a global network of over 1,000 banks, and are not available through consumer or retail channels.\"\" This leads me to believe they pull exchange rates from either Oanda or XE periodically and then use these rates throughout the day to conduct business. Paypal does not disclose who they use to determine rates. And it's highly doubtful they do this for every transaction (using live rates). Even if they did, there would be no way for you to check and be certain of a particular exchange rate as paypal states: \"\" Consumers may use these rates as a reference, but should not expect to use interbank rates in transactions that involve currency conversion. To obtain actual retail rates, contact your local financial institution or currency exchange, or check the rate displayed in your PayPal transaction.\"\" This is partly because rates can change by the second just like stock prices or anything else which is susceptible to the open market's variables of supply, demand news events etc. So, even if you check the rates on Oanda (which you can do here: http://www.oanda.com/currency/converter/) you are not going to get a 100% accurate representation of what you would get by doing an exchange immediately afterwards from Paypal or any other financial institution. However, if you want to estimate, using Oanda's currency converter will likely get you close in most scenarios. That is assuming Paypal doesn't charge a premium for the exchange, which they may. That is also assuming they use live rates, it's also possible they only update their rates based on market rates periodically and not for every transaction. You may want to test this by checking the exchange rate on your transaction and comparing that to the Oanda rates at the same time.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7195053464f2555973061c1a472f0ed3",
"text": "You should probably get a professional tax advice, as it is very specific to the Philipines tax laws and the US-Philippine tax treaty. What I know, however, is that if it was the other way around - you paying a foreigner coming to the US to consult you - you would be withholding 30% of their pay for the IRS which they would be claiming for refund on their own later. So if the US does it to others - I'm not surprised to hear that others do it to the US. Get a professional advice on what and how you should be doing. In any case, foreign taxes paid can be used to offset your US taxes using form 1116 up to some extent.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "597e6d04eba8bbeb3344b750e7fe1092",
"text": "\"This is my two cents (pun intended). It was too long for a comment, so I tried to make it more of an answer. I am no expert with investments or Islam: Anything on a server exists 'physically'. It exists on a hard drive, tape drive, and/or a combination thereof. It is stored as data, which on a hard drive are small particles that are electrically charged, where each bit is represented by that electric charge. That data exists physically. It also depends on your definition of physically. This data is stored on a hard drive, which I deem physical, though is transferred via electric pulses often via fiber cable. Don't fall for marketing words like cloud. Data must be stored somewhere, and is often redundant and backed up. To me, money is just paper with an amount attached to it. It tells me nothing about its value in a market. A $1 bill was worth a lot more 3 decades ago (you could buy more goods because it had a higher value) than it is today. Money is simply an indication of the value of a good you traded at the time you traded. At a simplistic level, you could accomplish the same thing with a friend, saying \"\"If you buy lunch today, I'll buy lunch next time\"\". There was no exchange in money between me and you, but there was an exchange in the value of the lunch, if that makes sense. The same thing could have been accomplished by me and you exchanging half the lunch costs in physical money (or credit/debit card or check). Any type of investment can be considered gambling. Though you do get some sort of proof that the investment exists somewhere Investments may go up or down in value at any given time. Perhaps with enough research you can make educated investments, but that just makes it a smaller gamble. Nothing is guaranteed. Currency investment is akin to stock market investment, in that it may go up or down in value, in comparison to other currencies; though it doesn't make you an owner of the money's issuer, generally, it's similar. I find if you keep all your money in U.S. dollars without considering other nations, that's a sort of ignorant way of gambling, you're betting your money will lose value less slowly than if you had it elsewhere or in multiple places. Back on track to your question: [A]m I really buying that currency? You are trading a currency. You are giving one currency and exchanging it for another. I guess you could consider that buying, since you can consider trading currency for a piece of software as buying something. Or is the situation more like playing with the live rates? It depends on your perception of playing with the live rates. Investments to me are long-term commitments with reputable research attached to it that I intend to keep, through highs and lows, unless something triggers me to change my investment elsewhere. If by playing you mean risk, as described above, you will have a level of risk. If by playing you mean not taking it seriously, then do thorough research before investing and don't be trading every few seconds for minor returns, trying to make major returns out of minor returns (my opinion), or doing anything based on a whim. Was that money created out of thin air? I suggest you do more research before starting to trade currency into how markets and trading works. Simplistically, think of a market as a closed system with other markets, such as UK market, French market, etc. Each can interact with each other. The U.S. [or any market] has a set number of dollars in the pool. $100 for example's sake. Each $1 has a certain value associated with it. If for some reason, the country decides to create more paper that is green, says $1, and stamps presidents on them (money), and adds 15 $1 to the pool (making it $115), each one of these dollars' value goes down. This can also happen with goods. This, along with the trading of goods between markets, peoples' attachment of value to goods of the market, and peoples' perception of the market, is what fluctates currency trading, in simple terms. So essentially, no, money is not made out of thin air. Money is a medium for value though values are always changing and money is a static amount. You are attempting to trade values and own the medium that has the most value, if that makes sense. Values of goods are constantly changing. This is a learning process for me as well so I hope this helps answers your questions you seem to have. As stated above, I'm no expert; I'm actually quite new to this, so I probably missed a few things here and there.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "007ae90ae22f4b3fdc02e55709c5873c",
"text": "You might what to check out Interactive Brokers. If your India stock is NSE listed they might be able to do it since they support trading on that exchange. I would talk to a customer service rep there first. https://www.interactivebrokers.com/en/index.php?f=exchanges&p=asia",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ffdf27fb9f7077c4a6d7ea0ba512f87f",
"text": "Three ideas: PayPal is probably the best/cheapest way to transfer small/medium amounts of money overseas.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "020ad80d3596a499aeea83cada4b529c",
"text": "You will find Joe.E, that rents have increased considerably over the last 4 to 5 years in Australia. You can probably achieve rental yields of above 5% more than 20km from major Cities, however closer to cities you might get closer to 5% or under. In Western Sydney, we have been able to achieve rental yields close to 7%. We bought mainly in 2007 and 2008 when no one was buying and we were getting properties for 15% to 20% below market rates. As we bought cheap and rents were on the increase we were able to achieve higher rental yields. An example of one particular deal where we bought for $225K and rented for $300/wk giving us a yield of 6.9%. The rent is now $350/wk giving us a current yield of 8%, and with our interest rate at 6.3% and possibly heading down further, this property is positively geared and pays for itself plus provides us with some additional income. All our properties are yielding between 7.5% to 8.5% and are all positively geared. The capital gains might not be as high as with properties closer to the city, but even if we stopped working we wouldn't have to sell as they all provide us income after paying all expenses on associated with the properties. So in answer to your question I would be aiming for a property with a yield above 5% and preferably above 6%, as this will enable your property/ies to be positively geared at least after a couple of years if not straight away.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
c363b2c74e1b54a1ceed7b3ab96a4a7e
|
Question on buying selling and buying again
|
[
{
"docid": "37c2382b45e55c431fdc9686dd772e26",
"text": "Firstly 795 is not even. Secondly - generally you would pay tax on the sale of the 122 shares, whether you buy them back or not, even one minute later, has nothing to do with it. The only reason this would not create a capital gains event is if your country (which you haven't specified) has some odd rules or laws about this that I, and most others, have never heard of before.",
"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": "78dfcf3c0e3cd590765df73081bbe120",
"text": "\"Honestly, I wonder if the other answerers aren't overthinking it. Their answers are detailed and correct, but what your coach may be saying is this: When you have bought a stock, on cash or margin, and you are watching it rise you are evaluating when you sell on the price of the stock you are seeing. In reality, you should look at the bid (price buyers will give you for the stock) and ask (price sellers will charge you for the stock) prices. If the stock is going up, odds are the price of the stock is very close to the ask price because it is purchases that are driving it up, but that's not what you're going to get when you sell. You're going to get something around the bid price. If the spread between the two is large (i.e. a volatile stock) this could be many cents or more lower than the ask price. Therefore, what your coach may mean by \"\"Selling on Ask\"\" is you're using the stock price when it's equal or close to the ask price to decide when to sell, instead of letting the stock peak and drop (when its price will approach the bid price) or letting the trailing bid offers catch up to your desired sell point and selling then (i.e. letting the stock point grow PAST your sell point, dragging the bid price up with it). Just a thought, but that sounds like a term a coach would come up with to mean selling and getting less than you thought you were going to from the sale. (I know it's a necro reply, but the Interwebs are immortal and people come via Google... I did)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "766ba9a0a0e7c1d6325b6344da388fe8",
"text": "If you buy a stock and it goes up, you can sell it and make money. But if you buy a stock and it goes down, you can lose money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8b31af198fa10e9b9452c1f78618b999",
"text": "I think it may be best to take everything you're asking line-by-line. Once you buy stocks on X day of the month, the chances of stocks never actually going above and beyond your point of value on the chart are close to none. This is not true. Companies can go out of business, or take a major hit and never recover. Take Volkswagen for example, in 2015 due to a scandal they were involved in, their stocks went downhill. Now their stocks are starting to rise again. The investors goal is not to wait as long as necessary to make a profit on every stock purchase, but to make the largest profit possible in the shortest time possible. Sometimes this means selling a stock before it recovers (if it ever does). I think the problem with most buyers is that they desire the most gain they can possibly have. However, that is very risky. This can be true. Every investor needs to gauge the risk they're willing to take and high-gain investments are riskier. Therefore, it's better to be winning [small/medium] amounts of money (~)100% of the time than [any] amount of money <~25%. Safer investments do tend to yield more consistent returns, but this doesn't mean that every investor should aim for low-yield investments. Again, this is driven by the investor's risk tolerance. To conclude, profitable companies' stock tends to increase over time and less aggressive investments are safer, but it is possible to lose from any stock investment.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b5e4f3d6fb848aeba5ab9dc132673cca",
"text": "\"Occassionaly a trader will make a blatant mistake. A customer calls to buy 100 shares at $10, and the trader by mistake enters \"\"10 shares at $100\"\". You get one very happy seller :-) In the USA, it doesn't happen often for sales, because if the trader offers to sell 10 shares at $100, there will be nobody accepting the other. In Japan, with one dollar equal to 120 Yen, the same mistake would mean that someone wanted to sell 100 shares at 1200 Yen, and the trader enters 1200 shares for 100 Yen, then you will get a happy buyer, and a massive loss.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f540b8aa33ad5cdafe3ccc68ff7cdcc3",
"text": "You talk about an individual not being advised to sell (or purchase) in response to trends in the market in such a buy and hold strategy. But think of this for a moment: You buy stock ABC for $10 when both the market as a whole and stock ABC are near the bottom of a bear market as say part of a value buying strategy. You've now held stock ABC for a number of years and it is performing well hitting $50. There is all good news about stock ABC, profit increases year after year in double digits. Would you consider selling this stock just because it has increased 400%. It could start falling in a general market crash or it could keep going up to $100 or more. Maybe a better strategy to sell ABC would be to place a trailing stop of say 20% on the highest price reached by the stock. So if ABC falls, say in a general market correction, by less than 20% off its high and then rebounds and goes higher - you keep it. If ABC however falls by more than 20% off its high you automatically sell it with your stop loss order. You may give 20% back to the market if the market or the stock crashes, but if the stock continues going up you benefit from more upside in the price. Take AAPL as an example, if you bought AAPL in March 2009, after the GFC, for about $100, would you have sold it in December 2011 when it hit $400. If you did you would have left money on the table. If instead you placed a trailing stop loss on AAPL of 20% you would have been still in it when it hit its high of $702 in September 2012. You would have finally been stopped out in November 2012 for around the $560 mark, and made an extra $160 per share. And if your thinking, how about if I decided to sell AAPL at $700, well I don't think many would have picked $700 as the high in hindsight. The main benefit of using stop losses is that it takes your emotions out of your trading, especially your exits.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "36f74a656015e3e432d501b97ff69860",
"text": "Not really. The lender is not buying the stock back at a lower price. Remember, he already owns it, so he need not buy it again. The person losing is the one from whom the short seller buys back the stock, provided that person bought the stock at higher price. So if B borrowed from A(lender) and sold it to C, and later B purchased it back from C at a lower price, then B made profit, C made loss and A made nothing .",
"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": "80bc55cf82d2add4d1ecf35cd96ad431",
"text": "\"If the price used to be 2.50 but by the time you get in an order it's 2.80, you're going to have to pay 2.80. You can't say, \"\"I want to buy it at the price from an hour ago\"\". If you could, everybody would wait for the price to go up, then buy at the old price and have an instant guaranteed profit. Well, except that when you tried to sell, I suppose the buyer could say, \"\"I want to pay the lower price from last July\"\". So no, you always buy or sell at the current price. If you submit an order after the markets close, your broker should buy the stock for you as soon as possible the next morning. There's no strict queue. There are thousands of brokers out there, they don't take turns. So if your broker has 1000 orders and you are number 1000 on his list, while some other broker has 2 orders and number 1 is someone else wanting to buy the same stock, then even if you got your order in first, the other guy will probably get the first buy. LIFO and FIFO refer to any sort of list or queue, but don't really make sense here. When the market opens a broker has a list of orders he received overnight, which he might think of as a queue. He presumably works his way down the list. But whether he follows a strict and simple first-in-first-out, or does biggest orders first, or does buys for stocks he expects to go up today and sells for stocks he expects to go down today first, or what, I don't know. Does anybody on this forum know, are there rules that say brokers have to go through the overnight orders FIFO, or what is the common practice?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "29d049a637679b747e534f375740ba5f",
"text": "Brokerage->Brokerage 13-16 The loss from the previous purchase will be added to the cost basis of the security for the second purchase. Since you sold it at a loss again it would increase your losses. Your loss from the first sale will be disallowed. Your loss will be added to the cost basis of the next purchase. Your gains will be taxed on the total of the cost basis which will reduce your gains. Which you will taxed 'less'. Your gains will be taxed. Your loss is allowed. You will be taxed on both. Wash Sales really only applies to losses. If you sell for gain, the tax man will be happy to take his share. From my understanding, it does not matter if it is IRA or Brokerage, the wash sale rule affects them all. Check this link: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/understanding-the-wash-sale-rules-2015-03-02",
"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": "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": "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": "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": "deaa83b849c38055661efd74493c55d2",
"text": "I would say you are typical. The way people are able to build their available credit, then subsequently build their average balances is buy building their credit score. According to FICO your credit score is made up as follows: Given that you had no history, and only new credit you are pretty much lacking in all areas. What the typical person does, is get a card, pay on it for 6 months and assuming good history will either get an automatic bump; or, they can request a credit limit increase. Credit score has nothing to do with wealth or income. So even if you had 100K in the bank you would likely still be facing the same issue. The bank that holds the money might make an exception. It is very easy to see how a college student can build to 2000 or more. They start out with a $200 balance to a department store and in about 6 months they get a real CC with a 500 balance and one to a second department store. Given at least a decent payment history, that limit could easily increase above 2500 and there could be more then one card open. Along the lines of what littleadv says, the companies even welcome some late payments. The fees are more lucrative and they can bump the interest rate. All is good as long as the payments are made. Getting students and children involved with credit cards is a goal of the industry. They can obtain an emotional attachment that goes beyond good business reasoning.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
23a91555f9bdf0aeea5babed52ff53f4
|
What US taxes are due for US stock bought via ESPP when I was in USA and sold after I returned to India?
|
[
{
"docid": "012f605227ef0d892bc1b5ebfac70818",
"text": "From an Indian Tax point of view, you can bring back all the assets acquired during the period you were NRI back to India tax free. Subject to a 7 years period. i.e. all the assets / funds / etc should be brought back to India within 7 years. It would still be treated as There are certain conditions / paperwork. Please consult a CA.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "5113b7444d0fc0998ef14da59956b5ec",
"text": "I agree with the other comments that you should not buy/hold your company stock even if given at a discount. If equity is provided as part of the compensation package (Options/Restrictive Stock Units RSU)then this rule does not apply. As a matter of diversification, you should not have majority equity stake of other companies in the same sector (e.g. technology) as your employer. Asset allocation and diversification if done in the right way, takes care of the returns. Buying and selling on the same day is generally not allowed for ESPP. Taxation headaches. This is from personal experience (Cisco Systems). I had options issued in Sept 2008 at 18$ which vested regularly. I exited at various points - 19$,20$,21$,23$ My friend held on to all of it hoping for 30$ is stuck. Options expire if you leave your employment. ESPP shares though remain.",
"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": "cf518d975c23ff79ebc421a0c47f615f",
"text": "You didn't mention a country, and precise rules will be different from country to country. The usual rules are: Shares that you didn't sell don't count. If you buy shares, there is no taxable gain until you sell them. When you sell shares, it is assumed that the shares you are selling are the last ones that you bought. In many places, if you sell shares, and buy the same shares back very quickly, the tax office may have rules to pretend you never sold the shares. For example in the UK, where a good amount of profit per year is tax free, you can't just sell enough shares to stay below your tax limit and then buy them back to take profits out of the shares you own. In your case, you made $30 profit on every share you sold, and that is what you will be taxed for in most countries. According to the rules of your country.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c94a7f3016116935b6862bfce97bfdeb",
"text": "For ESPP, the discount that you get is taxed as ordinary income. Capital gains is taxed at the appropriate rate, which is different based on how long you hold it. So, yes, if the stock is going up,",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f6402f4647bbd723317bbe4ea5e5179f",
"text": "How would I go about doing this? Are there any tax laws I should be worried about? Just report it as a regular sale of asset on your form 8949 (or form 4797 if used for trade/business/rental). It will flow to your Schedule D for capital gains tax. Use form 1116 to calculate the foreign tax credit for the taxes on the gains you'd pay in India (if any).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8675e5ed784b05da168b42c094e4005b",
"text": "I believe I have to pay taxes in US since it is a US broker. No, not at all. The fact that the broker is a US broker has nothing to do with your tax liabilities. You should update the banks and the broker with your change of status submitting form W8-BEN to them. Consult a tax professional proficient with Indo-US tax treaty as to what you should put in part II. The broker might withhold some of your income and remit it as taxes to the IRS based on what you put in W8-BEN and the type of income, but you can have it refunded (if it exceeds your liability) by submitting a tax return (form 1040-NR). You do have to pay tax in India, based on the Indian tax law, for your profits in the US. Consult with an Indian tax accountant on that. If I'm not mistaken, there are also currency transfer restrictions in India that you should be aware of.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bc5d03f4ae31e5978697ba056decdfcc",
"text": "The typical deal is you can put 10% of your gross pay into the ESPP. The purchase will occur on the last deposit date, usually a 6 month period, at a 15% discount to the market price. So, the math is something like this: Your return if sold the day it's purchased is not 15%, it's 100/85 or 17.6%. Minor nitpick on my part, I suppose. Also the return is not a 6 month return, as the weekly or bi-weekly deductions are the average between the oldest (6 mo) and the most recent (uh, zero time, maybe a week.) This is closer to 3 months. The annualized rate is actually pretty meaningless since you don't have 4 opportunities to achieve this return, it's important only if the cash flow hit causes you to borrow to support the ESPP purchases. The risk is whether the stock drops the 15% before you can execute the sell to take advantage of the gain. Of course the return is gross, you need to net for taxes. Edit to respond to comment below - When I said meaningless, I meant that you can't take the 17.6%, annualize it to 91.2% per year and think your $1000 will compound to $1912. It's as meaningless as when an investor gets a 10% gain on a stock in one day, and (with 250 trading days per year) decides his $1000 will be worth $2 quadrillion dollars after a year. The 17.6% is significant in that it's available twice per year, for a true 38% return over a year, but if borrowing to help the cash flow, that rate is really over 3 months.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f46e0a3669d0732b765f5b13b110c0a3",
"text": "Your gain is $1408. The difference between 32% of your gain and 15% of your gain is $236.36 or $1.60 per share. If you sell now, you have $3957.44 after taxes. Forget about the ESPP for a moment. Are you be willing to wager $4000 on the proposition that your company's stock price won't go down more than $1.60 or so over the next 18 months? I've never felt it was worth it. Also, I never thought it made much sense to own any of my employer's stock. If their business does poorly, I'd prefer not to have both my job and my money at risk. If you sell now: Now assuming you hold for 18 months, pay 15% capital gains tax, and the stock price drops by $1.60 to $23.40:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2eece10018e187b5456011337e0d74c9",
"text": "It was not 100% clear if you have held all of these stocks for over a year. Therefore, depending on your income tax bracket, it might make sense to hold on to the stock until you have held the individual stock for a year to only be taxed at long-term capital gains rates. Also, you need to take into account the Net Investment Income Tax(NIIT), if your current modified adjusted income is above the current threshold. Beyond these, I would think that you would want to apply the same methodology that caused you to buy these in the first place, as it seems to be working well for you. 2 & 3. No. You trigger a taxable event and therefore have to pay capital gains tax on any gains. If you have a loss in the stock and repurchase the stock within 30 days, you don't get to recognize the loss and have to add the loss to your basis in the stock (Wash Sales Rules).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5cd255593318509c2eba3620efead98a",
"text": "You wouldn't fill out a 1099, your employer would or possibly whoever manages the stock account. The 1099-B imported from E-Trade says I had a transaction with sell price ~$4,500. Yes. You sold ~$4500 of stock to pay income taxes. Both the cost basis and the sale price would probably be ~$4500, so no capital gain. This is because you received and sold the stock at the same time. If they waited a little, you could have had a small gain or loss. The remainder of the stock has a cost basis of ~$5500. There are at least two transactions here. In the future you may sell the remaining stock. It has a cost basis of ~$5500. Sale price of course unknown until then. You may break that into different pieces. So you might sell $500 of cost basis for $1000 with a ~$500 capital gain. Then later sell the remainder for $15,000 for a capital gain of ~$10,000.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "622d9efc9997fa5f88883a7f7a3621cc",
"text": "ESPP tax treatment is complicated. If you received a discount on the purchase of your stock, that discount is taxable as ordinary income when you sell the stock. Any profit about the market value when the stock was purchased is taxed based upon the holding period of the stock. If you have held the stock less than a year, the profit is taxed at your marginal tax rate (ie taxed as ordinary income). If the stock is held for more than a year, it is taxed at a special capital gains tax rate, which ranges from 0-20% depending on your marginal tax rate (most people pay 15%).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": ""
},
{
"docid": "5aa0bc6369d80ae0d822ac99550e87f9",
"text": "When the deal closes, will it be as if I sold all of my ESPP shares with regards to taxes? Probably. If the deal is for cash and not stock exchange, then once the deal is approved and closed all the existing shareholders will sell their shares to the buyer for cash. Is there any way to mitigate this? Unlikely. You need to understand that ESPP is just a specific way to purchase shares, it doesn't give you any special rights or protections that other shareholders don't have.",
"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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
9d9211068172385170306ef70461e29d
|
If a company I bought stock in was de-listed but is now listed again under a new symbol, what happened to my shares?
|
[
{
"docid": "503c22963a54960426fc7ceb089387e5",
"text": "If the company went bankrupt, the issued public shares that were outstanding at the time most likely were voided, in which case your shares are most definitely gone. The company might have done a new stock issuance coming out of bankruptcy with a different symbol, and while it could be substantially the same company, it doesn't mean much for you. It's unfortunate this may be the case, but it is one of the risks of investing.",
"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": "eb31a78573b13e9d924f123bb975ab79",
"text": "\"The \"\"par value\"\" is a technicality that you can ignore in this case, and it has nothing directly to do with the merger. When a company issues stock, it puts a \"\"par value\"\" on the shares. If it later issues more shares, they cannot be issued at less than par value. The rest of the notice seems to be as you said: If you hold until the merger takes effect, they are going to give you $25/share and your shares will be gone. As always, you can try to sell on the open market before that time instead, although you can bet that not too many people are going to want to give you more than $25/share at this point.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9c23a0157305f44f8188c6b44ff7c5ac",
"text": "If the company reported a loss at the previous quarter when the stock what at say $20/share, and now just before the company's next quarterly report, the stock trades around $10/share. There is a misunderstanding here, the company doesn't sell stock, they sell products (or services). Stock/share traded at equity market. Here is the illustration/chronology to give you better insight: Now addressing the question What if the stock's price change? Let say, Its drop from $10 to $1 Is it affect XYZ revenue ? No why? because XYZ selling ads not their stocks the formula for revenue revenue = products (in this case: ads) * quantity the equation doesn't involve capital (stock's purchasing)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8207cf44a5c260c72f91ffd0e294b3a7",
"text": "Simple Schwaab does not have actually your securities they have leased them out and have to borrow them back. all assets are linked with derivatives now. They show on the balance sheet but have to be untangled. Thats why the market drops disproportionally fast to the actual number of shares sold.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "46fe5f75f1f03b588dcd04d7f2e0e831",
"text": "does it still count as a capital gain or loss? Yes. Is it essentially treated like you sold the stock at the price of the buy-out? Yes. Do you still get a 1099-B from your broker? Yes.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d524fb1f021f6300265329ed8a3a182b",
"text": "\"In Second Opinion's opinion, they say \"\"Do not initiate new position.\"\" This means do not buy the stock if you do not already own it. Since they also say to hold if you do own it, this is a very \"\"who knows what it will do\"\" neutral position (IMO).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "380476c51408ac4361b1508bd290e98e",
"text": "\"During GM's Chapter 11 reorganization in 2009, a new company was formed, with new stock. The old General Motors Corporation was renamed to \"\"Motors Liquidation Company,\"\" and the new company was named \"\"General Motors Company.\"\" The new company purchased some of the assets from the old company, and the old company was left to sell off the remaining assets and settle the debts. None of the stock transferred from the old company to the new one; if you were a GM stockholder of the old company and didn't sell, it is now worthless. When the new company formed, the stock was not traded publicly. The company was primarily owned by the United States and Canadian governments; together, they owned 72.5%. In 2010, GM had an IPO, and the US government sold most of their stake. By the end of 2013, the US government sold the remaining stake; the government no longer has any ownership in GM. When we talk about voting rights for stockholders, we are mainly talking about voting for the members of the board of directors. And yes, the government did indeed have a hand in selecting the board of the new company. The Treasury Department selected 10 members of the board, and the Canadian government selected 1 member. There were 19 board members total. (Source) Unlike some companies, there are not \"\"voting\"\" and \"\"non-voting\"\" classes of GM stock. All the shares sold by the US government are voting shares. Additional Sources:\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dbaec6f1555682dfd4c47d9ec0e036fd",
"text": "Or you owned one that was bought out, so you got a ~30% return + whatever else the stock had returned prior to that. Everyone is pushing for the companies they hold to be bought for a quick paycheck, so you're seeing fewer companies...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a296326b2f83db170024fd7c587c7326",
"text": "Just because it gets delisted from one of the big boards doesn't mean it can't trade over the counter. For example GM went OTC under the ticker MTLQQ for a while. That being said, just because the stock is trading over the counter doesn't mean it has any real long term value.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dba12f6dd3394f6c0e5f0db98356b7fe",
"text": "How can they reduce the number of shares I hold? They may have purchased them. You don't say what stock it is, so we can only speculate. Let's say that the stock is called PENNY. So they may have taken your 1600 PENNY shares and renamed them to 1600 PENNYOLD shares. Then they created a new $5 PENNY share and gave you .2357 shares of that in exchange for your 1600 PENNYOLD shares. This suggests that your old shares were worth $1.1785 or less than a tenth of a cent each. As an example, MYLAN did this in 2015 as part of their tax inversion (moved official headquarters from the US to Europe). They did not change the number of shares at that time, but MYLAN is not a penny stock. This is the kind of thing that might happen in a bankruptcy. A reverse split (where they give you one share in exchange for more than one share) is also possible, although you received an odd amount for a reverse split. Usually those produce rounder numbers. A number like .2357 sounds more like a market price, as those can be bizarre.",
"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": "d03319e7e10d7777ab0af425341562df",
"text": "Originally, stocks were ownership in a company just like any other business- you expected to make a profit from your investment, which is what we call dividends to stock holders. Since these dividends had real value, the stock price was based on what this return rate was, factoring in what it might be expected to be in the future, etc. Nowdays many companies never issue any dividends, so you have to consider the full value of the company and what benefit could be gained by another company if it were to acquire it. the market will likely adjust the share price to factor in what the value of the company might be to an acquirer. But otherwise, some companies today trading at an astronimical price, and which nevers pays a dividend- chalk it up to market stupidity. In this investor'd mind, there is no logical reason for these prices, except based on the idea that someone else might pay you more for it later... for what reason? I can't figure it out. Take it back to it's roots and imagine pitching a new business idea to you uncle to invest in- it will make almost nothing compared to it's share price, and even what it does make it won't pay anything to him for his investment. Why wouldn't he just laugh at you?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "686c79bee148b44dfd8d5893636b200c",
"text": "Does this make sense? I'm concerned that by buying shares with post tax income, I'll have ended up being taxed twice or have increased my taxable income. ... The company will then re-reimburse me for the difference in stock price between the vesting and the purchase share price. Sure. Assuming you received a 100-share RSU for shares worth $10, and your marginal tax rate is 30% (all made up numbers), either: or So you're in the same spot either way. You paid $300 to get $1,000 worth of stock. Taxes are the same as well. The full value of the RSU will count as income either way, and you'll either pay tax on the gains of the 100 shares in your RSU our you'll pay tax on gains on the 70 shares in your RSU and the 30 shares you bought. Since they're reimbursing you for any difference the cost basis will be the same (although you might get taxed on the reimbursement, but that should be a relatively small amount). This first year I wanted to keep all of the shares, due to tax reasons and because believe the share price will go up. I don't see how this would make a difference from a tax standpoint. You're going to pay tax on the RSU either way - either in shares or in cash. how does the value of the shares going up make a difference in tax? Additionally I'm concerned that by doing this I'm going to be hit by my bank for GBP->USD exchange fees, foreign money transfer charges, broker purchase fees etc. That might be true - if that's the case then you need to decide whether to keep fighting or decide if it's worth the transaction costs.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f22e40edd6be3fb6f5e338904500d122",
"text": "It depends on what site you're looking on and what exchange they're pulling the data from. Even though funds and stocks are called the same thing, they have different ticker symbols in each country's exchange or could be traded as pink sheet stocks in the US. If a company or fund is based in another country (like Canada or the UK) they probably also trade on that country's exchange (Toronto or London) under a different symbol. This can cause a lot of confusion when researching these tickers.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "97dd95216f61b7b4ca84a94b66c47844",
"text": "There are a lot of forces at play here, one of which is addressed in your second bullet point. Housing, transportation, food, and healthcare are pretty much the staple expenses of a modern day human. While these expenses all have a range from minimum required to function and luxurious all humans incur these costs. The lower rung wage earners earn an amount closer to their actual costs than higher earners. As income scales up these expenses typically also scale up with different lifestyle choices. There reaches a breaking point though where is so much excess to your income that you begin meaningfully spending on investments; you may also begin to take a meaningful portion of your compensation in securities rather than currency. In times where the economy is booming, folks who hold assets in securities rather than currency really win. In 2008 people in that highest rung really took a wealth hit (and probably an income hit).",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
f8cb34d191b57521e5d1e6d1012405e4
|
Employer 401K thru Fidelity - Investment options
|
[
{
"docid": "51c2e3fcc43fda52d2e151179f2922f5",
"text": "\"The best predictor of mutual fund performance is low expense ratio, as reported by Morningstar despite the fact that it produces the star ratings you cite. Most of the funds you list are actively managed and thus have high expense ratios. Even if you believe there are mutual fund managers out there that can pick investments intelligently enough to offset the costs versus a passive index fund, do you trust that you will be able to select such a manager? Most people that aren't trying to sell you something will advise that your best bet is to stick with low-cost, passive index funds. I only see one of these in your options, which is FUSVX (Fidelity Spartan 500 Index Fund Fidelity Advantage Class) with an exceptionally low expense ratio of 0.05%. Do you have other investment accounts with more choices, like an IRA? If so you might consider putting a major chunk of your 401(k) money into FUSVX, and use your IRA to balance your overall porfolio with small- and medium-cap domestic stock, international stock, and bond funds. As an aside, I remember seeing a funny comment on this site once that is applicable here, something along the lines of \"\"don't take investment advice from coworkers unless they're Warren Buffett or Bill Gross\"\".\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "be53ddb9f73977dc70e32e4c96cc3252",
"text": "The target date investment will automatically reduce equity exposure and increase bond exposure as it approaches retirement date. If you are unlikely to make adjustments as you get older, you may be setting yourself up for more risk down the road. Only you can decide what level of risk you can tolerate as you chase higher gains.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "8278b4e51960984a764e5fa69a584add",
"text": "401K accounts, both regular and Roth, generally have loans available. There are maximum amounts that are based on federal limits, and your balance in the program. These rules also determine the amount of time you have to repay the loan, and what happens if you quit or are fired while the loan is outstanding. In these loan programs the loan comes from your 401K funds. Regarding matching funds. This plan is not atypical. Some match right away, some make you wait. Some put in X percent regardless of what you contribute. Some make you opt out, others make you opt in. Some will direct their automatic amounts to a specific fund, unless you tell them otherwise. The big plus for the fund you describe is the immediate vesting. Some companies will match your investments but then only partially vest the funds. They don't want to put a bunch of matching funds into your account, and then have you leave. So they say that if you leave before 5 years is up, they will not let you keep all the funds. If you leave after 2 years you keep 25%, if you leave after 3 years you keep 50%... The fact they immediately vest is a very generous plan.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c6afc08aa2ccb47a510e4af39c642a8d",
"text": "Fidelity recently had an article on their website about deferred annuities (variable and fixed) that don't have the contribution limitations of an IRA, are a tax-deferred investment, and can be turned into a future income stream. I just started investigating this for myself. DISCLAIMER: I'm not a financial professional, and would suggest that you consult with a fee-only planner and tax advisor before making any decision.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b34aa7326520b675b329ec563884becd",
"text": "\"I can't find a decent duplicate, so here are some general guidelines: First of all by \"\"stocks\"\" the answers generally mean \"\"equities\"\" which could be either single stocks or mutual funds that consist of stocks. Unless you have lots of experience that can help you discern good stocks from bad, investing in mutual funds reduces the risk considerably. If you want to fine-tune the plan, you can weigh certain categories higher to change your risk/return profile (e.g. equity funds will have higher returns and risk than fixed income (bond) funds, so if you want to take a little more risk you can put more in equity funds and less in fixed income funds). Lastly, don't stress too much over the individual investments. The most important thing is that you get as much company match as you can. You cannot beat the 100% return that comes from a company match. The allocation is mostly insignificant compared to that. Plus you can probably change your allocation later easily and cheaply if you don't like it. Disclaimer: these are _general_ guidelines for 401(k) investing in general and not personal advice.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0eb9531e7d10b461b9840dfb943f3ceb",
"text": "US corporations are allowed to automatically enter employees into a 401K plan. A basic automatic enrollment 401(k) plan must state that employees will be automatically enrolled in the plan unless they elect otherwise and must specify the percentage of an employee's wages that will be automatically deducted from each paycheck for contribution to the plan. The document must also explain that employees have the right to elect not to have salary deferrals withheld or to elect a different percentage to be withheld. An eligible automatic contribution arrangement (EACA) is similar to the basic automatic enrollment plan but has specific notice requirements. An EACA can allow automatically enrolled participants to withdraw their contributions within 30 to 90 days of the first contribution. A qualified automatic contribution arrangement (QACA) is a type of automatic enrollment 401(k) plan that automatically passes certain kinds of annual required testing. The plan must include certain features, such as a fixed schedule of automatic employee contributions, employer contributions, a special vesting schedule, and specific notice requirements. You generally have a period of time to stop the first deposit. One I saw recently gave new employees to the first paycheck after the 60 day mark to refuse to join. You also may be able to get back the first deposit if you really don't want to join. If you don't want to participate look on the corporate website or the Fidelity website to set your future contributions to 0% of your paycheck. Keep in mind several things: Personally I'm against any type of government sponsored investments or savings. I can save money on my own and I don't care about their benefits. Some companies provide an annual contribution to all employees regardless of participation in the 401K. They do need to establish an account to do that. Again that is free money Does it mean if I never contribute any money so I will have 0 I might go below 0 and owe them money in case they bankrupt or do bad investments? Even in total market collapse the value of the 401K could never go below zero, unless the 401K was setup to allow very exotic investments.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d1f1d37b45d53d66203be41d788dcd70",
"text": "\"Your employer sends the money that you choose to contribute, plus employer match if any, to the administrator of the 401k plan who invests the money as you have directed, choosing between the alternatives offered by the administrator. Typically, the alternatives are several different mutual funds with different investment styles, e.g. a S&P 500 index fund, a bond fund, a money-market fund, etc. Now, a statement such as \"\"I see my 401k is up 10%\"\" is meaningless unless you tell us how you are making the comparison. For example, if you have just started employment and $200 goes into your 401k each month and is invested in a money-market fund (these are paying close to 0% interest these days), then your 11th contribution increases your 401k from $2000 to $2200 and your 401k is \"\"up 10%\"\". More generally, suppose for simplicity that all the 401k investment is in just one (stock) mutual fund and that you own 100 shares of the fund as of right now. Suppose also that your next contribution will not occur for three weeks when you get your next paycheck, at which time additional shares of the mutual fund will be purchased Now, the value of the mutual fund shares (often referred to as net asset value or NAV) fluctuates as stock prices rise and fall, and so the 401k balance = number of shares times NAV changes in accordance with these fluctuations. So, if the NAV increases by 10% in the next two weeks, your 401k balance will have increased by 10%. But you still own only 100 shares of the mutual fund. You cannot use the 10% increase in value to buy more shares in the mutual fund because there is no money to pay for the additional shares you wish to purchase. Notice that there is no point selling some of the shares (at the 10% higher NAV) to get cash because you will be purchasing shares at the higher NAV too. You could, of course, sell shares of the stock mutual fund at the higher NAV and buy shares of some other fund available to you in the 401k plan. One advantage of doing this inside the 401k plan is that you don't have to pay taxes (now) on the 10% gain that you have made on the sale. Outside tax-deferred plans such as 401k and IRA plans, such gains would be taxable in the year of the sale. But note that selling the shares of the stock fund and buying something else indicates that you believe that the NAV of your stock mutual fund is unlikely to increase any further in the near future. A third possibility for your 401k being up by 10% is that the mutual fund paid a dividend or made a capital gains distribution in the two week period that we are discussing. The NAV falls when such events occur, but if you have chosen to reinvest the dividends and capital gains, then the number of shares that you own goes up. With the same example as before, the NAV goes up 10% in two weeks at which time a capital gains distribution occurs, and so the NAV falls back to where it was before. So, before the capital gains distribution, you owned 100 shares at $10 NAV which went up to $11 NAV (10% increase in NAV) for a net increase in 401k balance from $1000 to $1100. The mutual fund distributes capital gains in the amount of $1 per share sending the NAV back to $10, but you take the $100 distribution and plow it back into the mutual fund, purchasing 10 shares at the new $10 NAV. So now you own 110 shares at $10 NAV (no net change in price in two weeks) but your 401k balance is $1100, same as it was before the capital gains distribution and you are up 10%. Or, you could have chosen to invest the distributions into, say, a bond fund available in your 401k plan and still be up 10%, with no change in your stock fund holding, but a new investment of $100 in a bond fund. So, being up 10% can mean different things and does not necessarily mean that the \"\"return\"\" can be used to buy more shares.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "710dc43da017a9d1b5c67adf4f498817",
"text": "Assuming this'll be a taxable account and you're an above-average wage earner, the following seem to be biggest factors in your decision: tax-advantaged income w/o retirement account protection - so I'd pick a stock/stocks or fund that's designed to minimize earnings taxable at income and/or short-term gains rates (e.g. dividends) declining risk profile - make sure you periodically tweak your investment mix over the 2-3 year period to reduce your risk exposure. You want to be near savings account risk levels by the end of your timeline. But make sure you keep #1 in mind - so probably don't adjust (by selling) anything until you've hit the 1-year holding mark to get the long-term capital gains rates. In addition to tax-sensitive stock & bond funds at the major brokerages like Fidelity, I'd specifically look at tax-free municipal bond funds (targeted for your state of residence) since those generally pay better than savings on after tax basis for little increase in risk (assuming you stick w/ higher-rated municipalities).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7656ef45cba6e4625dec01393a52132b",
"text": "My employer matches 1 to 1 up to 6% of pay. They also toss in 3, 4 or 5 percent of your annual salary depending on your age and years of service. The self-directed brokerage account option costs $20 per quarter. That account only allows buying and selling of stock, no short sales and no options. The commissions are $12.99 per trade, plus $0.01 per share over 1000 shares. I feel that's a little high for what I'm getting. I'm considering 401k loans to invest more profitably outside of the 401k, specifically using options. Contrary to what others have said, I feel that limited options trading (the sale cash secured puts and spreads) can be much safer than buying and selling of stock. I have inquired about options trading in this account, since the trustee's system shows options right on the menus, but they are all disabled. I was told that the employer decided against enabling options trading due to the perceived risks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7ee2984c54c112d43b0ba985c3b222f1",
"text": "\"Some 401k plans allow you to make \"\"supplemental post-tax contributions\"\". basically, once you hit the pre-tax contribution limit (17.5k$ in 2014), you are then allowed to contribute funds on a post-tax basis. Because of this timing, they are sometimes called \"\"spillover\"\" contributions. Usually, this option is advertised as a way of continuing to get company match even if you accidentally hit the pre-tax limit. But if you actually pay attention to your finances, it is instead a handy way to put away additional tax-advantaged money. That said, you would only want to use this option if you already maxed out your pre-tax and Roth options since you don't get the traditional tax break on contributions or the Roth tax break on the earnings. However, when you leave the company, you can transfer the post-tax money directly into a Roth IRA when you transfer the pre-tax money, match, and earnings into a traditional IRA.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b36177c86a000963a421bfef2ab82829",
"text": "I use the self-directed option for the 457b plan at my job, which basically allows me to invest in any mutual fund or ETF. We get Schwab as a broker, so the commissions are reasonable. Personally, I think it's great, because some of the funds offered by the core plan are limited. Generally, the trustees of your plan are going to limit your investment options, as participants generally make poor investment choices (even within the limited options available in a 401k) and may sue the employer after losing their savings. If I was a decision-maker in this area, there is no way I would ever sign off to allowing employees to mess around with options.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "54c8b95482efb17d27bb5df4bdffc267",
"text": "My answer would be yes. In addition, I'm not sure that anything requires you to roll your current 401(k) into a new one if you don't like the investment options. Keeping existing funds in your current 401(k) if you like their investment options might make sense for you (though they obviously wouldn't be adding funds once you're no longer an employee). As for the terms of the potential new 401(k), the matching percentage and vesting schedule match what I've seen at past employers. My current employer offers the same terms, but there's no vesting schedule.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2ea4f500a9647f4a7a6c4586c0066f03",
"text": "Vesting As you may know a stock option is the right to acquire a given amount of stock at a given price. Actually acquiring the stock is referred to as exercising the option. Your company is offering you options over 200,000 shares but not all of those options can be exercised immediately. Initially you will only be able to acquire 25,000 shares; the other 175,000 have conditions attached, the condition in this case presumably being that you are still employed by the company at the specified time in the future. When the conditions attached to a stock option are satisfied that option is said to have vested - this simply means that the holder of the option can now exercise that option at any time they choose and thereby acquire the relevant shares. Dividends Arguably the primary purpose of most private companies is to make money for their owners (i.e. the shareholders) by selling goods and/or services at a profit. How does that money actually get to the shareholders? There are a few possible ways of which paying a dividend is one. Periodically (potentially annually but possibly more or less frequently or irregularly) the management of a company may look at how it is doing and decide that it can afford to pay so many cents per share as a dividend. Every shareholder would then receive that number of cents multiplied by the number of shares held. So for example in 4 years or so, after all your stock options have vested and assuming you have exercised them you will own 200,000 shares in your company. If the board declares a dividend of 10 cents per share you would receive $20,000. Depending on where you are and your exact circumstances you may or may not have to pay tax on this. Those are the basic concepts - as you might expect there are all kinds of variations and complications that can occur, but that's hopefully enough to get you started.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8cf14e12429232610c2905eabc59a18d",
"text": "You can only contribute up to 5% of your salary? Odd. Usually 401(k) contributions are limited to some dollar amount in the vicinity of $15,000 or so a year. Normal retirement guidelines suggest that putting away 10-15% of your salary is enough that you probably won't need to worry much when you retire. 5% isn't likely to be enough, employer match or no. I'd try to contribute 10-15% of my salary. I think you're reading the rules wrong. I'm almost certain. It's definitely worth checking. If you're not, you should seriously consider supplementing this saving with a Roth IRA or just an after-tax account. So. If you're with Fidelity and don't know what to do, look for a target date fund with a date near your retirement (e.g. Target Retirement 2040) and put 100% in there until you have a better idea of what going on. All Fidelity funds have pretty miserable expense ratios, even their token S&P500 index fund from another provider, so you might as let them do some leg work and pick your asset allocation for you. Alternatively, look for the Fidelity retirement planner tools on their website to suggest an asset allocation. As a (very rough) rule of thumb, as you're saving for retirement you'll want to have N% of your portfolio in bonds and the rest in stocks, where N is your age in years. Your stocks should probably be split about 70% US and 30% rest-of-world, give or take, and your US stocks should be split about 64% large-cap, 28% mid-cap and 8% small-cap (that's basically how the US stock market is split).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "98a5868f2c408ae8be508c3de121f711",
"text": "Rolling a 401(k) to an IRA should be your default best option. Rolling a 401(k) to another 401(k) is rarely the best option, but that does happen. I've done it once when I started a job at a company that had a great 401(k) with a good selection of low-cost mutual funds. I rolled the 401(k) from one previous job in to this 401(k) to take advantage of it. In all other cases, I rolled 401(k)s from previous jobs to my Rollover IRA, which gave me the most freedom of investment options. Finally, with 401(k)-to-Roth IRA rollovers, it's important to decouple two concepts so you can analyze it as a sum of two transactions:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fafadcfd9f83fb1d1779e89d4919ee50",
"text": "Actually the Fidelity hypothetical example (with same marginal tax rates) is super misleading. They are putting the money saved up front from the traditional 401k in to at taxable account. Why? If you put the actual money used for the Roth that would be saved into traditional 401k they look the same no matter the timeline (with a hypothetical unchanging tax rate). Check this out. So there are only two things to consider when choosing traditional vs roth.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "801ea4db2047b367902c7cdc3ab51f4b",
"text": "You are already doing everything you can. If your employer does not have a 401(k) you are limited to investing in a Roth or a traditional IRA (Roth is post tax money, traditional IRA gives you a deduction so it is essentially pre tax money). The contribution limits are the same for both and contributing to either adds to the limit (so you can't duplicate). CNN wrote an article on some other ways to save: One thing you may want to bring up with your employer is that they could set up a SEP-IRA. This allows them to set a % (up to 25%) that they contribute pre-tax to an IRA for everyone at the company that has worked there at least 3 years. If you are at a small company, maybe everyone with that kind of seniority would take an equivalent pay cut to get the automatic retirement contribution? (Note that a SEP-IRA has to apply to everyone equally percentage wise that has worked there for 3 years, and the employer makes the contribution, not you).",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
fd289a1cd73e6c07137ea0bee5756733
|
ADR listed in PINK
|
[
{
"docid": "126ad2799726268db97c7ccb9abd8654",
"text": "\"Pink Sheets is not a stock exchange per se, and securities traded through it are not as \"\"safe\"\" as the ones on a stock exchange regulated by SEC. Many companies are traded there because they failed to comply with the SEC regulations, or are bankrupt or don't want the level of reporting to the public that the SEC regulations require. Since you're talking about an ADR of a company traded on LSE, it might be much safer that other, \"\"regular\"\", securities, but still it means that you're buying an unregulated security (even if it is of a company regulated elsewhere). Notice the volume of trades: mere thousands of dollars per day (in a good day, in some days there are no trades at all). It makes it harder to sell the security when needed. Why not buying at LSE?\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "abf23d001d2d137b8fb1603b8748935e",
"text": "I'm a bit out of my element here, but my guess is the right way to think about this is: knowing what you do now about the underlying company (NZT), pretend they had never offered ADR shares. Would you buy their foreign listed shares today? Another way of looking at it would be: would you know how to sell the foreign-listed shares today if you had to do so in an emergency? If not, I'd also push gently in the direction of selling sooner than later.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d03a70d6d0d23422b7b97738723af6df",
"text": "So why are large US companies privy to the language but large US consumer or civil liberties groups not? For example, analysts at Cisco, IBM, Intel, and HP have access to the text of the TPP and can make comments to guide policy decisions that will go into the treaty[1], but I don't believe the EFF has had access except for leaks[2]. So, where's my advocate in the negotiations? Why should I believe the negotiators have my best interests at heart? Even if the treaty comes back as something generally positive, it's going to be tilted in such a way that those with a spot at the table come out ahead whereas Congress' only option is just 'take it or leave it'. By extension of my representation in Congress (and even that's kind of weak given the current state of US politics), that's my only option as well. [1] http://www.flushthetpp.org/tpp-corporate-insiders/ [2] https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bbea47b2a4379c15d5b4198909cd0e38",
"text": "There's no obligation whatsoever to put that on the front of the package, nor should there be. The full ingredients are listed on the back for anyone to see. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that it is intentionally misleading, or is that just based on feels?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "89e7450ad3fd8d0fb4d93b528ab6eeb7",
"text": "It depends. An ADR might be exposed to a larger market (let's say American) with more volume and thus lower spreads, and thus cheaper. But it can also be the other way around, that the ADR serves a smaller market than the home market. I would go for the largest market, with the most volume so it's quicker and cheaper to buy/sell. Often ADR has less shares, meaning that the availability is lower and the prices higher (more expensive). This is often the case with Asian stocks where governments try to limit their company's exposure to foreigners. As a general rule I would buy the 'home' stock instead of ADR. From a tax standpoint it's also easier to comply with local laws. Your local accountant will be more familiar dealing with local stocks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1db2a14ca44ca01b278931981c89332a",
"text": "Is that even legal to pull out of a deal like that? I'd assume they'd have made an agreement (between the underwriter and the buyer) during the roadshow. This event I would think has large negative impacts on the firm. It delays their IPO, (provided that they try again) and it makes investors wary of reinvesting in their second IPO (oxymoron.. haha). Furthermore, if the biotech firm decides to openly publish the details of this deal (which i assume they'd have to if they want to have a chance at having a successful IPO) someone is going to be labeled as having dealt in bad faith. I understand that underwriters mostly operate on a best-efforts basis, but I don't think they can come out of this deal without facing some consequences.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fd7d02335ff582044ff4b31a60e1cadd",
"text": "Dear Sir/madam We are Local Village Gold Miners from Rep. of Guinea, In West African. I am a Member of the Said Community and in charge of Marketing, Advertising, communication and sourcing potential diamond and gold dust buyers, agents/brokers or partners for our mined gold dust AU./DIAMONDS. Prior To The Latest Privilege Accorded Local Gold and Diamond Miners in Guinea Conakry Since April 2007 to Market and Sell Diamond and Gold Dust AU themselves, Thus my offer to AU Gold Dust and Diamond UNCUT Dust prospective buyers, Brokers, representatives, agents, intermediaries and partners willing To Establish Meaningful Business transaction that is Viable and Durable with us. Hence, I'm offering you a Fresh Gold Dust. AU for sale with the following specifications and details. COMMODITY.......................................AURUM UTALIUM (AU) Form................................Gold Dust/nugget Powder. Quantity..........................123kg - 500kgs and more. Quality/Purity.................. 22 carat or better. Finesse..........................92% OR Better. Location.......................... Conakry Origin............................. Guinea . Price per kg......................$35,000 USD/KG AS FOR THE DIAMOND THAT IS UNCUT, WE ARE IN POSITIONS OF OVER 4850 Carats OF GAMS STONE OF FDGH AND LM GRADES. We are looking forward to your response if our product does interest you. Accept our warm hearted Regards: NB : this is my alternative CONTACT US CAN SPEAK ENGLISH ,FRENCH AND CHINESE Tel:+22467118646 webs www.africalocalgoldminers.webs.com E-mail: africalocalgoldminers@yahoo.com Rue DI 519 Conakry Republique de Guinee Best Regard Mr john dabo",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "35aaffba3f98b7aff50ff88169631ef8",
"text": "\"VIV.PA - is Vivendi listed on a stock exchange in Paris VIVEF - is Vivendi listed on the OTC Other Exchange. VIVHY - is Listed on the OTC:Pink Sheets. A company can be listed on multiple exchanges, they are known as a dual-listed company. It's a corporate structure in which two corporations function as a single operating business through a legal equalization agreement, but retain separate legal identities and stock exchange listings. Pretty much all DLCs are cross-border, and have tax advantages for the corporations and their stockholders. When a DLC is created, in essence two companies are created and have two separate bodies of shareholders, but they agree to share all the risks and rewards of the ownership of all their operating businesses in a fixed proportion, laid out in a contract called an \"\"equalization agreement\"\". The shares of a DLC parents have claim to the exact same underlying cash flows. So in theory the stock prices of these companies should move exactly the same. However in practice there can be differences between these prices. More info on OTC exchanges can be found here - keep in mind this info is from the company that runs these listings. Over the counter stocks are held to a FAR lesser regulation standard. I would recommend doing further interdependent research before pursuing any action.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f22e40edd6be3fb6f5e338904500d122",
"text": "It depends on what site you're looking on and what exchange they're pulling the data from. Even though funds and stocks are called the same thing, they have different ticker symbols in each country's exchange or could be traded as pink sheet stocks in the US. If a company or fund is based in another country (like Canada or the UK) they probably also trade on that country's exchange (Toronto or London) under a different symbol. This can cause a lot of confusion when researching these tickers.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "66c2e069c3503182b76c10aac73e22e5",
"text": "Thanks to the other answers, I now know what to google for. Frankfurt Stock Exchange: http://en.boerse-frankfurt.de/equities/newissues London Stock Exchange: http://www.londonstockexchange.com/statistics/new-issues-further-issues/new-issues-further-issues.htm",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "037bd36d6a0e050c19db6fd3b888dfae",
"text": "My guess is that both the blue and pinkish lines are hand drawn by someone. The blue line indicates 'higher lows' while the pinkish line represents 'higher highs'. Together they form a trading channel in which you can expect future prices to be (unless there is some unanticipated event that occurs). Edit: since the price broke out above the trading channel at the start of the year (and is verified by the increase in volume at that time) something must have occurred to increase the value of the stock. Edit2: this news likely explains the breakout in price. Edit3: this chart shows that the stock price is now 'seeking equilibrium'. The price will, likely, be volatile over the next few days or weeks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eb1186cf53ab76f5739af1147615d3d7",
"text": "This would literally have changed nothing about the shikreli situation. That was a manufacturer, Amazon has obtained licences to be a middle man (buy from mfgr at mfgrs price and sell to pharmacies and potentially direct to consumer though they need additional licences for that.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f91179d3a9389b9904096b83ccddcc6c",
"text": "Look into *Getting Past No*, *Getting To Yes*, *Difficult Conversations*, and *The Mind and Heart of the Negotiator*. Those were the books I read for an MBA negotiations course last year. Except for the last one, they're all very short and easy to read.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "71ea9f03a65768e075cdeb556b41ca7f",
"text": "Slide 1 SPRINGHILL GROUP FDA Urges Markets To Pull Shellfish From South Korea Slide 2 FDA Urges Markets To Pull Shellfish From South Korea WASHINGTON, D.C.The Food and Drug Administration is urging food distributors, retailers and food service vendors to remove from the market oysters, clams, mussels and scallops imported from South Korea because of possible contamination with human waste and norovirus. Slide 3 The decision follows an FDA evaluation that determined that the Korean Shellfish Sanitation program no longer meets adequate sanitation controls. The federal agency is in discussions with South Korean authorities to resolve the issue. Slide 4 An FDA spokesman, Curtis Allen, said Thursday the decision to call for the removal of the mollusks from the market began with norovirus outbreaks in November and December. Slide 5 Curtis said no illnesses from eating the shellfish have been reported this year. Four norovirus illnesses, including three in Washington state, were reported in 2011. Norovirus causes vomiting or diarrhea.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "acd5d4f44adefb80da6debcf6de03ed1",
"text": "I don't have a business relationship with Hire.Bid, I just use it to get extra money whenever I am free, so I thought I could share it in the case someone else is interested. If you know any other app like this, feel free to share it, maybe I can use it too. For GiftBac, I wanted to find out if anyone used it before and let me know if it is trustable. About PinkApp, I wanted to know people's thoughts about it to see if it was worth investing in. For now, I am looking for more ways to make money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5f159ac4b88b5e3e5767be9f6947ff07",
"text": "SECTION | CONTENT :--|:-- Title | Better Business Bureau 20/20 Investigation Description | Does Better Business Bureau Sell Its Grades? 20/20 Investigation Length | 0:08:43 **** ^(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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
c09f3ad9a7719be2da1c405ded0f9d49
|
401K or Indian CD
|
[
{
"docid": "6c0df851efe623fcfdb9365e8c473819",
"text": "As mentioned in the comments, the problem stems with converting your U.S. Dollars to Indian Rupees so as to be able to purchase an Indian fixed deposit. At the time of writing this, 1 U.S. Dollar = 64 Indian Rupees. Consider the following economic factors: Both of the above factors are not definitive but are worth considering. You might be thinking- what if I never intend to convert my rupees back to dollars? If it is the case that money converted to rupees would stay that way, that then eliminates the risk of foreign exchange losses mentioned above. However, you must still keep in mind that part of the reason interest rates on fixed deposits is as high in India is because inflation is high. A 9% return must be looked at after adjusting for inflation. Inflation is somewhere between 5%-6% at the time of writing which then reduces your real return to about 4% (pre-tax).",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "6547f985aca6bb38f8b169d582192dc7",
"text": "The money that you have under your control (e.g. in bank accounts, savings accounts, taxable investments, etc) is your money and there is no tax of any kind (either in India or in US) that needs to be paid when the money is transferred to India. As Dheer's answer says, you need to transfer all these monies within 7 years as per Indian tax law. For your 401(k) account, assuming that all the money is tax-deferred (i.e. you contributed to a regular 401(k) and not a Roth 401(k)), you will have separated from service as far as US tax law is concerned. So, check if it is at all possible to roll over the money into a similar scheme in India, specifically the Employees Provident Fund. Wikipedia says The schemes covers both Indian and international workers (for countries with which bilateral agreements have been signed; 14 such social security agreements are active). and so a rollover might be possible. If not, you could withdraw small amounts each year and avoid US income tax (but not the 10% excise tax), but how long you can continue holding 401(k) assets after return to India and whether that is long enough to drain the 401(k) are things that you need to find out.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "525af4c7a0373197b4a72adee488f3df",
"text": "The US will let you keep as much money as you want to within its borders regardless of your citizenship. You'll owe capital gains tax in the US unless you're subject to a tax treaty (which you would probably make as an election in the year of the transaction). I don't know if India has any rules about how it governs its citizens' foreign assets, but the US requires citizens to file a form annually declaring foreign accounts over $10,000. You may be subject to additional Indian taxes if India taxes global income like the US does.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0a4ba4f4b5384baaa01d6d1d5113b329",
"text": "You're extremely fortunate to have $50k in CDs, no debt, and $3800 disposable after food and rent. Congrats. Here's how I would approach it. If you see yourself getting into a home in the next couple of years, stay safe and liquid. CDs (depending on the duration) fit that description. Because you have disposable income and you're young, you should be contributing to a Roth IRA. This will build in value and compound over your lifetime, so that when you're in your 70s you'll actually have a retirement. Financial planners love life insurance because that's how they make all their money. I have whole life insurance because its cash value will be part of my retirement. It may also cover my wife if I ever decide to get married. It may or may not make sense for you now depending on how soon you want to buy a home and home expensive they are in your zip code. Higher risk, higher reward- you can count on that. Keep the funds in the United States and don't try to get into any slick financial moves. If you have a school in town, see if you can take an Intro to Financial Planning class. It's extremely helpful for anyone with these kinds of questions.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a3e39ff25ed01dced50884cf62b30858",
"text": "\"A 'indexed guaranteed income certificate' (Market Growth GIC) fits the criteria defined in the OP. The \"\"guaranteed\"\" part of the name means that, if the market falls, your capital is guaranteed (they cover the loss and return all your capital to you); and the \"\"index linked\"\" or \"\"market growth\"\" means that instead of the ROI being fixed/determined when you buy the GIC, the ROI depends on (is linked to) the market growth, e.g. an index (so you get a fraction of profit, which you share with the fund manager). The upside is that you can't 'lose' (lose capital). The fund manager doesn't just share the losses with you, they take/cover all the losses. The downside is that you only make a fraction of whatever profit you might make by investing directly in the market (e.g. in an index fund). Another caveat is that you buy a GIC over some fixed term, e.g. you have to give them you money for a year or more, two years.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "669fa0e4a8df16b1139a5b3b44fdc799",
"text": "Personally, I would split the difference, putting about half into each. Simply because it balances out the problem and I don't have to fret about whether one or the other will provide a significant difference. As bstpierre points out, the one which will make you more in the end is the one which you can grow the fastest. The mortgage payment is locked at 5% growth, which, while modest, is also essentially guaranteed at this point. The CD in your IRA is likely less than that amount, even after tax consideration. A couple additional points to consider:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e3b8c01d4d603b00d5f2bd95c795955a",
"text": "\"You'd want the money to be \"\"liquid\"\" and ready for you to use when tax time comes around. You also don't want to lose \"\"principal\"\", i.e. if you put it into stocks and have the value of what you put in be less than what you invested—which is possible—when you need the money, again, at tax time. That doesn't leave you with many good choices or an amazingly good way to profit from investing your savings that you put aside for taxes. CDs are steady but will not give you much interest and they have a definite deposit timeframe 6 months, 1 yr, 2 yrs and you can't touch it. So, the only reasonable choice you have left is an interest bearing checking or savings account with up to 1% interest (APR)—as of this writing Ally Bank offers 1% interest in an online interest savings acct.—which will give you some extra money on your deposits. This is what I do.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b23ab58627ef8cc15bef5893715d18d7",
"text": "\"You will always pay the 10% penalty and the income tax on the money, so even if you withdraw amounts below the taxable limits - you still pay 10% tax. However, you can probably offset that from your Indian tax liability on the money. If you convert it to Roth - you should check with an Indian tax accountant/adviser what the Indian tax treatment would be. It is likely that \"\"Roth\"\" advantages are unrecognized by foreign countries, so you may end up paying taxes on both the conversion (in the US) and the distribution (in India). Check with a tax adviser who's knowledgeable about the Indo-US tax treaty and the tax laws in both the countries, this may be trickier than people with no international tax experience may think.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b51bdc6441f74a431c608763fe3fecd4",
"text": "There are not as many options here as you fear. If you have no other investments outside this 401K it is even easier. Outside accounts include IRA, Roth IRA, taxable investments (mutual funds, ETF, individual stocks), Employee stock purchase plans. Amount: make sure you put enough in to get all the company match. I assume that in your case the 9% will do so, but check your documents. The company match will be with pre-tax funds. Roth vs Regular 401K? Most people in their lifetime will need a mix of Roth and Regular retirement accounts. You need to determine if it is better for you to pay the tax on your contributions now or later. Which accounts? If you are going to invest in a target date fund, you can ignore the rest of the options. The target date fund is a mixture of investments that will change over the decades. Calculate which one fits your expected retirement date and go with it. If you want to be able to control the mix, then you will need to pick several funds. The selection depends on what non-401K investments you have. Now here is what I considered the best advice. Decide Roth or regular, and just put the money into the most appropriate target date fund with the Roth/regular split you want. Then after the money starts flowing into your account, research the funds involved, the fees for those funds, and how you want to invest. Then move the money into the funds you want. Don't waste another day deciding how to invest. Just get started. The best part of a 401K, besides the match, is that you can move money between funds without worrying about taxes. If you realize that you want to put extra emphasis on the foreign stocks, or Mid-cap; just move the funds and redirect future contributions.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9fbb645485c8391a06549cd670d37c09",
"text": "Make sure you are hitting the actual max of the 401k. Most think it is 18K, but that is the amount you can contribute into either pre-tax or roth. On top of this, you can also contribute using an after-tax contribution (treated differently from Roth). Total amounts up to 54k (since you are under 50). One thing I would look into for ways to beat interest rates in bank accounts and CDs is Municipal Bond funds, given your high income. I have seen some earning almost 6% tax-free YTD. These also give you liquidity. Definitely keep your 3 mo salary in the bank, but once you get over that while maxing out your 401k, this is a pretty good way to make your money work for you, without crushing you come tax time. Building that muni bond fund account gradually, you can eventually use that account to pay for things like car payments, mortgage, rent, vacation, etc. Just be sure if you go with a mutual fund, that you are aware of any surrender charge schedules. I have seen this done with C Shares, where you can withdraw your investment without penalty after 1 year. Let me know if this is unclear or you would like any additional information. Best of luck!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "44fbb65d9903574d648335fb707ac6dd",
"text": "I think you need to understand the options better before you go around calling anything worthless... $11k in a 1% savings account gets you just over $100 each year. Obviously you're not buying Ferraris with your returns but it's $100 more than your checking account will pay you. And, you're guaranteed to get your money back. I think a CD ladder is a great way to store your emergency fund. The interest rate on a CD is typically a bit better than a regular savings account, though the money is locked away and while we seem to be on the cusp of a rate increase it might not be the best time to put the money in jail. Generally there is some sort of fee or lost interest from cashing a CD early. You're still guaranteed to get your money back. Stock trading is probably a terrible idea. If you want some market exposure I'd take half of the money and buy a low expense S&P ETF, I wouldn't put my whole savings if I were you (or if I were me). Many large brokers have an S&P ETF option that you can generally buy with no commission and no loads. Vanguard is a great option VOO, Schwab has an S&P mutual fund SWPPX, and there are others. Actively trading individual stocks is a great way to let commissions and fees erode your account. There are some startup alternatives with lower fees, but personally I would stay away from individual stock picking unless you are in school for Finance and have some interest in paying attention and you're ready to possibly never see the money again. You're not guaranteed to get your money back. There are also money market accounts. These will typically pay some interest based on exposing your funds to some risk. It can be a bit better return than a savings account, but I probably wouldn't bother. An IRA (ROTH and Traditional) is just an account wrapper that offers certain tax benefits while placing certain restrictions on the use of some or all of the money until you reach retirement age. As a college student you should probably be more concerned about an emergency fund or traveling than retirement savings, though some here may disagree with me. With your IRA you can buy CDs or annuities, or stocks and ETFs or any other kind of security. Depending on what you buy inside the IRA, you might not be guaranteed to get your money back. First you need to figure out what you'd like to use the money for. Then, you need to determine when you'd need the money for that use. Then, you need to determine if you can sleep at night while your stock account fluctuates a few percent each day. If you can't, or you don't have answers for these questions, a savings account is a really low friction/low risk place store money and combat inflation while you come up with answers for those questions.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "df4eb1f3883678b9cb8397aa325b41e2",
"text": "\"I'm going to discuss this, in general, as specific investment advice isn't allowed here. What type of account is the $60K in now? I mean - Is it in a 401(k), IRA or regular account/CD/money market? You are still working? Does your company offer any kind of matched 401(k)? If so, take advantage of that right up the level they'll match. If not, are you currently depositing to pretax IRAs? You can't just deposit that $60K into an IRA if it isn't already, but you can put $11k/yr ($5 for you, $6K for hubby if you make $11K or more this year.) Now, disclaimer, I am anti-annuity. Like many who are pro or con on issues, this is my nature. The one type of annuity I actually like is the Immediate Annuity. The link is not for an end company, it shows quotes from many and is meant as an example. Today, a 65 yr old man can get $600/mo with a $100K purchase. This is 7.2%, in an economy in which rates are sub 3%. You give up principal in exchange for this higher annual return. This is a viable solution for the just-retired person whose money will run out when looking at a 4-5% withdrawal but 1% CD rate. In general, these products are no more complex that what I just described, unlike annuities sold to younger fold which combine high fees with returns that are so complex to describe that most agents can't keep their story straight. Aside from the immediate flavor, all other annuities are partial sold (there's a quote among finance folk - \"\"annuities are sold, not bought\"\") based on their tax deferral features. I don't suspect you are in a tax bracket where that feature has any value to you. At 48/54, with at least 10 years ahead of you, I'd research 'diversification' and 'asset allocation'. Even $60K is enough to proper invest these funds until you retire and then decide what's right for you. Beginners' Guide to Asset Allocation, Diversification, and Rebalancing is an interesting introduction, and it's written by the SEC, so your tax dollars paid for it. Some months ago, I wrote Diversifying to Reduce Risk, which falls short of a complete discussion of asset allocation, but it does illustrate the power of being in a stock/bond mix. The ups and downs were reduced significantly compared to the all stock portfolio. (for follow up or to help others reply to you, a bit more detail on the current investments, and how you are devastated, eg was there a huge loss from what you had a few years ago?) Edit - The original poster hasn't returned. Posted the question and left. It's unfortunate as this was someone who would benefit from the dialog, and the answers here can help others in a similar position, but I feel more discussion is in order for the OP. Last, I caught a downvote on my reply today. I take no offense, but curious which part of my answer the DVer disagreed with.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a53943674802a7f24468cb4093badfa3",
"text": "\"At that sum, it essentially doesn't matter what you do, unless you just want to outright gamble the money. Let's look at some options: \"\"High\"\" interest guaranteed savings. A five year CD returns a sad 2% right now. That means if you invest all $1,000 into a CD, by 2016 you will have earned $105.08 in interest. Think about that: About a hundred bucks over the next five years. Of course, with 3% inflation, that $105.08 will be worth about $90.57. In fact, the total amount will be worth $953.25. Your \"\"doing something with your money\"\" did nothing. Stocks can return significantly more interest, but there is no guarantee. Even if you made 20% year on year, you would only make maybe $1,500 in returns or so in the next 5 years, and 20% every year is like Warren Buffet territory--totally unrealistic. That's also not taking into account inflation. And neither of these is taking into account taxes! However, if you go to a casino and gamble the $1,000, it is possible you could turn it into significantly more. It's very much unlikely, and I do not advise it at all, but it's possible. The point is, you need money to make money, and, in some sense, $1,000 is not money at all. I recommend you work on your skills, knowledge, and preparation for making money in the future, and by 25 or so you can really be cooking with gas. Don't waste your efforts trying to find a brilliant way to make a few hundred bucks over the next half decade. Save the money and find ways to try to double it by earning money on small projects. Then challenge yourself to double it again, and keep honing your skills.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c250eb615243f98ddef97cbc801dfbae",
"text": "A few weeks ago, I was thinking about this exact thing (except swap Euros for Canadian Dollars). The good news is that there are options. Option 1: yes, buy Indian fixed deposits Interest rates are high right now- you can get up to 9% p.a. It boils down to your sentiment about the Indian rupee going forward. For instance, let's say you purchase a deposit for amount x at 9% p.a., you can have it double to almost 2x in 10 years. Three things can happen in 10 years: Are you optimistic about Indian governance and economy going forward? If you are, go for it! I certainly am. Option 2: heard of FCNR? Look in to FCNR deposits. I don't know about Europe, but in Canada, the best rate for a 1 year deposit is approximately 1.5%. However, through Foreign Currency Non-Resident (FCNR) deposits, you can get up to 4% or 5%. The other benefit is that you don't have to convert currency to INR which results in conversion savings. However, only major currencies can be used to open such accounts.",
"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": "057aa1b53aedbec56430c4915904f3a5",
"text": "From an Indian perspective, this is what I would do. This typically would not only keep your credit score healthy but also give you additional benefits on spends.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
78636721f0789e962fb5aca4f361cb3e
|
Does lender care what I use the money for?
|
[
{
"docid": "46946a59368066db3f4d564bde1450c0",
"text": "When you borrow from a bank, there are secured loans, as with a mortgage, or unsecured lines of credit, usually a more reasonable amount of money, but also based on income. You just asked about a private loan. It depends on the person and your relationship. If you need money to pay the rent, you might not be the best person to lend money to. If you ask a friend or relative, they may lend you money without asking its purpose.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "049447e698bc3a74b9f5938b8d8f921e",
"text": "No. As long as you live in the house for 3 years, it's yours to keep. Financing has nothing to do with that.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "45430766fd9e2a4c81c5db997ceef669",
"text": "The advice above is generally good, but the one catch I haven't seen addressed is which specific laws apply. You said that you are in Arkansas, but the dealer is in Texas. This means that the laws of at least two different states are in play, possibly three if the contract contains a clause stating that disputes will be handled in a certain jurisdiction, and you are going to have to do some research to figure out what actually applies. One thing that may significantly impact this issue is whether you were in TX or AR when you signed the contracts. If you borrowed the money in TX, and the lender is in TX, then it is almost certain that the laws of Texas will govern. However, if you were living in AR at the time you acquired the loan, particularly if you were in AR when you signed the papers, you have a decent case for claiming that the laws of Arkansas govern. I don't know enough about either state to know if one is more favorable to the consumer than the other, but it is a question you really want to have answered. That said, I would be shocked if any state did not have provisions requiring the lender to provide a copy of the terms and a detailed statement of the account and transaction history upon request. Spend some time on the web site of the Texas attorney general and/or legislator (because that is where the lender is, they are more likely to respect Texas law) to see if you can track down any specific laws or codes that you can reference. You might also look into the federal consumer protection laws, though I can't think of one off hand that would apply in the scenario you have described. Then work on putting together a letter asking them to provide a copy of the contract and a full history of the account. As others noted, make sure you send it certified/return receipt, or better yet use a private carrier such as fedex, and check the box about requiring a signature. Above all you need to get the dialog transferred to a written form. I can not stress this point enough. Everything you tell them or ask for from here out needs to be done in a written format. If they call you about anything, tell them you want to see their issue/offer in writing before you will consider it. You do not necessarily need a lawyer to do any of this, but you do need to know the applicable laws. Do the research to know what your legal standing is. Involve a lawyer if you feel you need to, but I have successfully battled several large utility companies and collection agencies into behaving without needing one.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "67525a00d56b3e4c7396761c4f96f362",
"text": "Either approach will put a strain on your friendship, unless you are willing to treat it as a gift which may or may not be returned rather than a loan. I agree that paying it direct to the dealer (or giving her a check that is made out to the dealer) avoids the risk of the money getting sidetracked.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "97346439b9bda6cb87eaf6f87a228137",
"text": "Keep in mind that lenders will consider the terms of any loans you have when determining your ability to pay back the mortgage. They'll want to see paperwork, or if you claim it is a gift they will require a letter to that effect from your relative. Obviously, this could effect your ability to qualify for a loan.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2f8f990af90faba58a954153cb31db3a",
"text": "\"There are some loan types where your minimum payment may be less than the interest due in the current period; this is not true of credit cards in the US. Separately, if you have a minimum payment amount due of less than the interest due in the period, the net interest amount would just become principal anyway so differentiating it isn't meaningful. With credit cards in the US, the general minimum calculation is 1% of the principal outstanding plus all interest accrued in the period plus any fees. Any overpayment is applied to the principal outstanding, because this is a revolving line of credit and unpaid interest or fees appear as a charge just like your coffee and also begin to accrue interest. The issue arises if you have multiple interest rates. Maybe you did a balance transfer at a discounted interest rate; does that balance get credited before the balance carried at the standard rate? You'll have to call your lender. While there is a regulation in place requiring payment to credit the highest rate balance first the banks still have latitude on how the payment is literally applied; explained below. When there IS an amortization schedule, the issue is not \"\"principal or interest\"\" the issue is principle, or the next payment on the amortization schedule. If the monthly payment on your car loan is $200, but you send $250, the bank will use the additional $50 to credit the next payment due. When you get your statement next month (it's usually monthly) it will indicate an amount due of $150. When you've prepaid more than an entire payment, the next payment is just farther in to the future. You need to talk to your lender about \"\"unscheduled\"\" principal payments because the process will vary by lender and by specific loan. Call your lender. You are a customer, you have a contract, they will explain this stuff to you. There is no harm that can possibly come from learning the nuances of your agreement with them. Regarding the nuance to the payment regulation: A federal credit card reform law enacted in May 2009 requires that credit card companies must apply your entire payment, minus the required minimum payment amount, to the highest interest rate balance on your card. Some credit card issuers are aggressive here and apply the non-interest portion of the minimum payment to the lowest interest rate first. You'll need to call your bank and ask them.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a6e78d648403a607c83fb538ac0fd1d7",
"text": "I have recently been the lender to a couple people. It was substantially less money (~$3k), but I was trusting their good faith to pay me back. As a lender, I will never do it again. Reasons, Overall, not worth it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "63029d28ff692db162d40829b0399aaa",
"text": "I have never had a lender ask my budget, only my income, savings, credit rating and value of the collateral. That's considered adequate info to estimate risk for most ordinary loans. Yes, they may want the income proven by evidence from your employer or via a copy of your tax returns. They don't care what you buy as long as there's evidence you'll make loan payments on time for the life of the loan.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c59b0cebec63a91223960ef08c299029",
"text": "A lender will look at three things when giving a loan: Income. Do you make enough money each month to afford the payments. They will subtract from your income any other loans, credit card debt, student loan debt, mortgage. They will also figure in your housing costs. Your Collateral. For a mortgage the collateral is the house, for a car loan it is the car. They will only give you a loan to a specific percentage of the value of the collateral. Your money in the bank isn't collateral, but it can serve as a down payment on the loan. Your Credit score. This is a measure of how well you handle credit. The longer the history the better. Using credit wisely is better than not using the credit you have. If you don't have a credit card, get one. Start with your current bank. You have a history with them. If they won't help you join a credit union. Another source of car loans is the auto dealer. Though their rates can be high. Make sure that the purchase price doesn't require a monthly payment too high for your income. Good rules of thumb for monthly payments are 25% for housing and 10% for all other loans combined. Even a person with perfect credit can't get a loan for more than the bank thinks they can afford. Note: Don't drain all your savings, you will need it to pay for the unexpected expenses in life. You might think you have enough cash to pay off the student loan or to make a big down payment, but you don't want to stretch yourself too thin.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "870bde1c950e8292feff5e71500a3590",
"text": "How you answer is actually dependent on when they ask. If it is early in the process the question/answer is to determine the type of loan you are looking for: Auto loan, home loan, home improvement loans, education loans; all have products that are geared to those uses. In many cases they will use the item you are purchasing as collateral for the loan. In return for this they will offer you a low interest rate, because they know they can protect their money be repossessing the collateral. For these standard loans they will ask for more specifics before they give a check for the money because they need to know exactly what you are spending the money on, and they will need to file legal paperwork to protect their money. If it isn't one of those standard loans then you are looking at a loan that is only backed by your signature. That loan could have a high interest rate. They are asking as part of the process of assessing their risk. Unless you are putting a lie on a form, I am not sure being untruthful puts you in jeopardy. In some cases they don't care. People get lines of credit without knowing exactly what they are going to spend the money on.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0aeb0bb4b3bbbee25c09f14be0a80f01",
"text": "Even assuming you were reading the balance sheet correctly it means nothing. What banks mostly care about is cash flow. Do they have enough extra money to make the payments on whatever they borrow? I have never had a credit card company ask me about assets--they don't care. They care about income with which to pay the credit card bill. Have a solid record of paying your bills and enough income to pay back what you are trying to borrow and you'll have an excellent credit rating no matter what your net worth. Whether you are one person or a megacorporation makes no difference.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f0f4b1d614b494aa311c450e1e302f2d",
"text": "It's not unusual/undesirable. If everyone prepaid their mortgage, banks would not like this, but we're in no danger of that :). Also, the amount you are pre-paying is not so significant as to make them pay special attention. In many cases when a borrower pre-pays, they will not continue to do so over the life of the loan since it's so easy to stop at any time, and the extra payments are voluntary. Depending on who originated the mortgate, it might be sold even more often than in your case. It's no longer commonplace for a bank to hold a mortgage to maturity, now that banks and other institutions have separated the origination of the loan from its servicing. It's likely that your mortgage was bundled with others through a process called securitization, and will be bought/sold based on the bank's need for liquitity or to balance out the maturity of its assets and liabilities (whether they need more cash now versus later), or based on the types of ways your bank has decided that it wants to make money versus farming out other types of business to others. What would substantially change the value of your mortgage to a bank is if it were performing (ie you are paying on time) but then became non-performing (ie you fall behind in your payments). It's also possible that if you have a very small mortgage or principal balance, that there is very little risk to the bank, and little difference between the present and future values of your loan, but banks don't typically make these types of transactions based on the characteristics of an individual loan.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "06b62f2e839c4409e58c08dab7ad9f74",
"text": "1) How long have you had the car? Generally, accounts that last more than a year are kept on your credit report for 7 years, while accounts that last less than a year are only kept about 2 years (IIRC - could someone correct me if that last number is wrong?). 2) Who is the financing through? If it's through a used car dealer, there's a good chance they're not even reporting it to the credit bureaus (I had this happen to me; the dealer promised he'd report the loan so it would help my credit, I made my payments on time every time, and... nothing ever showed up. It pissed me off, because another positive account on my credit report would have really helped my score). Banks and brand name dealers are more likely to report the loan. 3) What are your expected long term gains on the stocks you're considering selling, and will you have to pay capital gains on them when you do sell them? The cost of selling those stocks could possibly be higher than the gain from paying off the car, so you'll want to run the numbers for a couple different scenarios (optimistic growth, pessimistic, etc) and see if you come out ahead or not. 4) Are there prepayment penalties or costs associated with paying off the car loan early? Most reputable financiers won't include such terms (or they'll only be in effect during the first few months of the loan), but again it depends on who the loan is through. In short: it depends. I know people hate hearing answers like that, but it's true :) Hopefully though, you'll be able to sit down and look at the specifics of your situation and make an informed decision.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "65cf9a90015e47167757486425ce4587",
"text": "\"Oftentimes, the lender (the owner of the security) is not explicitly involved in the lending transaction. Let's say the broker is holding a long-term position of 1MM shares from Client A. It is common for Client A's agreement with Broker A to include a clause that allows the broker to lend out the 1MM shares for its own profit (\"\"rehypothecation\"\"). Client A may be compensated for this in some form (e.g. baked into their financing rates), but they do not receive any compensation that is directly tied to lending activities. You also have securities lending agents that lend securities for an explicit fee. For example, the borrower's broker may not have sufficient inventory, in which case they would need to find a third-party lending agent. This happens both on-demand as well as for a fixed-terms (typically a large basket of securities). SLB (securities lending and borrowing) is a business in its own right. I'm not sure I follow your follow-up question but oftentimes there is no restriction that prevents the broker from lending out shares \"\"for a very short time\"\". Unless there is a transaction-based fee though, the number of times you lend shares does not affect \"\"pocketing the interest\"\" since interest accrues as a function of time.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b068ed80d2622176669138ee89886956",
"text": "\"Your Spidey senses are good. A good friend would not put you in such a position. It's simple, to skirt some issue (we'll get to that in a second) you are being asked to lie. All for a 15% return on your $$$$. <<< How much is that? You can easily lend him the money, and have a better paper trail. But the bank is not going to like that, and requires this money from friends or family to be a gift. I've heard mortgage guys at the bank say \"\"It's just a formality, we need this paperwork to sell the loan to the investors.\"\" These bankers belong in jail, or at least fired and barred from the industry. They broke the economy in 2008, and should be stopped from doing it again.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7c722dc91f5383cd2b021d3cd0a0f154",
"text": "It is completely in the realm of each lender what they request. Some lenders always want to see proof of income, and others have decided to look only at other things. Their decision has nothing to do with you, your situation, your income, or your credit history. You are of course free to go to another lender that does not want proof of income.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
257e921d144a645a2d4d5b83dc2ca340
|
Should I fund retirement with a static asset allocation or an age based glide path?
|
[
{
"docid": "08b7eac4258132d5822ce91ed957babb",
"text": "I think not. I think a discussion of optimum mix is pretty independent of age. While a 20 year old may have 40 years till retirement, a 60 year old retiree has to plan for 30 years or more of spending. I'd bet that no two posters here would give the same optimum mix for a given age, why would anyone expect the Wall Street firms to come up with something better than your own gut suggests?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "82c7493b748407a298bceb7eb6c7650f",
"text": "\"The thing about the glide path is that the closer you're to the retirement age, the less risk you should be taking with your investments. All investments carry risk, but if you invest in a volatile stock market at the age of 20 and lose all your retirement money - it will not have the same effect on your retirement as if you'd invest in a volatile stock market at the age of 65 and then lose all your retirement money. Static allocation throughout your life without changing the risk factor, will lead you to a very conservative investment path, which would mean you're not likely to lose your investments, but you're not likely to gain much either. The point of the glide path is to allow you taking more risks early with more chances of higher gains, but to limit your risks down the road, also limiting your potential gains. That is why it is always suggested to start your retirement funds early in your life, to make sure you have enough time to invest in potentially high return stocks (with high risk), but when you get close to your retirement age, it is advised to do exactly the opposite. The date-targeted funds do that for you, but you can do it on your own as well. As to the academic research - you don't need to go that far. Just look at the graphs to see that over long period investments in stocks give much better return than \"\"conservative\"\" bonds and treasuries (especially when averaging the investments, as it usually is with the retirement funds), but over a given short period, investments in stocks are much more likely to significantly lose in value.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "69e661b4e1154b9542f9d63bc5d62bbb",
"text": "So I did some queries on Google Scholar, and the term of art academics seem to use is target date fund. I notice divided opinions among academics on the matter. W. Pfau gave a nice set of citations of papers with which he disagrees, so I'll start with them. In 1969, Paul Sameulson published the paper Lifetime Portfolio Selection By Dynamic Stochaistic Programming, which found that there's no mathematical foundation for an age based risk tolerance. There seems to be a fundamental quibble relating to present value of future wages; if they are stable and uncorrelated with the market, one analysis suggests the optimal lifecycle investment should start at roughly 300 percent of your portfolio in stocks (via crazy borrowing). Other people point out that if your wages are correlated with stock returns, allocations to stock as low as 20 percent might be optimal. So theory isn't helping much. Perhaps with the advent of computers we can find some kind of empirical data. Robert Shiller authored a study on lifecycle funds when they were proposed for personal Social Security accounts. Lifecycle strategies fare poorly in his historical simulation: Moreover, with these life cycle portfolios, relatively little is contributed when the allocation to stocks is high, since earnings are relatively low in the younger years. Workers contribute only a little to stocks, and do not enjoy a strong effect of compounding, since the proceeds of the early investments are taken out of the stock market as time goes on. Basu and Drew follow up on that assertion with a set of lifecycle strategies and their contrarian counterparts: whereas a the lifecycle plan starts high stock exposure and trails off near retirement, the contrarian ones will invest in bonds and cash early in life and move to stocks after a few years. They show that contrarian strategies have higher average returns, even at the low 25th percentile of returns. It's only at the bottom 5 or 10 percent where this is reversed. One problem with these empirical studies is isolating the effect of the glide path from rebalancing. It could be that a simple fixed allocation works plenty fine, and that selling winners and doubling down on losers is the fundamental driver of returns. Schleef and Eisinger compare lifecycle strategy with a number of fixed asset allocation schemes in Monte Carlo simulations and conclude that a 70% equity, 30% long term corp bonds does as well as all of the lifecycle funds. Finally, the earlier W Pfau paper offers a Monte Carlo simulation similar to Schleef and Eisinger, and runs final portfolio values through a utility function designed to calculate diminishing returns to more money. This seems like a good point, as the risk of your portfolio isn't all or nothing, but your first dollar is more valuable than your millionth. Pfau finds that for some risk-aversion coefficients, lifecycles offer greater utility than portfolios with fixed allocations. And Pfau does note that applying their strategies to the historical record makes a strong recommendation for 100 percent stocks in all but 5 years from 1940-2011. So maybe the best retirement allocation is good old low cost S&P index funds!",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "e0181b5b73cc89e56d3146f077981403",
"text": "You need a find a financial planner that will create a plan for you for a fixed fee. They will help you determine the best course of action taking into account the pension, the 403B, and any other sources of income you have, or will have. They will know how to address the risk that you have that that particular pension. They will help you determine how to invest your money to produce the type of retirement you want, while making sure you are likely to not outlive your portfolio.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "188dd86c3c336b20a110fb5413285e31",
"text": "\"Answers: 1. Is this a good idea? Is it really risky? What are the pros and cons? Yes, it is a bad idea. I think, with all the talk about employer matches and tax rates at retirement vs. now, that you miss the forest for the trees. It's the taxes on those retirement investments over the course of 40 years that really matter. Example: Imagine $833 per month ($10k per year) invested in XYZ fund, for 40 years (when you retire). The fund happens to make 10% per year over that time, and you're taxed at 28%. How much would you have at retirement? 2. Is it a bad idea to hold both long term savings and retirement in the same investment vehicle, especially one pegged to the US stock market? Yes. Keep your retirement separate, and untouchable. It's supposed to be there for when you're old and unable to work. Co-mingling it with other funds will induce you to spend it (\"\"I really need it for that house! I can always pay more into it later!\"\"). It also can create a false sense of security (\"\"look at how much I've got! I got that new car covered...\"\"). So, send 10% into whatever retirement account you've got, and forget about it. Save for other goals separately. 3. Is buying SPY a \"\"set it and forget it\"\" sort of deal, or would I need to rebalance, selling some of SPY and reinvesting in a safer vehicle like bonds over time? For a retirement account, yes, you would. That's the advantage of target date retirement funds like the one in your 401k. They handle that, and you don't have to worry about it. Think about it: do you know how to \"\"age\"\" your account, and what to age it into, and by how much every year? No offense, but your next question is what an ETF is! 4. I don't know ANYTHING about ETFs. Things to consider/know/read? Start here: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/etf.asp 5. My company plan is \"\"retirement goal\"\" focused, which, according to Fidelity, means that the asset allocation becomes more conservative over time and switches to an \"\"income fund\"\" after the retirement target date (2050). Would I need to rebalance over time if holding SPY? Answered in #3. 6. I'm pretty sure that contributing pretax to 401k is a good idea because I won't be in the 28% tax bracket when I retire. How are the benefits of investing in SPY outweigh paying taxes up front, or do they not? Partially answered in #1. Note that it's that 4 decades of tax-free growth that's the big dog for winning your retirement. Company matches (if you get one) are just a bonus, and the fact that contributions are tax free is a cherry on top. 7. Please comment on anything else you think I am missing I think what you're missing is that winning at personal finance is easy, and winning at personal finance is hard\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "acd6ecb60230cccbe47d3f7ed7d5ef80",
"text": "Take the easy approach - as suggested by John Bogle (founder of Vanguard - and a man worthy of tremendous respect). Two portfolios consisting of 1 index fund each. Invest your age% in the Fixed Income index fund. Invest (1-age)% in the stock index fund. Examples of these funds are the Total Market Index Fund (VTSMX) and the Total Bond Market Index (VBMFX). If you wish to be slightly more adventurous, blend (1-age-10)% as the Total Market Index Fund and a fixed 10% as Total International Stock Index (VGTSX). You will sleep well at night for most of your life.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a36d9368212653a50c5ae5401a3f8d41",
"text": "Here would be the general steps to my mind for creating such a plan: Write out the final desired outcome. Is it $x in y years to fund your retirement? Is it $a in b years to put as a house down payment? This is the first step in defining how much money you want at what point in time. Consider what is your risk tolerance and how much time do you plan on spending in this plan. Is it rebalancing once a quarter and that's it or do you plan on doing monthly research and making tweaks all the time? This is slightly different from the first where one has to be mindful of how much volatility would one handle and what time commitment does one have for an investing strategy. Also, how much money would you be adding to the investments on what kind of time table would also be worth noting here. Construct the asset allocation based on the previous two steps along with historical returns averaged out to be a first draft of what you are buying in general. Is it US stocks? Is it a short-term bond fund? There are more than a few choices here that may make sense and it is worth considering based on the first couple of responses that determine what this will look like. Retirement in 40 years may be quite different than a house down payment in 2 years for example. Determine what brokerages or fund companies would offer such funds along with what types of accounts you'd want to have as in some countries there may be tax-advantaged accounts that may be useful to use here. This is where you're almost ready to start by doing the homework of figuring out how will things work. This may vary depending on one's jurisdiction. Get the applications from whatever institutions you'll be using and run with the desired asset allocation across various funds and accounts. Note that in the first few steps there were points of being aware of how much would you have, how aggressive are you investing and so forth. This is where you actually send in the money and get things rolling. Run with the plan and make tweaks as needed to achieve result, hopefully desired or better.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b814e2e4f943f77864610939f302e619",
"text": "\"I find it interesting that you didn't include something like [Total Bond Market](http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.html?VBMFX), or [Intermediate-Term Treasuries](http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.html?VBIIX), in your graphic. If someone were to have just invested in the DJI or SP500, then they would have ignored the tenants of the Modern Portfolio Theory and not diversified adequately. I wouldn't have been able to stomach a portfolio of 100% stocks, commodities, or metals. My vote goes for: 1.) picking an asset allocation that reflects your tolerance for risk (a good starting point is \"\"age in bonds,\"\" i.e. if you're 30, then hold 30% in bonds); 2.) save as if you're not expecting annualized returns of %10 (for example) and save more; 3.) don't try to pick the next winner, instead broadly invest in the market and hold it. Maybe gold and silver are bubbles soon to burst -- I for one don't know. I don't give the \"\"notion in the investment community\"\" much weight -- as it always is, someday someone will be right, I just don't know who that someone is.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a3a90085114bcdc92d97809050fef1f2",
"text": "I'm going to diverge from most of the opinions expressed here. It is common for financial advisors to assume that your portfolio should become less risky as you get older. Explanations for this involve hand-waving and saying that you can afford to lose money when young because you have time to make up for it later. However, the idea that portfolios should become less risky as you get older is not well-grounded in finance theory. According to finance theory, regardless of your age and wealth, returns are desirable and risk is undesirable. Your risk aversion is the only factor that should decide how much risk you put in your portfolio. Do people become more risk averse as they get older? Sometimes. Not always. In fact, there are theoretical reasons why people might want more aggressive portfolios as they age. For example: As people become wealthier they generally become less risk averse. Young people are not normally very wealthy. When you are young, most of your wealth is tied up in the value of your human capital. This wealth shifts into your portfolio as you age. Depending on your field, human capital can be extremely risky--much riskier than the market. Therefore to maintain anything like a constant risk profile over your life, you may want very safe investments when young. You mention being a hedge fund manager. If we enter a recession, your human capital will take a huge hit because you will have a hard time raising money or getting/keeping a job. No one will value your skills and your future career prospects will fall. You will not want the double whammy of large losses in your portfolio. Hedge fund managers are clear examples of people who will want a very safe personal portfolio during their early working years and may be willing to invest very aggressively in their later working and early retirement years. In short, the received wisdom that portfolios should start out risky and get safer as we age is not always, and perhaps not even usually, true. A better guide to how much risk you should have in your portfolio is how you respond to questions that directly measure your risk aversion. This questions ask things like how much you would pay to avoid the possibility of a 20% loss in your portfolio with a certain probability.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a68a6190f8f1909ef9cf515c36ca5e0d",
"text": "\"The goal of the single-fund with a retirement date is that they do the rebalancing for you. They have some set of magic ratios (specific to each fund) that go something like this: Note: I completely made up those numbers and asset mix. When you invest in the \"\"Mutual-Fund Super Account 2025 fund\"\" you get the benefit that in 2015 (10 years until retirement) they automatically change your asset mix and when you hit 2025, they do it again. You can replace the functionality by being on top of your rebalancing. That being said, I don't think you need to exactly match the fund choices they provide, just research asset allocation strategies and remember to adjust them as you get closer to retirement.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b82b747d9970443247e234207d2758ca",
"text": "While the Vanguard paper is good, it doesn't do a very good job of explaining precisely why each level of stocks or bonds was optimal. If you'd like to read a transparent and quantitative explanation of when and why a a glide path is optimal, I'd suggest the following paper: https://www.betterment.com/resources/how-we-construct-portfolio-allocation-advice/ (Full disclosure - I'm the author). The answer is that the optimal risk level for any given holding period depends upon a combination of: Using these two factors, you construct a risk-averse decision model which chooses the risk level with the best expected average outcome, where it looks only at the median and lower percentile outcomes. This produces an average which is specifically robust to downside risk. The result will look something like this: The exact results will depend on the expected risk and return of the portfolio, and the degree of risk aversion specified. The result is specifically valid for the case where you liquidate all of the portfolio at a specific point in time. For retirement, the glide path needs to be extended to take into account the fact that the portfolio will be liquidated gradually over time, and dynamically take into account the longevity risk of the individual. I can't say precisely why Vanguard's path is how it is.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6550eb8b1f267dd995068f20e63ae48f",
"text": "My super fund and I would say many other funds give you one free switch of strategies per year. Some suggest you should change from high growth option to a more balance option once you are say about 10 to 15 years from retirement, and then change to a more capital guaranteed option a few years from retirement. This is a more passive approach and has benefits as well as disadvantages. The benefit is that there is not much work involved, you just change your investment option based on your life stage, 2 to 3 times during your lifetime. This allows you to take more risk when you are young to aim for higher returns, take a balanced approach with moderate risk and returns during the middle part of your working life, and take less risk with lower returns (above inflation) during the latter part of your working life. A possible disadvantage of this strategy is you may be in the higher risk/ higher growth option during a market correction and then change to a more balanced option just when the market starts to pick up again. So your funds will be hit with large losses whilst the market is in retreat and just when things look to be getting better you change to a more balanced portfolio and miss out on the big gains. A second more active approach would be to track the market and change investment option as the market changes. One approach which shouldn't take much time is to track the index such as the ASX200 (if you investment option is mainly invested in the Australian stock market) with a 200 day Simple Moving Average (SMA). The concept is that if the index crosses above the 200 day SMA the market is bullish and if it crosses below it is bearish. See the chart below: This strategy will work well when the market is trending up or down but not very well when the market is going sideways, as you will be changing from aggressive to balanced and back too often. Possibly a more appropriate option would be a combination of the two. Use the first passive approach to change investment option from aggressive to balanced to capital guaranteed with your life stages, however use the second active approach to time the change. For example, if you were say in your late 40s now and were looking to change from aggressive to balanced in the near future, you could wait until the ASX200 crosses below the 200 day SMA before making the change. This way you could capture the majority of the uptrend (which could go on for years) before changing from the high growth/aggressive option to the balanced option. If you where after more control over your superannuation assets another option open to you is to start a SMSF, however I would recommend having at least $300K to $400K in assets before starting a SMSF, or else the annual costs would be too high as a percentage of your total super assets.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "28b5ddd17e812c9911fc68a3d4514b2b",
"text": "I really like keshlam's answer. Your age is also a consideration. If you make your own target fund by matching the allocations of whatever Vanguard offers, I'd suggest re-balancing every year or every other year. But if you're just going to match the allocations of their target fund, you might as well just invest in the target fund itself. Most (not all, just most) target funds do not charge an additional management fee. So you just pay the fees of the underlying funds, same as if you mirrored the target fund yourself. (Check the prospectus to see if an additional fee is charged or not.) You may want to consider a more aggressive approach than the target funds. You can accomplish this by selecting a target fund later than your actual retirement age, or by picking your own allocations. The target funds become more conservative as you approach retirement age, so selecting a later target is a way of moving the risk/reward ratio. (I'm not saying target funds are necessarily the best choice, you should get professional advice, etc etc.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eee03650200f5d1f81afdedae2ae5dfb",
"text": "At 22 years old, you can afford to be invested 100% in the stock market. Like many others, I recommend that you consider low cost index funds if those are available in your 401(k) plan. Since your 401(k) contributions are usually made with each paycheck this gives you the added benefit of dollar cost averaging throughout your career. There used to be a common rule that you should put 100 minus your age as the percentage invested in the stock market and the rest in bonds, but with interest rates being so low, bonds have underperformed, so many experts now recommend 110 or even 120 minus your age for stocks percentage. My recommendation is that you wait until you are 40 and then move 25% into bonds, then increase it to 40% at 55 years old. At 65 I would jump to a 50-50 stock/bonds mix and when you start taking distributions I would move to a stable-value income portfolio. I also recommend that you roll your funds into a Vanguard IRA when you change jobs so that you take advantage of their low management fee index mutual funds (that have no fees for trading). You can pick whatever mix feels best for you, but at your age I would suggest a 50-50 mix between the S&P 500 (large cap) and the Russell 2000 (small cap). Those with quarterly rebalancing will put you a little ahead of the market with very little effort.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3ca387b896dec855ad681eb1d9ab8944",
"text": "First, you should diversify your portfolio. If your entire portfolio is in the Roth IRA, then you should eventually diversify that. However, if you have an IRA and a 401k, then it's perfectly fine for the IRA to be in a single fund. For example, I used my IRA to buy a riskier REIT that my 401k doesn't support. Second, if you only have a small amount currently invested, e.g. $5500, it may make sense to put everything in a single fund until you have enough to get past the low balance fees. It's not uncommon for funds to charge lower fees to someone who has $8000, $10,000, or $12,000 invested. Note that if you deposit $10,000 and the fund loses money, they'll usually charge you the rate for less than $10,000. So try to exceed the minimum with a decent cushion. A balanced fund may make sense as a first fund. That way they handle the diversification for you. A targeted fund is a special kind of balanced fund that changes the balance over time. Some have reported that targeted funds charge higher fees. Commissions on those higher fees may explain why your bank wants you to buy. I personally don't like the asset mixes that I've seen from targeted funds. They often change the stock/bond ratio, which is not really correct. The stock/bond ratio should stay the same. It's the securities (stocks and bonds) to monetary equivalents that should change, and that only starting five to ten years before retirement. Prior to that the only reason to put money into monetary equivalents is to provide time to pick the right securities fund. Retirees should maintain about a five year cushion in monetary equivalents so as not to be forced to sell into a bad market. Long term, I'd prefer low-load index funds. A bond fund and two or three stock funds. You might want to build your balance first though. It doesn't really make sense to have a separate fund until you have enough money to get the best fees. 70-75% stocks and 25-30% bonds (should add to 100%, e.g. 73% and 27%). Balance annually when you make your new deposit.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bf1d1ea0e3677666ea9f6e49220977f5",
"text": "\"RED FLAG. You should not be invested in 1 share. You should buy a diversified ETF which can have fees of 0.06% per year. This has SIGNIFICANTLY less volatility for the same statistical expectation. Left tail risk is MUCH lower (probability of gigantic losses) since losses will tend to cancel out gains in diversified portfolios. Moreover, your view that \"\"you believe these will continue\"\" is fallacious. Stocks of developed countries are efficient to the extent that retail investors cannot predict price evolution in the future. Countless academic studies show that individual investors forecast in the incorrect direction on average. I would be quite right to objectively classify you as a incorrect if you continued to hold the philosophy that owning 1 stock instead of the entire market is a superior stategy. ALL the evidence favours holding the market. In addition, do not invest in active managers. Academic evidence demonstrates that they perform worse than holding a passive market-tracking portfolio after fees, and on average (and plz don't try to select managers that you think can outperform -- you can't do this, even the best in the field can't do this). Direct answer: It depends on your investment horizon. If you do not need the money until you are 60 then you should invest in very aggressive assets with high expected return and high volatility. These assets SHOULD mainly be stocks (through ETFs or mutual funds) but could also include US-REIT or global-REIT ETFs, private equity and a handful of other asset classes (no gold, please.) ... or perhaps wealth management products which pool many retail investors' funds together and create a diversified portfolio (but I'm unconvinced that their fees are worth the added diversification). If you need the money in 2-3 years time then you should invest in safe assets -- fixed income and term deposits. Why is investment horizon so important? If you are holding to 60 years old then it doesn't matter if we have a massive financial crisis in 5 years time, since the stock market will rebound (unless it's a nuclear bomb in New York or something) and by the time you are 60 you will be laughing all the way to the bank. Gains on risky assets overtake losses in the long run such that over a 20-30 year horizon they WILL do much better than a deposit account. As you approach 45-50, you should slowly reduce your allocation to risky assets and put it in safe haven assets such as fixed income and cash. This is because your investment horizon is now SHORTER so you need a less risky portfolio so you don't have to keep working until 65/70 if the market tanks just before retirement. VERY IMPORTANT. If you may need the savings to avoid defaulting on your home loan if you lose your job or something, then the above does not apply. Decisions in these context are more vague and ambiguous.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "07f7202017432ca3558e5ec9494595bc",
"text": "Current evidence is that, after you subtract their commission and the additional trading costs, actively managed funds average no better than index funds, maybe not as well. You can afford to take more risks at your age, assuming that it will be a long time before you need these funds -- but I would suggest that means putting a high percentage of your investments in small-cap and large-cap stock indexes. I'd suggest 10% in bonds, maybe more, just because maintaining that balance automatically encourages buy-low-sell-high as the market cycles. As you get older and closer to needing a large chunk of the money (for a house, or after retirement), you would move progressively more of that to other categories such as bonds to help safeguard your earnings. Some folks will say this an overly conservative approach. On the other hand, it requires almost zero effort and has netted me an average 10% return (or so claims Quicken) over the past two decades, and that average includes the dot-bomb and the great recession. Past results are not a guarantee of future performance, of course, but the point is that it can work quite well enough.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fe51e686735147f0c35b913477796fe9",
"text": "\"Its important to note that aggression, or better yet volatility, does not necessarily offer higher returns. One can find funds that have a high beta (measure of volatility) and lower performance then stock funds with a lower beta. Additionally, to Micheal's point, better performance could be undone by higher fees. Age is unimportant when deciding the acceptable volatility. Its more important as to when the money is to be available. If there might be an immediate need, or even less than a year, then stick to a savings account. Five years, some volatility can be accepted, if 10 years or more seek to maximize rate of return. For example assume a person is near retirement age. They are expected to have 50K per year expenses. If they have 250K wrapped up in CDs and savings, and another 250K in some conservative investments, they can, and should, be \"\"aggressive\"\" with any remaining money. On the contrary a person your age that is savings for a house intends to buy one in three years. Savings for the down payment should be pretty darn conservative. Something like 75% in savings accounts, and maybe 25% in some conservative investments. As the time to buy approaches they can pull the money out of the conservative investments at a optimal time. Also you should not be investing without an emergency fund in place. Get that done first, then look to invest. If your friend does not understand these basic concepts there is no point in paying for his advice.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
90de90f852a25aea7c4db0fce9958e18
|
Can I get a dumbed down explanation of risk measures used for evaluating stocks?
|
[
{
"docid": "17f38c31a0e4926f6d8060a3b997e667",
"text": "\"Standard deviation from Wikipedia : In statistics and probability theory, the standard deviation (represented by the Greek letter sigma, σ) shows how much variation or dispersion from the average exists.1 A low standard deviation indicates that the data points tend to be very close to the mean (also called expected value); a high standard deviation indicates that the data points are spread out over a large range of values. In the case of stock returns, a lower value would indicate less volatility while a higher value would mean more volatility, which could be interpreted as high much change does the stock's price go through over time. Mean would be interpreted as if all the figures had to be the same, what would they be? So if a stock returns 10% each year for 3 years in a row, then 10% would be the mean or average return. Now, it is worth noting that there are more than a few calculations that may be done to derive a mean. First, there is the straight forward sum and division by the number of elements idea. For example, if the returns by year were 0%, 10%, and 20% then one may take the sum of 30% and divide by 3 to get a simple mean of 10%. However, some people would rather look at a Compound Annual Growth Rate which in this case would mean multiplying the returns together so 1*(1+.1)*(1+.2)=1.1*1.2=1.32 or 32% since there is some compounding here. Now, instead of dividing a cubic root is taken to get approximately 9.7% average annual return that is a bit lower yet if you compound it over 3 years it will get up to 32% as 10% compounded over 3 years would be 33.1% as (1.1)^3=1.331. Sharpe Ratio from Investopedia: A ratio developed by Nobel laureate William F. Sharpe to measure risk-adjusted performance. The Sharpe ratio is calculated by subtracting the risk-free rate - such as that of the 10-year U.S. Treasury bond - from the rate of return for a portfolio and dividing the result by the standard deviation of the portfolio returns. Thus, this is a way to think about given the volatility how much better did the portfolio do than the 10 year bond. R-squared, Alpha and Beta: These are all around the idea of \"\"linear regression\"\" modelling. The idea is to take some standard like say the \"\"S & P 500\"\" in the case of US stocks and see how well does the portfolio follow this and what if one were to use a linear model are the multipliers and addition components to it. R-squared can be thought of it as a measure as to how good is the fit on a scale of 0 to 1. An S & P 500 index fund may well have an R-squared of 1.00 or 0.99 to the index as it will track it extremely closely while other investments may not follow that well at all. Part of modern portfolio theory would be to have asset classes that move independently of each other and thus would have a lower R-squared so that the movement of the index doesn't indicate how an investment will do. Now, as for alpha and beta, do you remember the formula for a line in slope-intercept form, where y is the portfolio's return and x is the index's return: y=mx+b In this situation m is beta which is the multiple of the return, and b is the alpha or how much additional return one gets without the multiple. Going back to an index fund example, m will be near 1 and b will be near 0 and there isn't anything being done and so the portfolio's return computed based on the index's return is simply y=x. Other mutual funds may try to have a high alpha as this is seen as the risk-free return as there isn't the ups and downs of the market here. Other mutual funds may go for a high beta so that there is volatility for investors to handle.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "72105a8c2e27b34cc9735d02a2b58f63",
"text": "If a market is efficient then risk/reward should be linear. In simple markets like stocks and bonds, everyone thinks the same way and the risk/reward calculation is simple, so everyone can have an accurate idea of the risk/reward ratio, unless the company has serious undisclosed problems. But in other markets like derivatives and mortgage bonds, few people understand what they're buying so the risks remain hidden. Someone might think a company will do well, so they buy an derivative on that company. But no one understands risk/reward calculations on derivatives, so the risk/reward on the derivative could be way off the price on the derivative.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "58d12be977589164580793608e7d3fea",
"text": "Also a layman, and I didnt read the article because it did the whole 'screw you for blocking my ads' thing. But judging from the title, I'd guess someone bought a massive amount of call options for VIX, the stock that tracks volatility in the market. Whenever the market crashes or goes through difficult times, the VIX fund prospers. The 'by october' part makes me think it was call options that he purchased: basically he paid a premium for each share (a fraction of the shares cost) for the right to buy that share at today's price, from now until october. So if the share increases in value, for each call option he has, he can buy one share at todays price, and sell it at the price it is that day. Options can catapult your profit into the next dimension but if the share decreases in value or even stays the same price, he loses everything. Vicious redditors, please correct the mistakes ive made here with utmost discrimination",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4a542f5a5340c9199f4b22c4bd526ec4",
"text": "\"The question is: how do you quantify investment risk? As Michael S says, one approach is to treat investment returns as a random variable. Bill Goetzmann (Yale finance professor) told me that if you accept that markets are efficient or that the price of an asset reflects it's underlying value, then changes in price represent changes in value, so standard deviation naturally becomes the appropriate measure for riskiness of an asset. Essentially, the more volatile an asset, the riskier it is. There is another school of thought that comes from Ben Graham and Warren Buffett, which says that volatility is not inherently risky. Rather, risk should be defined as the permanent loss of capital, so the riskiness of an asset is the probability of a permanent loss of capital invested. This is easy to do in casino games, based on basic probability such as roulette or slots. But what has been done with the various kinds of investment risks? My point is saying that certain bonds are \"\"low risk\"\" isn't good enough; I'd like some numbers--or at least a range of numbers--and therefore one could calculate expected payoff (in the statistics sense). Or can it not be done--and if not, why not? Investing is more art than science. In theory, a Triple-A bond rating means the asset is riskless or nearly riskless, but we saw that this was obviously wrong since several of the AAA mortgage backed securities (MBS) went under prior to the recent US recession. More recently, the current threat of default suggests that bond ratings are not entirely accurate, since US Treasuries are considered riskless assets. Investors often use bond ratings to evaluate investments - a bond is considered investment grade if it's BBB- or higher. To adequately price bonds and evaluate risk, there are too many factors to simply refer to a chart because things like the issuer, credit quality, liquidity risk, systematic risk, and unsystematic risk all play a factor. Another factor you have to consider is the overall portfolio. Markowitz showed that adding a riskier asset can actually lower the overall risk of a portfolio because of diversification. This is all under the assumption that risk = variance, which I think is bunk. I'm aware that Wall Street is nothing like roulette, but then again there must be some math and heavy economics behind calculating risk for individual investors. This is, after all, what \"\"quants\"\" are paid to do, in part. Is it all voodoo? I suspect some of it is, but not all of it. Quants are often involved in high frequency trading as well, but that's another note. There are complicated risk management products, such as the Aladdin system by BlackRock, which incorporate modern portfolio theory (Markowitz, Fama, Sharpe, Samuelson, etc) and financial formulas to manage risk. Crouhy's Risk Management covers some of the concepts applied. I also tend to think that when people point to the last x number of years of stock market performance, that is of less value than they expect. Even going back to 1900 provides \"\"only\"\" 110 years of data, and in my view, complex systems need more data than those 40,500 data points. 10,000 years' worth of data, ok, but not 110. Any books or articles that address these issues, or your own informed views, would be helfpul. I fully agree with you here. A lot of work is done in the Santa Fe Institute to study \"\"complex adaptive systems,\"\" and we don't have any big, clear theory as of yet. Conventional risk management is based on the ideas of modern portfolio theory, but a lot of that is seen to be wrong. Behavioral finance is introducing new ideas on how investors behave and why the old models are wrong, which is why I cannot suggest you study risk management and risk models because I and many skilled investors consider them to be largely wrong. There are many good books on investing, the best of which is Benjamin Graham's The Intelligent Investor. Although not a book on risk solely, it provides a different viewpoint on how to invest and covers how to protect investments via a \"\"Margin of Safety.\"\" Lastly, I'd recommend Against the Gods by Peter Bernstein, which covers the history of risk and risk analysis. It's not solely a finance book but rather a fascinating historical view of risk, and it helps but many things in context. Hope it helps!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bedb312ce400331910fcd7c5eccf3b41",
"text": "My reaction to this is that your observation @D.W. is spot on correct: It sounds like long-term market timing: trying to do a better job than the rest of the market at predicting, based upon a simple formula, whether the market is over-priced or under-priced. I read the post by the founder of Valuation Informed Indexing, Rob Bennet. Glance at the comments section. Rob clearly states that he doesn't even use his own strategy, and has not owned, nor traded, any stocks since 1996! As another commenter summarizes it, addressing Rob: This is 2011. You’ve been 100% out of stocks — including indexes — since 1996? That’s 15 years of taking whatever the bond market, CDs or TIPS will yield (often and currently less than 2%)... I’m curious how you defend not following your own program even as you recommend it for others? Rob basically says that stocks haven't shown the right signals for buying since 1996, so he's stuck with bonds, CD's and fixed-income instead. This is a VERY long-term horizon point of view (a bit of sarcasm edges in from me). Answering your more general question, what do I think of this particular Price/ Earnings based ratio as a way to signal asset allocation change i.e. Valuation Informed Investing? I don't like it much.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9031cd641767c4fa0b9f66906157836f",
"text": "I think by definition there aren't, generally speaking, any indicators (as in chart indicators, I assume you mean) for fundamental analysis. Off the top of my head I can't think of one chart indicator that I wouldn't call 'technical', even though a couple could possibly go either way and I'm sure someone will help prove me wrong. But the point I want to make is that to do fundamental analysis, it is most certainly more time consuming. Depending on what instrument you're investing in, you need to have a micro perspective (company specific details) and a macro perspective (about the industry it's in). If you're investing in sector ETFs or the like, you'd be more reliant on the macro analysis. If you're investing in commodities, you'll need to consider macro analysis in multiple countries who are big producers/consumers of the item. There's no cut and dried way to do it, however I personally opt for a macro analysis of sector ETFs and then use technical analysis to determine my entry and/or exit.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "140316a651354cc2875c8679cdd3187d",
"text": "\"With every caveat that Rick said plus many many more lets have some fun. One common way to measure risk is volatility of returns roughly how much the value of your asset jumps around. Interestingly, the following ordering is fairly similar for many other common measures of risk. The first three on the list would be mostly interchangeable. Generally, putting your money in \"\"cash\"\" investments has no real day-to-day price variability and the main risk is that the bank won't give you your money back at the end. Money market funds are last as they can \"\"Break the buck\"\". To get a feel for the next few on the list I'm using previous 360 day volatility numbers for representative broad indices (asof 2014-10-27). While these volatility values can move around quite a bit, the order is actually remarkably stable. Hedge funds might seem out of place here, but remember that hedge funds can hold be long and short at the same time and this can cancel out daily variation. However, Hedge funds do have plenty of risks that may not be well accounted for by this measure. For derivatives I'll refer to back to Rick's answer. This is a measure for broad investment in these categories your particular investment in Long-term Capital Management or Argentine Bonds may vary. It is important to note that your return on your investment generally grows as you go toward more risky investments down this list as people generally expect to be rewarded in the long term for risky investments.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8f70e124bf017400421257713171e9b1",
"text": "\"Beta is the correct answer. It is THE measure of the risk relationship of a stock with the broad market. R squared is incorrect unless you mean something very odd by \"\"co-efficiency.\"\" A stock that goes up each time the market goes down has very low co-efficiency (negative risk as you have defined it) but very high R squared. A stock that goes the same direction as the market but twice as far (with a lot of noise) has a very low R squared but contains a lot of market risk. A stock that always goes in the same direction as the market but only a 100th as far is very safe but has a very high R squared. You can calculate beta using \"\"slope\"\" in excel or doing a regression, but the easiest thing is just to look up the beta in yahoo finance or elsewhere. You don't need to calculate it for yourself normally.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f40ce647ec1934ec570d35784baa2775",
"text": "James Roth provides a partial solution good for stock picking but let's speed up process a bit, already calculated historical standard deviations: Ibbotson, very good collection of research papers here, examples below Books",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "fe9921a7843fe5fe58cfc9155f83a271",
"text": "\"Modern portfolio theory dramatically underestimates the risk of the recommended assets. This is because so few underlying assets are in the recommended part of the curve. As investors identify such assets, large amounts of money are invested in them. This temporarily reduces measured risk, and temporarily increases measured return. Sooner or later, \"\"the trade\"\" becomes \"\"crowded\"\". Eventually, large amounts of money try to \"\"exit the trade\"\" (into cash or the next discovered asset). And so the measurable risk suddenly rises, and the measured return drops. In other words, modern portfolio theory causes bubbles, and causes those bubbles to pop. Some other strategies to consider:\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7034b1830c9bba00e0fa8ff154ab84d5",
"text": "\"Here's a dump from what I use. Some are a bit more expensive than those that you posted. The second column is the expense ratio. The third column is the category I've assigned in my spreadsheet -- it's how I manage my rebalancing among different classes. \"\"US-LC\"\" is large cap, MC is mid cap, SC is small cap. \"\"Intl-Dev\"\" is international stocks from developed economies, \"\"Emer\"\" is emerging economies. These have some overlap. I don't have a specific way to handle this, I just keep an eye on the overall picture. (E.g. I don't overdo it on, say, BRIC + Brazil or SPY + S&P500 Growth.) The main reason for each selection is that they provide exposure to a certain batch of securities that I was looking for. In each type, I was also aiming for cheap and/or liquid like you. If there are substitutes I should be looking at for any of these that are cheaper and/or more liquid, a comment would be great. High Volume: Mid Volume (<1mil shares/day): Low Volume (<50k shares/day): These provide enough variety to cover the target allocation below. That allocation is just for retirement accounts; I don't consider any other savings when I rebalance against this allocation. When it's time to rebalance (i.e. a couple of times a year when I realize that I haven't done it in several months), I update quotes, look at the percentages assigned to each category, and if anything is off the target by more than 1% point I will buy/sell to adjust. (I.e. if US-LC is 23%, I sell enough to get back to 20%, then use the cash to buy more of something else that is under the target. But if US-MC is 7.2% I don't worry about it.) The 1% threshold prevents unnecessary trading costs; sometimes if everything is just over 1% off I'll let it slide. I generally try to stay away from timing, but I do use some of that extra cash when there's a panic (after Jan-Feb '09 I had very little cash in the retirement accounts). I don't have the source for this allocation any more, but it is the result of combining a half dozen or so sample allocations that I saw and tailoring it for my goals.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1885e147e142cd6a0fdf6862afa5b80a",
"text": "\"Specifically, what does my broker mean when they say an asset or investment strategy is high risk? In this context, it is a statement based on past events and probability. It is based on how confident s/he is that the investment will perform to certain benchmarks. This is a math question, primarily (with some opinion mixed in, granted). This is where the Sharpe ratio and others fit well. How am I supposed to answer a question like \"\"rate your risk tolerance from low to high\"\"? This is the hard question, as you have seen. In this context, risk tolerance is derived from your current position and future plans (goals). This is a planning, goal setting, and strategy question, primarily (with some math mixed in, granted). How vulnerable is your current position and future plans to an under-performing investment? If you answer \"\"very\"\", then you choose investments that have a lower probability of under-performing. The Sharpe ratio has little to do with answering this question. It is a tool to find investments that better match your answer to this question.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3221ea586106f111e68b463d6aeb1d53",
"text": "Efficient Frontier has an article from years ago about the small-cap and value premiums out there that would be worth noting here using the Fama and French data. Eugene Fama and Kenneth French (F/F) have shown that one can explain almost all of the returns of equity portfolios based on only three factors: market exposure, market capitalization (size), and price-to-book (value). Wikipedia link to the factor model which was the result of the F/F research.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8731161a6898273a53243c67883b083f",
"text": "That's exactly what immunofort is saying, and it lines up with established financial theory (well, some of it). The general argument is that stocks are priced according to what risks they're exposed to. Several (although not all) of the major financial economics theories propose (and find empirical evidence for this) that the market as whole is a risk factor, so individual stocks would be priced in part based on how correlated they are with the market. Strictly speaking, the risk free rate is purely theoretical and can't be directly observed, but the US T-bill yield is usually considered to be a pretty good proxy for it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9daac524bddb7ad59fcf8b78ff44ab6f",
"text": "Since you seem determined to consider this, I'd like to break down for you why I believe it is an incredibly risky proposition: 1) In general, picking individual stocks is risky. Individual stocks are by their nature not diversified assets, and a single company-wide calamity (a la Volkswagen emissions, etc.) can create huge distress to your investments. The way to mitigate this risk is of course to diversify (invest in other types of assets, such as other stocks, index funds, bonds, etc.). However, you must accept that this first step does have risks. 2) Picking stocks on the basis of financial information (called 'fundamental analysis') requires a very large amount of research and time dedication. It is one of the two main schools of thought in equity investing (as opposed to 'technical analysis', which pulls information directly from stock markets, such as price volatility). This is something that professional investors do for a living - and that means that they have an edge you do not have, unless you dedicate similar resources to this task. That information imbalance between you and professional traders creates additional risk where you make determinations 'against the grain'. 3) Any specific piece of public information (and this is public information, regardless of how esoteric it is) may be considered to be already 'factored into' public stock prices. I am a believer in market efficiency first and foremost. That means I believe that anything publically known related to a corporation ['OPEC just lowered their oil production! Exxon will be able to increase their prices!'] has already been considered by the professional traders currently buying and selling in the market. For your 'new' information to be valuable, it would need to have the ability to forecast earnings in a way not already considered by others. 4) I doubt you will be able to find the true nature of the commercial impact of a particular event, simply by knowing ship locations. So what if you know Alcoa is shipping Aluminium to Cuba - is this one of 5 shipments already known to the public? Is this replacement supplies that are covering a loss due to damaged goods previously sent? Is the boat only 1/3 full? Where this information gets valuable, is when it gets to the level of corporate espionage. Yes, if you had ship manifests showing tons of aluminum being sold, and if this was a massive 'secret' shipment about to be announced at the next shareholders' meeting, you could (illegally) profit from that information. 5) The more massive the company, the less important any single transaction is. That means the super freighters you may see transporting raw commodities could have dozens of such ships out at any given time, not to mention news of new mine openings and closures, price changes, volume reports, etc. etc. So the most valuable information would be smaller companies, where a single shipment might cover a month of revenue - but such a small company is (a) less likely to be public [meaning you couldn't buy shares in the company and profit off of the information]; and (b) less likely to be found by you in the giant sea of ship information. In summary, while you may have found some information that provides insight into a company's operations, you have not shown that this information is significant and also unknown to the market. Not to mention the risks associated with picking individual stocks in the first place. In this case, it is my opinion that you are taking on additional risk not adequately compensated by additional reward.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
130935d96fbef4872fca91506d60bf5a
|
How do credit union loans and dividends vs interest work?
|
[
{
"docid": "0a81e54ec0466d649d099e38a3d04afc",
"text": "\"A credit Union makes loans exactly the same ways a bank does. A portion of the money deposited in checking, savings, money market, Certificate of Deposit, or IRA is then used to make loans for cars, boats, school, mortgages, 2nd mortgages, lines of credit... The government dictates the percentage of each type of deposit that must be held in reserve for non-loan transactions. The Credit Union members are the share holders of the \"\"company\"\". There are no investors in the \"\"company\"\" because the goal is not to make money. In general the entire package is better because there is no pressure to increase profits. Fees are generally lower because they are there to discourage bad behavior, not as a way to make a profit off of the bad behavior. Dividends/interest are treated the same way as bank interest. The IRS forms are the same, and it is reported the same way. Some of bizarre rules they have to follow: maximum number of transactions between accounts, membership rules, are there because banks want to make it harder to be a member of a credit union.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "ae148a4b9aca1e2103a1c57a04f56f16",
"text": "This is great, thank you. Can you think of any cases where expected return is greater than interest payments (like in #2) but the best choice would still be raise money through equity issuing? My intuition tells me this may be possible for an expensive company.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "564005dc162c72c98e107c637b036256",
"text": "For bonds bought at par (the face value of the bond, like buying a CD for $1000) the payment it makes is the same as yield. You pay $1000 and get say, $40 per year or 4%. If you buy it for more or less than that $1000, say $900, there's some math (not for me, I use a finance calculator) to tell you your return taking the growth to maturity into account, i.e. the extra $100 you get when you get the full $1000 back. Obviously, for bonds, you care about whether the comp[any or municipality will pay you back at all, and then you care about how much you'll make when then do. In that order. For stocks, the picture is abit different as some companies give no dividend but reinvest all profits, think Berkshire Hathaway. On the other hand, many people believe that the dividend is important, and choose to buy stocks that start with a nice yield, a $30 stock with a $1/yr dividend is 3.3% yield. Sounds like not much, but over time you expect the company to grow, increase in value and increase its dividend. 10 years hence you may have a $40 stock and the dividend has risen to $1.33. Now it's 4.4% of the original investment, and you sit on that gain as well.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7515b32ac0cc666f93929353cfda8291",
"text": "\"A) Yes, it does accomplish the goal of adding more money, but the money is in lieu of any return you can earn while the loan is outstanding. If you somehow knew exactly which periods where going to run negative, and you took a 401k loan during that time, you'd be in pretty good shape, but if you had that information you'd probably be ruling the world in short order and wouldn't care much about a measly 401k. B) It's a nice idea, but unfortunately you are not allowed to set your own interest rate. (If you could your idea would work perfectly.) The interest rate is bank specific, and is typically 1-2 points over prime. But if your plan was to leave your money sitting in cash or low interest bearing accounts anyway, the loan does actually achieve the goal of \"\"getting more money in there\"\". Though it's your money; you aren't \"\"earning\"\" it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4c43154ddb4e4be53ad9e90ed10a0d33",
"text": "My understanding of Muslim finance is that you may not lend money at interest, including investing in in things that pay interest. However you may still make investments: it just has to be in places where you get a share of profit, rather than a fixed rate of return. You would be better asking the Muslim community specifically for more details. The benefits of compound interest apply, more or less, to other non-fixed-interest investments. If you invest $1000 in a business and get a 10% rate of return, you have $1100 to invest in your next venture, which means it will be more profitable and so on. That's why the growth happens, not specifically because it is interest. Stocks do not pay interest, and the 'magic' applies to them too. The fact that you might lose as well as win complicates things, but doesn't change the principle.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f065b8be944fd034e311cad20e89a83e",
"text": "I hear this a lot but how does it work exactly? Is it the more money you have in your share (savings) account the more weight your vote carries? Or does each member get one vote? I've been a credit union member for 15 years and have never had any say in anything. I also work for a small bank and both institutions are basically the same. My bank has better rates than my credit union on lended money but my CU pays higher rates on my money. My bank is also a publicly traded company and has regular meetings in which any shareholders can come voice their opinion, I've never heard anything about such activity with my credit union.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "99cc8912af7bb550771b1a511771da1d",
"text": "The way I usually make this decision is to answer the following question: Do I think that I can earn a better return on my savings than the interest rate I would get on the loan? Yes= Get a loan No= Use the savings If you have your savings in a fixed income investment like a CD or bond, then it is just simple math to answer the question, for more volatile investments like stocks you just have to make an educated guess based on the direction of the markets and past performance.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "390afd4dabff9fdbde3d42a41d0007ca",
"text": "What the comments above say is true, but one more thing is there. FD rates are directly proportional to loan rates. However, banks make money because loan rates will always be higher than FD rates.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6ebd1e3d7ec751240beb5d60f4ad6a05",
"text": "\"In both cases, you have a bunch of assets that pay into a trust, and a set of rules determining how the payments are distributed to bond holders. Typically, the bonds are split up by \"\"Seniority\"\" where any losses from the underlying assets gets recognized by the least senior bond holder first, and the most senior is protected until those below in seniority are wiped out. In the case of mortgage backed securities, you have a lot of early payoffs (sales and refinances), and those payoffs tend to pay off the senior bonds first (though in practice, quite a bit more complicated than that) CDOs tend to have bonds as assets that pay into the trust, and CMOs have mortgages. CDOs used to be more likely to be things like corporate debt, or junk-rated debt. But during the housing bubble you did have CDOs backed by some form of mortgage backed bonds. If you build a CDO out of tranches of CMOs, you are going through multiple stages of tranching, and things 'get weird' when you have highly-correlated loss behavior in your underlying assets. The Equity position or the residual, as it is sometimes called, is whatever money coming from the underlying assets isn't owed to any bond after all of the structuring rules are followed. This would be interest received in excess to interest owed + money required to make up for lost principal. Typically goes back to the issuing bank. There is something called a NIM bond that gets carved out of the residual and pays to the investment bank, I gather. Residuals and NIMs of mortgage bonds are pretty worthless in a high loss environment like this.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1af8f838d7041ba6c1066ea564d306ff",
"text": "\"In the case of mutual funds, Net Asset Value (NAV) is the price used to buy and sell shares. NAV is just the value of the underlying assets (which are in turn valued by their underlying holdings and future earnings). So if a fund hands out a billion dollars, it stands to reason their NAV*shares (market cap?) is a billion dollars less. Shareholder's net worth is equal in either scenario, but after the dividend is paid they are more liquid. For people who need investment income to live on, dividends are a cheap way to hold stocks and get regular payments, versus having to sell part of your portfolio every month. But for people who want to hold their investment in the market for a long long time, dividends only increase the rate at which you have to buy. For mutual funds this isn't a problem: you buy the funds and tell them to reinvest for free. So because of that, it's a prohibited practice to \"\"sell\"\" dividends to clients.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2c0081f11b746bf57c7e9a1076671560",
"text": "Basically, what you describe exists in many countries - not in the USA though. In Europe, people have checking accounts with allowed overdraft, typically three month net salaries. You can just this money any day as you like, and pay it back - completely or partially - any day as you like. Interest is calculated for each day on the amount used that day; and the collateral is 'future income', predicted / expected from previous income. In the USA, credit cards have taken its place, with stricter different rules and limitations. In addition, many of the extra rules in loans were invented to take advantage of the ignorance or situation of the borrower to make even more money. For example, applying extra payments to future due payments instead of to the principal makes that principal produce more interest while the extra payments just sit around.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7da8771edbf816b4663db5e5ab68588d",
"text": "Stock basically implies your ownership in the company. If you own 1% ownership in a company, the value of your stake becomes equal to 1% of the valuation of the entire company. Dividends are basically disbursal of company's profits to its shareholders. By holding stocks of a company, you become eligible to receiving dividends proportional to your ownership in the company. Dividends though are not guaranteed, as the company may incur losses or the management may decide to use the cash for future growth instead of disbursing it to the shareholders. For example, let's say a company called ABC Inc, is listed on NYSE and has a total of 1 million shares issued. Let's say if you purchase 100 stocks of ABC, your ownership in ABC will become Let's say that the share price at the time of purchase was $10 each. Total Investment = Stock Price * Number of Stocks Purchased = $10 * 100 = $1,000 Now, let's say that the company declares a dividend of $1 per share. Then, Dividend Yield = Dividend/Stock Price = $1/$10 = 10% If one has to draw analogy with other banking products, one can think of stock and dividend as Fixed Deposits (analogous to stock) and the interest earned on the Fixed Deposit (analogous to dividend).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8be3295f5907cd4f9ef6088b87b6f3b4",
"text": "Well for a start funds don't pay interest. If you pick an income-paying fund (as opposed to one that automatically reinvests any income for you) you will receive periodic income based on the dividends paid by the underlying stocks, but it won't be the steady predictable interest payment you might get from a savings account or fixed-rate security. This income is not guaranteed and will vary based on the performance of the companies making up the fund. It's also quite likely that the income by itself won't cover the interest on your mortgage. The gains from stock market investment come from a mixture of dividends and capital growth (i.e. the increase in the price of the shares). So you may have to sell units now and again or cover part of the interest payments from other income. You're basically betting that the after-tax returns from the fund will be greater than the mortgage interest rate you're paying. 3 facts: If you're comfortable with these 3 facts, go for it. If they're going to keep you awake at night, you might not want to take the risk.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aa908a8d6e858642e3071789fcc63f55",
"text": "This is a great question for understanding how futures work, first let's start with your assumptions The most interesting thing here is that neither of these things really matters for the price of the futures. This may seem odd as a futures contract sounds like you are betting on the future price of the index, but remember that the current price already includes the expectations of future earnings as well! There is actually a fairly simple formula for the price of a futures contract (note the link is for forward contracts which are very similar but slightly more simple to understand). Note, that if you are given the current price of the underlying the futures price depends essentially only on the interest rate and the dividends paid during the length of the futures contract. In this case the dividend rate for the S&P500 is higher than the prevailing interest rate so the futures price is lower than the current price. It is slightly more complicated than this as you can see from the formula, but that is essentially how it works. Note, this is why people use futures contracts to mimic other exposures. As the price of the future moves (pretty much) in lockstep with the underlying and sometimes using futures to hedge exposures can be cheaper than buying etfs or using swaps. Edit: Example of the effect of dividends on futures prices For simplicity, let's imagine we are looking at a futures position on a stock that has only one dividend (D) in the near term and that this dividend happens to be scheduled for the day before the futures' delivery date. To make it even more simple lets say the price of the stock is fairly constant around a price P and interest rates are near zero. After the dividend, we would expect the price of the stock to be P' ~ P - D as if you buy the stock after the dividend you wouldn't get that dividend but you still expect to get the rest of the value from additional future cash flows of the company. However, if we buy the futures contract we will eventually own the stock but only after the dividend happens. Since we don't get that dividend cash that the owners of the stock will get we certainly wouldn't want to pay as much as we would pay for the stock (P). We should instead pay about P' the (expected) value of owning the stock after that date. So, in the end, we expect the stock price in the future (P') to be the futures' price today (P') and that should make us feel a lot more comfortable about what we our buying. Neither owning the stock or future is really necessarily favorable in the end you are just buying slightly different future expected cash flows and should expect to pay slightly different prices.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2c163002346e1c9b0d7922bbf4de10d4",
"text": "I wrote about this a while back: http://blog.investraction.com/2006/10/mutual-funds-dividend-option-or-growth.html In short: Growth options of a mutual fund scheme don't pay out any money, they reinvest the dividend they receive. Dividend options pay out some money, at different intervals, based on the surplus they accumulate. In India, the options have very similar underlying portfolios, so HDFC Equity Fund (Growth) and HDFC Equity Fund (dividend) will have the same percentage allocation to each stock. Update: I also have a video you might want to see on the subject: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx8QtnccfZk",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "04870e2e53ff714d4ec85e6dec4a22ee",
"text": "One big difference: Interest is contracted. They can change the rate in the future but for any given time period you know what you're going to get. Dividends are based on how the company did, there is no agreed-upon amount.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
052163fd4d091d5b25b1b7a8e020b242
|
Can Form 1040a, Line 10 be left blank if the broker's 1099-Div shows 0?
|
[
{
"docid": "5ee5f967f040a013fe5a5188ca5f7d40",
"text": "Capital gain distribution is not capital gain on sale of stock. If you have stock sales (Schedule D) you should be filing 1040, not 1040A. Capital gain distributions are distributions from mutual funds/ETFs that are attributed to capital gains of the funds (you may not have actually received the distribution, but you still may have gain attributed to you). It is reported on 1099-DIV, and if it is 0 - then you don't have any. If you sold a stock, your broker should have given you 1099-B (which is not the same as 1099-DIV, but may be consolidated by your broker into one large PDF and not provided separately). On 1099-B the sales proceeds are recorded, and if you purchased the stock after 2011 - the cost basis is also recorded. The difference between the proceeds and the cost basis is your gain (or loss, if it is negative). Fees are added to cost basis.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "2298623d7f59f87288ce808fd76d4706",
"text": "The capital gain is either short-term or long-term and will be indicated on the 1099-DiV. You pay taxes on this amount as the capital gain was received in a taxable account (assuming since you received a 1099-DIV). More info here: https://www.mutualfundstore.com/brokerage-account/capital-gains-distributions-taxable",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ab7f04759ef5511361b68ec4a15f78f7",
"text": "\"Income code 09 is dividends, so yes - it is the same as line 1 of the US form 1099-DIV. 1a or 1b however depends on whether the requirements for qualified dividends are met. If they're met - its 1b, if not - 1a. These are treated and taxed differently. See here on what are the qualification requirements. Note that Canada has a tax treaty with the US making Canadian corporations \"\"qualified foreign corporations\"\".\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "29af954b3b5d2f33d38175d849fcf8ac",
"text": "You should get a 1099-MISC for the $5000 you got. And your broker should send you a 1099-B for the $5500 sale of Google stock. These are two totally separate things as far as the US IRS is concerned. 1) You made $5000 in wages. You will pay income tax on this as well as FICA and other state and local taxes. 2) You will report that you paid $5000 for stock, and sold it for $5500 without holding it for one year. Since this was short term, you will pay tax on the $500 in income you made. These numbers will go on different parts of your tax form. Essentially in your case, you'll have to pay regular income tax rates on the whole $5500, but that's only because short term capital gains are treated as income. There's always the possibility that could change (unlikely). It also helps to think of them separately because if you held the stock for a year, you would pay different tax on that $500. Regardless, you report them in different ways on your taxes.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6fb392db66de88a0af8f251d21c68b04",
"text": "\"IRA distributions are reported on line 15b on the standard form 1040. That is in the same Income section as most of your other income (including that 1099 income and W2 income, etc.). Its income is included in the Line 22 \"\"Total Income\"\", from which the Personal Exemption (calculated on 6d, subtracted from the total in line 42) and the Standard Deduction (line 40 - also Itemized Deduction total would be here) are later reduced to arrive at Line 43, \"\"Taxable Income\"\". As such, yes, he might owe only the 10% penalty (which is reported on line 59, and you do not reduce this by the deductions, as you surmised).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fbac1c13951f063ca7baffe823cd5a99",
"text": "Depends on the stock involved, but for the most part brokerages allow you gain entry at 50%, meaning you can short twice the cash on hand you have. Going forward, you need to maintain 30%, so on a $10,000 short, you'd have to maintain $3000 in your account. Example, an account with $5000 cash - You can short $10,000 securities. Let say 100 shares of xyz at $100 per share. After trade settles, you won't receive a margin call until your balance falls to $3000, probably right around the time xyz rises to $120 per share. Riskier stocks will have higher margin maintenance requirements - leveraged vehicles like FAS/FAZ (triple leveraged) require 90% margin (3x30%) if they are allowed to be 'shorted' at all.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e65f6a428a57a6e3118afe397365a752",
"text": "There are two parts in this 1042-S form. The income/dividends go into the Canada T5 form. There will be credit if 1042-S has held money already, so use T2209 to report too.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4c12c7ea3fc4a5873fd78f6dd42a2638",
"text": "On most proxy statements (all I have ever received) you have the ability to abstain from voting. Just go down the list and check Abstain then return the form. You will effectively be forfeiting your right to vote. EDIT: According to this, after January 1, 2010 abstaining and trashing the voting materials are the same thing. Prior to January 1, 2010 your broker could vote however they wanted on your behalf if you chose not to vote yourself. The one caveat is this seems to only apply to the NYSE (unless I am reading it wrong). So not sure about stocks listed on the NASDAQ.",
"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": "de91a74d3d2cb9541a9866e233ae6c28",
"text": "Typically that applies if the broker Form 1099-B reports an incorrect basis to the IRS. If the Form 1099-B shows incorrect basis relative to your records, then you can use 8949, column (g) to report the correct basis. The 8949 Instructions provide a brief example. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/i8949--2013.pdf Although you have an obligation to report all income, and hence to report the true basis, as a practical matter this information will usually be correct as presented by the broker. If you have separate information or reports relating to your investments, and you are so inclined, then you can double-check the basis information in your 1099-B. If you aren't aware of basis discrepancies, then the adjustments probably don't apply to you and your investments can stick to Schedule D.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "27fcc343ed9d01eac9eb28343ef02044",
"text": "\"The IRS W-8BEN form (PDF link), titled \"\"Certificate of Foreign Status of Beneficial Owner for United States Tax Withholding\"\", certifies that you are not an American for tax purposes, so they won't withhold tax on your U.S. income. You're also to use W-8BEN to identify your country of residence and corresponding tax identification number for tax treaty purposes. For instance, if you live in the U.K., which has a tax treaty with the U.S., your W-8BEN would indicate to the U.S. that you are not an American, and that your U.S. income is to be taxed by the U.K. instead of tax withheld in the U.S. I've filled in that form a couple of times when opening stock trading accounts here in Canada. It was requested by the broker because in all likelihood I'd end up purchasing U.S.-listed stocks that would pay dividends. The W-8BEN is needed in order to reduce the U.S. withholding taxes on those dividends. So I would say that the ad revenue provider is requesting you file one so they don't need to withhold full U.S. taxes on your ad revenue. Detailed instructions on the W-8BEN form are also available from the IRS: Instruction W-8BEN (PDF link). On the subject of ad revenue, Google also has some information about W8-BEN: Why can't I submit a W8-BEN form as an individual?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1e0b922039ba543428e9db345618ee83",
"text": "Straight line in this example should be just the $2MM per year. I don't think the author of the problem intended you to use anything in the actual tax code like MACRS. I think the goal of the problem is to get you to identify the value of the depreciation tax shield and how the depreciation does affect your cash flow by reducing your taxes, even though depreciation itself is not a cash event.",
"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": "87f69bd4a84c17b4ecab98edadb49928",
"text": "\"You can group your like-kind (same symbol, ST/LT) stock positions, just be sure that your totals match the total dollar amounts on the 1099. An inconsistency will possibly result in a letter from IRS to clarify. So, if you sold the 100 shares, and they came from 7 different buys, list it once. The sell price and date is known, and for the buy price, add all the buys and put \"\"Various\"\" for the date. If you have both long term and short term groups as part of those 7 buys, split them into two groups and list them separately.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "878a472b03f4ef818d9be6494476f2dc",
"text": "Yes. Look at form 1040 AGI is line 37, and it comes well after you report your schedule D cap gains. I read this question as meaning you wish to contribute to a traditional IRA pretax. There is no income limit to contribute to an IRA and not take the deduction.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4eaf0ece65e124c8ee239f8b0f7821d9",
"text": "I've seen credit cards that provide you your credit score for free, updated once a month and even charted over the last year. Unfortunately the bank I used to have this card with was bought and the purchasing bank discontinued the feature. Perhaps someone out there knows of some cards that still offer a feature like this?",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
c53e2a7ace2948653aaeda5121b66880
|
What is the correct way to report a tender offer fee on my taxes?
|
[
{
"docid": "7c508e1bfa1f1a72afe1862b8a3f064f",
"text": "It is perfectly legitimate to adjust your 1099-B income by broker's fees. Publication 17 (p 116) specifically instructs taxpayers to adjust their Schedule D reporting by broker's fees: Form 1099-B transactions. If you sold property, such as stocks, bonds, or certain commodities, through a broker, you should receive Form 1099-B or substitute statement from the broker. Use the Form 1099-B or the substitute statement to complete Form 8949. If you sold a covered security in 2013, your broker should send you a Form 1099-B (or substitute statement) that shows your basis. This will help you complete Form 8949. Generally, a covered security is a security you acquired after 2010. Report the gross proceeds shown in box 2a of Form 1099-B as the sales price in column (d) of either Part I or Part II of Form 8949, whichever applies. However, if the broker advises you, in box 2a of Form 1099-B, that gross proceeds (sales price) less commissions and option premiums were reported to the IRS, enter that net sales price in column (d) of either Part I or Part II of Form 8949, whichever applies. Include in column (g) any expense of sale, such as broker's fees, commissions, state and local transfer taxes, and option premiums, unless you reported the net sales price in column (d). If you include an expense of sale in column (g), enter “E” in column (f). You can rely on your own records and judgment, if you feel comfortable doing so. Brokers often make incomplete tax reporting. This may have been simpler from their perspective if the broker fees were variable, or integrated, or unknown for a number of clients party to a transaction. If a taxpayer has documentation of the expenses that justify an adjustment, then it's perfectly appropriate to include that in the calculations. It is not necessary to report the discrepancy, and it may increase scrutiny to include a written addendum. The Schedule D, Form 8949, and Form 1099-B will probably together adequately explain the source of the deduction.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ff6db88144e4c3dbec7e59ade40ecefc",
"text": "Using a different cost basis than your broker's reporting is NOT a problem. You need to keep your own records to account for this difference. Among the other many legitimate reasons to adjust your cost basis, the most popular is when you have two brokerage accounts and sell an asset in one then buy in another. This is called a Wash Sale and is not a taxable event for you. However from the perspective of each broker with their limited information you are making a transaction with tax implications and their reported 1099 will show as such. Links: https://www.firstinvestors.com/docs/pdf/news/tax-qa-2012.pdf",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "b86d06b83930b46c910d7c04b1b8f98e",
"text": "It should be reported as Miscellaneous Income. Congratulations for wanting to report this income.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "11df2c61d4b972e329f7d49fe185d5b9",
"text": "I am no expert on the situation nor do I pretend to act like one, but, as a business owner, allow me to give you my personal opinion. Option 3 is closest to what you want. Why? Well: This way, you have both the record of everything that was done, and also IRS can see exactly what happened. Another suggestion would be to ask the GnuCash maintainers and community directly. You can have a chat with them on their IRC channel #gnucash, send them an email, maybe find the answer in the documentation or wiki. Popular software apps usually have both support people and a helpful community, so if the above method is in any way inconvenient for you, you can give this one a try. Hope this helps! Robert",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e51a65eb4d4db5998634f1c89bd9d272",
"text": "\"If you file the long-form Form 2210 in which you have to figure out exactly how much you should have had withheld (or paid via quarterly payments of estimated tax), you might be able to reduce the underpayment penalty somewhat, or possibly eliminate it entirely. This often happens because some of your income comes late in the year (e.g. dividend and capital gain distributions from stock mutual funds) and possibly because some of your itemized deductions come early (e.g. real estate tax bills due April 1, charitable deductions early in the year because of New Year resolutions to be more philanthropic) etc. It takes a fair amount of effort to gather up the information you need for this (money management programs help), and it is easy to make mistakes while filling out the form. I strongly recommend use of a \"\"deluxe\"\" or \"\"premier\"\" version of a tax program - basic versions might not include Form 2210 or have only the short version of it. I also seem to remember something to the effect that the long form 2210 must be filed with the tax return and cannot be filed as part of an amended return, and if so, the above advice would be applicable to future years only. But you might be able to fill out the form and appeal to the IRS that you owe a reduced penalty, or don't owe a penalty at all, and that your only mistake was not filing the long form 2210 with your tax return and so please can you be forgiven this once? In any case, I strongly recommend paying the underpayment penalty ASAP because it is increasing day by day due to interest being charged. If the IRS agrees to your eloquent appeal, they will refund the overpayment.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0ea257e050030729ba1e9a22e16e3923",
"text": "\"I've been highly compensated for a while now, and I have never used a tax professional. My past complications include the year that my company was bought by a VC firm and my stock options and stock held were bought out to the tune of 5x my salary. And now I have two kids in college, with scholarships, and paying the remainder out of 529 accounts. Usually, I don't even use tax software. My typical method is to use the online software -- like turbotax online -- and let it figure out where I am. Then I use the \"\"Free File Fillable forms\"\" online to actually complete the process. Search for \"\"Free File Fillable Forms\"\" -- it's not the same as using turbotax or TaxAct for free. My suggestion to you: download the PDF form of 1040EZ and 1040A from the IRS. Print the EZ, and fill it out. This will give you a better feel for what exactly is going on. With your income, I don't think you can file the EZ, but it's a good way to get your feet wet. The way income taxes work here in the US: According to the IRS, the Personal Exemption this year is worth $4,050, and the Standard Deduction $6,300, assuming you're single. Lets assume that your salary will be in fact 75,000, and you don't pay for any benefits, but you do make a 401k contribution of 15% of your salary. Then your W-2 at the end of the year should tell you to put 63,750 in a particular box on your 1040 form. (63,750 is 85% of 75,000). Lets then assume 63,750 is your AGI after other additions and subtractions. 63,750 - 4,050 - 6,300 == 53,400. The federal Tax system is graduated, meaning there are different ranges (brackets) with different percentages. The term tax people use for taxable income of 53,400 is \"\"marginal tax rate\"\"...so the last dollar they tax at 25%. Other dollars less. According to the IRS, if you're single, then on 53,400, you pay \"\"$6,897.50 plus 25% of the amount over $50,400\"\" Or 6897.50 + 750, or 7647.50. Note this is only Federal Income Tax. You will also be paying Social Security and Medicare payroll Tax. And I'm guessing you'll also be paying colorado state income tax. Each state has its own forms and methods for figuring out the taxes and stuff. By the way, when you start, you'll fill out a \"\"W-4\"\" form to \"\"help\"\" you figure out how much to withhold from every paycheck. (I find the W-4 is not helpful at all). Your company will withhold from your paycheck some mysterious amount, and the process of filling out your 1040A or 1040EZ or whatever will be, likely, to get the over-withheld amount back.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f6402f4647bbd723317bbe4ea5e5179f",
"text": "How would I go about doing this? Are there any tax laws I should be worried about? Just report it as a regular sale of asset on your form 8949 (or form 4797 if used for trade/business/rental). It will flow to your Schedule D for capital gains tax. Use form 1116 to calculate the foreign tax credit for the taxes on the gains you'd pay in India (if any).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "052cdbc0b5131c019a97ef5aaafb1df6",
"text": "You need to clarify with Bob what your agreement is. If you and Bob are working together on these jobs as partners, you should get a written partnership agreement done by a lawyer who works with software industry entity formation. You can legally be considered a partnership if you are operating a business together, even if there is nothing in writing. The partnership will have its own tax return, and you each will be allocated 50% of the profits/losses (if that's what you agree to). This amount will be reported on your own individual 1040 as self-employment income. Since you have now lost all the expense deductions you would have taken on your Schedule C, and any home office deduction, it's a good idea to put language in the partnership agreement stating that the partnership will reimburse partners for their out-of-pocket expenses. If Bob is just hiring you as a contractor, you give him your SSN, and he issues you a 1099, like any other client. This should be a situation where you invoice him for the amount you are charging. Same thing with Joe - figure out if you're hiring him as an independent contractor, or if you have a partnership. Either way, you will owe income and self-employment tax on your profits. In the case of a partnership, the amount will be on the K-1 from the partnership return. For an independent contractor who's operating as a sole proprietor, you report the income you invoiced for and received, and deduct your expenses, including independent contractors that you hired, on your Schedule C. Talk to your tax guy about quarterly estimated payments. If you don't have a tax guy, go get one. Find somebody people in your city working in your industry recommend. A good tax person will save you more money than they cost. IRS Circular 230 Notice: Please note that any tax advice contained in this communication is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by anyone to avoid penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6ba7e9cc2946fa22d42e2c0a8d0ac1c4",
"text": "I would just take $2000 and multiply by your marginal tax rate, weight that between the 5 other people according to their share of the prize money and ask them to give you that. From your question it seems like you all have a good working relationship, I'm sure the other partners would agree to that. I think it's the simplest solution that is also fair and equitable. Basically, you pay the tax on 2000 and they pay you back for their share of the tax. Much easier than trying to pass it through your tax return for 5 separate people for a minimal amount of $'s. In hindsight, the best way to do it would have been to 1099 the person with the lowest marginal tax rate for the year to minimize the total tax paid on the 2000. Probably only would've been a few dollars difference but still the most efficient way to do it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "938db83ce9d0d8d64a670ca38b919a3b",
"text": "Note: This is not professional tax advice. If you think you need professional tax advice, find a licensed professional in your local area. What are the expected earnings/year? US$100? US$1,000? US$100,000? I would say if this is for US$1,000 or less that registering an EIN, and consulting a CPA to file a Partnership Tax return is not going to be a profitable exercise.... all the earnings, perhaps more, will go to paying someone to do (or help do) the tax filings. The simplest taxes are for a business that you completely own. Corporations and Partnerships involve additional forms and get more and more and complex, and even more so when it involves foreign participation. Partnerships are often not formal partnerships but can be more easily thought of as independent businesses that each participants owns, that are simply doing some business with each other. Schedule C is the IRS form you fill out for any businesses that you own. On schedule C you would list the income from advertising. Also on schedule C there is a place for all of the business expenses, such as ads that you buy, a server that you rent, supplies, employees, and independent contractors. Amounts paid to an independent contractor certainly need not be based on hours, but could be a fixed fee, or based on profit earned. Finally, if you pay anyone in the USA over a certain amount, you have to tell the IRS about that with a Form 1099 at the beginning of the next year, so they can fill out their taxes. BUT.... according to an article in International Tax Blog you might not have to file Form 1099 with the IRS for foreign contractors if they are not US persons (not a US citizen or a resident visa holder).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "983b96518395d2dd077ddb166149f582",
"text": "or just input it in my accounting software along with receipts, and then when I'm doing taxes this would go under the investment or loses (is it somewhere along that line)? Yes, this. Generally, for the long term you should have a separate bank account and charge card for your business. I started my business (LLC) by filing online, and paying a fee for a registration, and that makes it a business cost right? Startup cost. There are special rules about this. Talk to your tax adviser. For the amounts in question you could probably expense it, but verify.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7f0fededa670a411cea1e495d339388f",
"text": "I went through this too. There's a safe-harbor provision. If you prepay as estimated tax payments, 110% of your previous year's tax liability, there's no penalty for underpayment of the big liquidity-event tax liability. https://www.irs.gov/publications/p17/ch04.html That's with the feds. Your state may have different rules. You would be very wise indeed to hire an accountant to prepare your return this year. If I were you I'd ask your company's CFO or finance chief to suggest somebody. Congratulations, by the way.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8a36f5394cf6bbe4093906c74e603f2f",
"text": "Depends on the state, in Texas you should charge sales tax because the shipment is going to a freight forwarder in Texas. That being said, once you have the bill of lading you can have your tax credited by the vendor. It is one of the documents the state will except in lieu of sales tax for exports. There are five. You can find this info at the Comptrollers website. I would validate that you are being charged sales/use tax and not withholding tax, withholding would be related to your country. Doc requirements for export vary from state to state.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "598447d7fc5f43f2a053c5c29cf3c2a4",
"text": "It's called bartering and the IRS has a page titled Four Things to Know About Bartering. The summary is - The bottom line is this is taxable.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "de91a74d3d2cb9541a9866e233ae6c28",
"text": "Typically that applies if the broker Form 1099-B reports an incorrect basis to the IRS. If the Form 1099-B shows incorrect basis relative to your records, then you can use 8949, column (g) to report the correct basis. The 8949 Instructions provide a brief example. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/i8949--2013.pdf Although you have an obligation to report all income, and hence to report the true basis, as a practical matter this information will usually be correct as presented by the broker. If you have separate information or reports relating to your investments, and you are so inclined, then you can double-check the basis information in your 1099-B. If you aren't aware of basis discrepancies, then the adjustments probably don't apply to you and your investments can stick to Schedule D.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "82d2d4a07821a9bb5dad39c545650d9a",
"text": "Assuming you have registered your activities as partnership and receiving this money as Individual, you need to show this under Schedule OS, 1d [other income]. this will be under the ITR-2 [tab CG-OS] XLS tax preparation utility given by Tax Department. The XLS can be found at https://incometaxindiaefiling.gov.in/portal/individual_huf.do If the funds you are receiving are large [more than say Rs 500,000] then suggest you incorporate a partnership firm or company, there are quite a few exceptions you can claim lowering you tax outgo. The fact that you are transferring funds to your partners can be an issue incase you get audited. You would need to have sufficient evidence to show that the money paid was for services rendered directly and not your income. It would be easier if you create a partnership or have the client directly pay to them. Again if the sum is small its fine, as the sum becomes large, it would get noticed by the tax authorities.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "908ab82153e1d1a47409f81c431298ca",
"text": "\"When you pay the flight, hotel, conference attendance fees of $100: When you repay the credit card debt of $100: When you receive the gross salary of $5000: Your final balance sheet will show: Your final income statement will show: Under this method, your \"\"Salary\"\" account will show the salary net of business expense. The drawback is that the $4900 does not agree with your official documentation. For tax reporting purposes, you report $5000 to the tax agency, and if possible, report the $100 as Unreimbursed Employee Expenses (you weren't officially reimbursed). For more details see IRS Publication 529.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
de82c8fd137b5e66e0ed4b9692f2b81f
|
Can I contribute to an IRA from investment income?
|
[
{
"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": "fc86f9b2f121b065474cc6b9bee880d1",
"text": "Traditional IRA contributions can be made if you have compensation and the amount of the contribution is limited to the smaller of your compensation and $5500 ($6000 if age 50 or more). Note that compensation (which generally means earnings form working) is not just what appears on a W-2 form as salary or wages; it can be earnings from self-employment too, as well as commissions, alimony etc (but not earnings from property, pensions and annuities, certain types of partnership income) You must also not have attained age 70.5 in the year for which the contribution is made. Even if you don't have any compensation of your own, you can nonetheless make a Traditional IRA contribution if your spouse has compensation as long as you are filing a joint tax return with your spouse. For spouses filing a joint return, the limits are still the same $5500/$6000 for each spouse, and the sum total of Traditional IRA contributions for both spouses also must not exceed the sum total of earned income of both spouses. The age limits etc are all still applicable. Note that none of this says anything about whether the contributions are deductible. Everyone meeting the above requirements is eligible to make contributions to a Traditional IRA; whether the contributions can be deducted from current income depends on the income: those with high enough incomes cannot deduct the contribution. This is different from Roth IRAs to which people with high incomes are not permitted to make a contribution at all. Finally, the source of the cash you contribute to the IRA can be the proceeds of the stock sale if you like; you are not required to prove that the cash received from compensation is what you sent to the IRA custodian. Read Publication 590 (available on the IRS website www.irs.gov) if you need an authoritative reference.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "d6a1ba66db8b8bca2fab8a90c59ff62a",
"text": "\"The money you invested in your Roth was taxed as income when you filed your income tax. A Roth contribution is \"\"post-tax\"\" as opposed to a standard IRA or 401k contribution which are \"\"pre-tax\"\". Pre-tax contributions lower your taxable income for the year. In example, you had income of $100,000 and made a standard IRA contribution of $5000. Your taxable income would be $95,000. In the case of a Roth contribution, the same $5000 investment would not reduce your taxable income for the year.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c8f4fabdc9a643077c75d688ca57939a",
"text": "According to Publication 590, broker's commissions for stock transactions within an IRA cannot be paid in addition to the IRA contribution(s), but they are deductible as part of the contribution, or add to the basis if you are making a nondeductible contribution to a Traditional IRA. (Top of Page 10, and Page 12, column 1, in the 2012 edition of Pub 590). On the other hand, trustees' administrative fees can be paid from outside the IRA if they are billed separately, and are even deductible as a Miscellaneous Deduction on Schedule A of your income tax return (subject to the 2% of AGI threshold). A long time ago, when my IRA account balances were much smaller, I used to get a bill from my IRA custodian for a $20 annual administrative fee which I paid separately (but never got to deduct due to the 2% threshold). My custodian also allowed the option of doing nothing in which case the $20 would be collected from (and thus reduce) the amount of money in my IRA. Note that this does not apply to the expenses charged by the mutual funds that you might have in your IRA; these expenses are treated the same as brokerage commissions and must be paid from within the IRA.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e0ac9dd020b323b90ed515c6ee5c02ec",
"text": "To determine how much you can contribute to a regular and roth IRA you have to calculate your compensation: What Is Compensation? Generally, compensation is what you earn from working. For a summary of what compensation does and does not include, see Table 1-1. Compensation includes all of the items discussed next (even if you have more than one type).Wages, salaries, etc. Wages, salaries, tips, professional fees, bonuses, and other amounts you receive for provid-ing personal services are compensation. The IRS treats as compensation any amount properly shown in box 1 (Wages, tips, other compensation) of Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, provided that amount is reduced by any amount properly shown in box 11 (Nonqualified plans). Scholarship and fellowship payments are compen-sation for IRA purposes only if shown in box 1 of Form W-2. It a also includes commissions, self-employment income, and alimony an non-taxable combat pay. For most people it is what i in box 1 of the W-2. For the example in the question. If the sum of Box 1's equals $3,200 that is the maximum you can contribute to all your IRAs (regular and Roth). The funds can come from anywhere. It is not related to your net check. The money can be from savings, gifts, parents, grandparents... The IRS doesn't care about the source of the funds, only that you don't over contribute. Of course the calculation is more complex if the person is married, and if they have access to a retirement account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9d73824b4d4b8a58c93617e96119fe28",
"text": "First of all an IRA is a type of account that says nothing about how your money is invested. It seems like you are trying to compare an IRA with a market ETF (like Vanguard Total Market Admiral VTSAX), but the reality is that you can have both. Depending on your IRA some of the investment options may be limited, but you will probably be able to find some version of a passive fund following an index you are interested in. The IRA account is tax advantaged, but you may invest the money in your IRA in an ETF. As for how often a non-IRA account is taxed and how much, that depends on how often you sell. If you park your money in an ETF and do not sell, the IRS will not claim any taxes from it. The taxable event happens when you sell. But if you gain $1000 in a year and a day and you decide to sell, you will owe $150 (assuming 15% capital gains tax), bringing your earnings down to $850. If your investments go poorly and you lose money, there will be no capital gains tax to pay.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9b079900aa4660e11075ef5397d785e9",
"text": "You can use a Roth IRA for retirement and you can still withdraw all of your contributions at any time. You can also withdraw $10,000 worth of the earnings in your Roth IRA for a first-time home purchase. You can also withdraw for unreimbursed medical expenses and qualified education expenses. Full details are available in IRS publication 590. There is a limit of $5,500 for contributions in 2016 ($6,500 if you're over 50) as long as your adjusted gross income is below a certain level. You can still make a contribution for the previous tax year until the filing deadline (usually April 15).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "73970c7fa19bea8eea826186c9628dc2",
"text": "Making or losing income (via selling shares) is the taxable event, not moving the income you made to and from an account. The only exception would be a special account such as an IRA, and then there would be rules specific to that account structure about when you can withdraw money and what the tax consequences are.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "96b99a04d53ca89aba986c32e6a62ad2",
"text": "\"IRA contribution must be from your earned income in the sense that you cannot contribute to IRA more than you have in earned income. If all your income is capital gains - you cannot contribute anything to IRA. Once you're within the income limit restriction, it doesn't matter what other money you have, because as you said - once in your account, its all just money. But what you're describing is basically \"\"I deposit $850 from my salary into an IRA and then go pay for my gas with the $850 I have from the capital gains\"\", so you're not paying any less taxes here. If it makes you feel any better, you can describe it to yourself the way you did. It doesn't really matter.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "15ff74efe1b7cb2174b1f3a2220d2d7a",
"text": "From your updated information, it seems like you are not eligible to deduct a Traditional IRA contribution, at your income since you are covered by a 401(k) at work. Therefore, contributing to a Roth IRA is the only real option in terms of IRAs. However, if you want to have some pre-tax contributions, you can change some or all of your Roth 401(k) to Traditional 401(k).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "51aec0e6115575e2e3246e7e17501c59",
"text": "Since you say you are a student, perhaps you should look carefully at the requirements for contributing to an IRA, whether Traditional or Roth. Unless Congress changed the law recently, one has to have earned income to contribute to an IRA. So if you were a teaching or research asssistant receiving W-2 wages while completing your Master's degree, you are eligible, but if you had a fellowship you are not eligible (unless you had other income, whether W-2 wages or self-employment income reported on Schedule C). The amount that one can contribute is the smaller of your earned income and $5000 ($6000 for 50 and older people).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "70da3b9c6d2dd74825553539844be2e4",
"text": "Luke, I'd like to point out some additional benefits of the Roth IRA accounts 1) Going Roth, you can effectively increase the amount of your contribution to your IRA account. In your example, you are assuming that your contribution to Roth IRA is in fact $ 85 ($100 less $ 15 tax paid). In reality, albeit more costly, Roth IRA allows you to contribute full $ 100 ($117.65 less $ 17.65 tax incurred.) Using this method you can in fact grow your tax-free funds to $ 1.006.27 over 30 years. The larger you effective tax rate is, the larger will be the difference between your maximum effective Traditional vs Roth IRA contribution will be. 2) Should you need to access your IRA funds in case of emergency (unqualified event of not buying your first home, nor paying for your college education), Roth IRA account contributions can be withdrawn without incurring the 10% penalty charge, that would be imposed on your unqualified Traditional IRA distribution. 3) As other contributors noted it's hard to believe that lower US tax rates would prevail. Chances are you will be contributing to Traditional 401k later throughout your work life. Having a Roth IRA account would afford you a tax diversification needed to hedge against possible tax rate hikes coming in the future. Considering the gloomy future of the Social Security funding, and ever-growing US national debt, can we really expect for there to not be any tax rate increases in the next 20-40 years?! By the way, as others pointed out your effective tax rate will always be lower than your marginal tax bracket.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6b2ed6b049cd6fb9009865a6828bfd35",
"text": "If you are working for a small company, the expense ratios on the funds in the 401k account are likely much higher than you can get with a similar IRA. Depending on your income, whether you are married and want to contribute to a spouse's IRA, your limit on what can be contributed to an IRA may vary, but the compelling reason to contribute to a 401k is that the contribution limit is higher ($17,500 vs $5,500 for people on the lower end of the income scale) so you may need to contribute to a 401k to meet your retirement savings goals.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2889ad9fd541beb4dccf1c5c25b0dfaa",
"text": "You have many options, and there is no one-size-fits-all recommendation. You can contribute to your IRA in addition to your 401(k), but because you have that 401(k), it is not tax-deductable. So there is little advantage in putting money in the IRA compared to saving it in a personal investment account, where you keep full control over it. It does, however, open the option to do a backdoor-rollover from that IRA to a Roth IRA, which is a good idea to have; you will not pay any taxes if you do that conversion, if the money in the IRA was not tax deducted (which it isn't as you have the 401(k)). You can also contribute to a Roth IRA directly, if you are under the income limits for that (193k$ for married, I think, not sure for single). If this is the case, you don't need to take the detour through the IRA with the backdoor-rollover. Main advantage for Roth is that gains are tax free. There are many other answers here that give details on where to save if you have more money to save. In a nutshell, In between is 'pay off all high-interest debt', I think right after 1. - if you have any. 'High-Interest' means anything that costs more interest than you can expect when investing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8868baf8aeb3eb4d94c25a8034a129a9",
"text": "Whether or not you can deposit to a Roth IRA, you are able to convert those deposits to A Roth account. In effect, you pay the tax going in (as with the regular brokerage account) but no tax on growth when withdrawn. The non-deductible IRA, on its own, holds little appeal, in comparison.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "263f0df2357af278570138ee70aab0e7",
"text": "One can have a self-directed IRA. This is not like a Schwab, eTrade, etc IRA. It has a special type of custodian that knows how to manage it. I became aware of such an account as a way to purchase a rental property. There were two issues. The type of property I looked at wasn't anything a bank was willing to finance. And the rules regarding self dealing added a potential layer of expense as I technically could not perform the simplest of things for the property. For you, the obstacle looks like self-dealing. Any IRA can only be funded with cash or transfer/conversion from another IRA/401(k). I don't know how you would get the intelligent property into the IRA in the first place. Once you own a patent, or anything else, you can't sell it into the IRA. It's at times like this that member littleadv would suggest this is the time to talk to a pro before you do anything hazardous to your wealth.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ade1fea04c7ebfc5f393d7c1f37764dd",
"text": "\"Given the income level of my family (married filing jointly status), IRAs aren't really an option. We're past the Roth IRA limits and get no deduction for a regular IRA. There's something called the \"\"backdoor Roth IRA\"\". You can contribute to a Traditional IRA and then immediately convert it to a Roth IRA. Assuming that you don't have any existing money in Traditional IRAs, this is exactly identical to a Roth IRA contribution.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
f6899a66230aa485fd599aa803f416e2
|
If I put dividend-paying stocks in my IRA, where does the dividend go when paid?
|
[
{
"docid": "0395fbc7c15584e0f3eff8b4a318b943",
"text": "The dividend goes into the IRA (either reinvested automatically or remains as cash until you invest it, per your choice). You're not taxed on this dividend (IRA is a taxed-deferred account - you're taxed on the distributions, but not on the capital gains within the account).",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "4cf53539bda07f5efe80c4aa08b8b8f3",
"text": "The dividend quoted on a site like the one you linked to on Yahoo shows what 1 investor owning 1 share received from the company. It is not adjusted at all for taxes. (Actually some dividend quotes are adjusted but not for taxes... see below.) It is not adjusted because most dividends are taxed as ordinary income. This means different rates for different people, and so for simplicity's sake the quotes just show what an investor would be paid. You're responsible for calculating and paying your own taxes. From the IRS website: Ordinary Dividends Ordinary (taxable) dividends are the most common type of distribution from a corporation or a mutual fund. They are paid out of earnings and profits and are ordinary income to you. This means they are not capital gains. You can assume that any dividend you receive on common or preferred stock is an ordinary dividend unless the paying corporation or mutual fund tells you otherwise. Ordinary dividends will be shown in box 1a of the Form 1099-DIV you receive. Now my disclaimer... what you see on a normal stock quote for dividend in Yahoo or Google Finance is adjusted. (Like here for GE.) Many corporations actually pay out quarterly dividends. So the number shown for a dividend will be the most recent quarterly dividend [times] 4 quarters. To find out what you would receive as an actual payment, you would need to divide GE's current $0.76 dividend by 4 quarters... $0.19. So you would receive that amount for each share of stock you owned in GE.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "22ea84df5765d24026478526849a4fb6",
"text": "Don't ever quantify a stock's preference/performance just based on the dividend it is paying out Volatility defined by movements in the the stock's price, affected by factors embedded in the stock e.g. the corporation, the business it is in, the economy, the management etc etc. Apple wasn't paying dividends but people were still buying into it. Same with Amazon, Berkshire, Google. These companies create value by investing their earnings back into their company and this is reflected in their share prices. Their earnings create more value in this way for the stockholders. The holding structures of these companies also help them in their motives. Supposedly $100 invested in either stocks. For keeping things easy, you invested at the same time in both, single annual dividend and prices more or less remain constant. Company A: $5/share at 20% annual dividend yield. Dividend = $20 Company B: $10/share at 20% annual dividend yield Dividend = $20 You receive the same dividend in both cases. Volatility willn't affect you unless you are trading, or the stock market tanks, or some very bad news comes out of either company or on the economy. Volatility in the long term averages out, except in specific outlier cases e.g. Lehman bankruptcy and the financial crash which are rare but do happen. In general case the %price movements in both stocks would more or less follow the markets (not exactly though) except when relevant news for either corporations come out.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2f3e9c74845865a96e9d863870771b7e",
"text": "Two more esoteric differences, related to the same cause... When you have an outstanding debit balance in a margin the broker may lend out your securities to short sellers. (They may well be able to lend them out even if there's no debit balance -- check your account agreement and relevant regulations). You'll never know this (there's no indication in your account of it) unless you ask, and maybe not even then. If the securities pay out dividends while lent out, you don't get the dividends (directly). The dividends go to the person who bought them from the short-seller. The short-seller has to pay the dividend amount to his broker who pays them to your broker who pays them to you. If the dividends that were paid out by the security were qualified dividends (15% max rate) the qualified-ness goes to the person who bought the security from the short-seller. What you received weren't dividends at all, but a payment-in-lieu of dividends and qualified dividend treatment isn't available for them. Some (many? all?) brokers will pay you a gross-up payment to compensate you for the extra tax you had to pay due to your qualified dividends on that security not actually being qualified. A similar thing happens if there's a shareholder vote. If the stock was lent out on the record date to establish voting eligibility, the person eligible to vote is the person who bought them from the short-seller, not you. So if for some reason you really want/need to vote in a shareholder vote, call your broker and ask them to journal the shares in question over to the cash side of your account before the record date for determining voting eligibility.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ab236cc9963c3f2717f666d34d501ce3",
"text": "Securities (things you can buy on the stock market) that pay dividends usually pay every quarter (every three months), but some pay every month. (For example: PGF pays dividends each month.) IF you reinvest your dividends back into the stock then you will be compounding your return. I use the feature at Scottrade to automatically reinvest the dividend each month. Using this feature at Scottrade incurs no commission for the purchases of the stock from the dividend. (saving on commissions and fees is, likely, the most important aspect of investing). US Treasuries (usually) pay interest twice a year. There is no commission when using Treasury Direct.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f55e8b5dd4f124ff76f3380c6fd54f32",
"text": "In a (not Roth) IRA, withdrawals are generally already taxed as regular income. So there should be no tax disadvantage to earning payment in lieu of dividends. It's possible that there is an exception for IRAs but I was unable to find one and I cannot see the reason for one since the dividend tax rate is usually lower than the income tax rate (which is why some company owners elect to receive part of the company profits via dividend rather than all through their salary).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f1001e5e487558fbab42ce5422ceda4a",
"text": "Assuming a USA taxable account: Withdrawing funds from a brokerage account has nothing to do with taxes. Taxes are owed on the profit when you sell a stock, no matter what you do with the funds. Taxes are owed on any dividends the stock produces, no matter what you do with the dividend. The brokerage sends you a form 1099 each year that shows the amounts of dividends and profits. You have to figure out the taxes from that.",
"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": "6202d7f2fffaf7bd921b783fa5b62878",
"text": "The stock will slowly gain that $1 during the year. Suppose we have the highly theoretical situation that a company's stock is worth exactly $10 right after it paid its dividend, its dividend is always $1 per stock, and the company and everything else is so stable that its value never changes. Then the stock value right before the next dividend is paid will be close to $11 -- after all, it's worth a certain $1 dividend the next day, plus the $10 stock. And in between, half a year after the dividend was paid, it will be in between, say $10.50, or actually slightly less than that (because people like to buy in late so they can make money some other way with the money first). But the point holds -- the price decrease on the day that dividend is paid had been building up the whole period before that decrease. So stock dividends do make you money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "30a055c3759abd566bb7d3845ec0a3f4",
"text": "There are 3 options (option 2 may not be available to you) When you invest 18,000 in a Traditional 401k, you don't pay taxes on the 18k the year you invest, but you pay taxes as you withdraw. There's a Required Minimum Distribution required after age 70. If your income is low enough, you won't pay taxes on your withdrawals. Otherwise, you pay as if it is income. However, you don't pay payroll tax (Social Security / Medicare) on the withdrawals. You pay no tax until you withdraw. When you invest 18,000 in a Roth 401k, you pay income tax on the 18,000 in the year it's invested, but you pay nothing after that. When you invest 18,000 in a taxable investment account, you pay income tax on that 18,000 in the year it's invested, you pay tax on dividends (even if they're re-invested), and then you pay capital gains tax when you withdraw. But remember, tax rules and tax rates are only good so long as Congress doesn't change the applicable laws.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6f10be87bc77e678b37429357387cd12",
"text": "During the course of the year, the S&P individual stocks will have some dividends. Not every last stock but a good number of them. Enough that the average dividend for the S&P has been about 2% recently. So if the S&P index goes up, say 10%, an S&P fund should go up closer to 12%. For a fund holder, you'd normally see a declared dividend and cap gain distribution toward the end of each year. When you hold shares in a 401(k), dividends are reinvested into the fund, usually with no involvement from the members.",
"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": "967939d545acf068b4f7f063cfff75ee",
"text": "It appears from your description that the 401k account has the automatic dividend reinvestment policy, and that the end result is exactly the same as the external account with the same policy. I.e.: no difference, the dividend affected the 401k account in exactly the same way it affected the external account. The only thing is that for external account you can take the dividend distribution, while for 401k you cannot - it is reinvested automatically. Were you expecting something else?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6fb93580c5457890126504ee2b5209bb",
"text": "You're misunderstanding the concept of retirement savings. IRA distributions are taxed, in their entirety, as ordinary income. If you withdraw before the retirement age, additional 10% penalty is added. Investment income has preferential treatment - long term capital gains and qualified dividends are taxed at lower rates than ordinary income. However, IRA contributions are tax deductible. I.e.: you don't pay taxes on the amounts contributed to the IRA when you earned the money, only when you withdraw. In the mean time, the money is growing, tax free, based on your investments. Anything inside the IRA is tax free, including dividends, distributions (from funds to your IRA, not from IRA to you), capital gains, etc. This is very powerful, when taking into account the compounding effect of reinvesting your dividends/sale proceeds without taking a chunk out for taxes. Consider you make an investment in a fund that appreciated 100% in half a year. You cash out to reinvest in something less volatile to lock the gains. In a regular account - you pay taxes when you sell, based on your brackets. In the IRA you reinvest all of your sale proceeds. That would be ~25-35% more of the gains to reinvest and continue working for you! However, if you decide to withdraw - you pay ordinary rate taxes on the whole amount. If you would invest in a single fund for 30 years in a regular account - you'd pay 20% capital gains tax (on the appreciation, not the dividends). In the IRA, if you invest in the same fund for the same period - you'll pay your ordinary income rates. However, the benefit of reinvesting dividends tax-free softens the blow somewhat, but that's much harder to quantify. Bottom line: if you want to plan for retirement - plan for retirment. Otherwise - IRA is not an investment vehicle. Also consider Roth IRA/conversions. Roth IRA has the benefit of tax free distributions at retirement. If your current tax bracket is at 20%, for example, contributing $5K to Roth IRA instead of a traditional will cost you $1K of taxes now, but will save you all the taxes during the retirement (for the distributions from the Roth IRA). It may be very much worth your while, especially if you can contribute directly to Roth IRA (there are some income limitations and phaseouts). You can withdraw contributions (but not earnings) from Roth IRA - something you cannot do with a traditional IRA.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "85000bed497e6334aa780dbb0d8bbd83",
"text": "Annuities, like life insurance, are sold rather than bought. Once upon a time, IRAs inherited from a non-spouse required the beneficiary to (a) take all the money out within 5 years, or (b) choose to receive the value of the IRA at the time of the IRA owner's death in equal installments over the expected lifetime of the beneficiary. If the latter option was chosen, the IRA custodian issued the fixed-term annuity in return for the IRA assets. If the IRA was invested in (say) 15000 shares of IBM stock, that stock would then belong to the IRA custodian who was obligated to pay $x per year to the beneficiary for the next 23 years (say). There was no investment any more that could be transferred to another broker, or be sold and the proceeds invested in Facebook stock (say). Nor was the custodian under any obligation to do anything except pay $x per year to the beneficiary for the 23 years. Financial planners loved to get at this money under the old IRA rules by suggesting that if all the IRA money were taken out and invested in stocks or mutual funds through their company, the company would pay a guaranteed $y per year, would pay more than $y in each year that the investments did well, would continue payment until the beneficiary died (or till the death of the beneficiary or beneficiary's spouse - whoever died later), and would return the entire sum invested (less payouts already made, of course) in case of premature death. $y typically would be a little larger than $x too, because it factored in some earnings of the investment over the years. So what was not to like? Of course, the commissions earned by the planner and the lousy mutual funds and the huge surrender charges were always glossed over.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0ce94616048ba8e4f72ff234d512442d",
"text": "Yes it is (legal). There is of course no law requiring any business you walk in to break your money. What made you think there would be? Being a bank in the US (and in other countries) has some legal consequences, but none of them relates to 'having to do business with anyone that walks in', neither 'having to break bills for people' (not even for established customers). Yes, it was historically commonplace for most banks to do all money-breaking for free, but that does not establish any obligation to do it. Maybe the FED is required to do that, but that won't help you if you don't live near either.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
8dee8782d14969689134d8cc410b0c35
|
Is there any reason to buy shares before/after a split?
|
[
{
"docid": "3cf92c95663f3b8b22cae34423e103f1",
"text": "Assuming you plan to buy a whole number of shares and have a maximum dollar value you intend to invest, it may be better to wait for the split if the figures don't quite work out nicely. For example, if you are going to invest $1,000 and the stock pre-split is $400 and the split is 2 for 1, then you'd buy 2 shares before the split unless you have an extra $200 to add. Meanwhile, after the split you could buy 5 shares at $200 so that you invest all that you intend. Aside from that case, it doesn't really make a difference since the split is similar to getting 2 nickels for a dime which in each case is still a total value of 10 cents.",
"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": "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": "3fbfab377f823c1e01c45d7d2b207373",
"text": "\"I have heard that investing more money into an investment which has gone down is generally a bad idea*. \"\"Throwing good money after bad\"\" so to speak. This is over simplified statement to explain the concept. What is essentially says is; Say I hold stocks of XYZ; 100 units worth say USD 1000. This has lost me x% [say 50%]. The general tendency is to buy 100 more units in anticipation / hope that the price will go up. This is incorrect. However on case to case basis, this maybe the right decisions. On a periodic basis [or whenever you want to invest more money]; say you have USD 1000 and did not have the stock of XYZ, will you buy this at current price and outlook of the company. If the answer is Yes, hold the stock [or buy more], if the answer is no sell the stock at current market price and take the loss. The same applies when the price has appreciated. If you have USD 1000; given the current price and future outlook, will you buy the specific stock. If yes, hold the stock [or buy more], if answer is no sell the stock and book profit. Off-course I have not overlaid the various other considerations when buying stocks like diversification, risk profiles of individual stocks / segments, tax implications etc that are also essential even if you decide to buy or sell specific stock.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7cd658efe13f546416355d54366b9a68",
"text": "\"The ex indicator is meant to be a help for market participants. On the ex-day orders will go into a different order book, the ex order book, which at the start of the ex day will be totally empty, i.e. no orders from the non-ex day book have been copied over. Why does this help? Well imagine you had a long-standing buy order in the book, well below the current price, and now the share price halves due to a 2-for-1 split, would you want to see your order executed? If so, your order should have gone into the ex-book which is only active on the ex-day (and orders in the ex book are usually copied over to the normal book on the day after the ex-day but this is exchange-specific). Think of it as an additional safety net to tell the exchange: \"\"I know what I'm doing: I want to buy this stock totally overpriced after the 2-for-1 split\"\". Now some exchanges and/or some securities (mostly derivatives) linked with the security in question don't have this notion of ex or the ex-book, and they will tell you by \"\"will not be quoted ex\"\" or \"\"the ex indicator is missing\"\". In your case (SNE) it is a sponsored ADR, the ex-date was Mar 28 2016, one day before the ex date of the Japanese original. According to my understanding of NYSE rules, there is no specific rule for or against omitting the ex-indicator. It seems to be a decision on a case by case basis. Looking through the dividends of other Japanese ADRs I drew the conclusion none of them have an ex-book and so all of them are announced as: \"\"Will not be quoted ex by the exchange\"\". Again, this is based on my observations.\"",
"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": "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": "8298d7869d0f0edb85f3c152d7d4f565",
"text": "\"Also note that a share of voting stock is a vote at the stockholder's meeting, whether it's dividend or non-dividend. That has value to the company and major stockholders in terms of protecting their own interests, and has value to anyone considering a takeover of the company or who otherwise wants to drive the company's policy. Similarly, if the company is bought out, the share will generally be replaced by shares in whatever the new owning company is. So it really does represent \"\"a slice of the company\"\" in several vary practical ways, and thus has fairly well-defined intrinsic value linked to the company's perceived value. If its price drops too low the company becomes more vulnerable to hostile takeover, which means the company itself will often be motivated to buy back shares to protect itself from that threat. One of the questions always asked when making an investment is whether you're looking for growth (are you hoping its intrinsic value will increase) or income (are you hoping it will pay you a premium for owning it). Non-dividend stocks are a pure growth bet. Dividend-paying stocks are typically a mixture of growth and income, at various trade-off points. What's right for you depends on your goals, timeframe, risk tolerance, and what else is already in your portfolio.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d524fb1f021f6300265329ed8a3a182b",
"text": "\"In Second Opinion's opinion, they say \"\"Do not initiate new position.\"\" This means do not buy the stock if you do not already own it. Since they also say to hold if you do own it, this is a very \"\"who knows what it will do\"\" neutral position (IMO).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "acb69647e0fc0d0aae8bd5df389f1bbb",
"text": "Your broker should make you whole by adjusting the quantity of the underlying (see: http://www.schaeffersresearch.com/education/options-basics/key-option-concepts/dividends-stock-splits-and-other-option-contract-adjustments) but I would check with them that this will happen. You will then have an option on 4 times the underlying for each option. Unless the price has risen in the interim or you bought them after the split was announced you should not make a loss.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bbe9180f1cff5262fcf27862358c007a",
"text": "\"I have heard that investing more money into an investment which has gone down is generally a bad idea*. \"\"Throwing good money after bad\"\" so to speak. Is investing more money into a stock, you already have a stake in, which has gone up in price; a good idea? Other things being equal, deciding whether to buy more stocks or shares in a company you're already invested in should be made in the same way you would evaluate any investment decision and -- broadly speaking -- should not be influenced by whether an existing holding has gone up or down in value. For instance, given the current price of the stock, prevailing market conditions, and knowledge about the company, if you think there is a reasonable chance that the price will rise in the time-period you are interested in, then you may want to buy (more) stock. If you think there is a reasonable chance the price will fall, then you probably won't want to buy (more) stock. Note: it may be that the past performance of a company is factored into your decision to buy (e.g was a recent downturn merely a \"\"blip\"\", and long-term prospects remain good; or have recent steady rises exhausted the potential for growth for the time being). And while this past performance will have played a part in whether any existing holding went up or down in value, it should only be the past performance -- not whether or not you've gained or lost money -- that affects the new decision. For instance: let us suppose (for reasons that seemed valid at the time) you bought your original holding at £10/share, the price has dropped to £2/share, but you (now) believe both prices were/are \"\"wrong\"\" and that the \"\"true price\"\" should be around £5/share. If you feel there is a good chance of this being achieved then buying shares at £2, anticipating they'll rally to £5, may be sound. But you should be doing this because you think the price will rise to £5, and not because it will offset the loses in your original holding. (You may also want to take stock and evaluate why you thought it a good idea to buy at £10... if you were overly optimistic then, you should probably be asking yourself whether your current decisions (in this or any share) are \"\"sound\"\"). There is one area where an existing holding does come into play: as both jamesqf and Victor rightly point out, keeping a \"\"balanced\"\" portfolio -- without putting \"\"all your eggs in one basket\"\" -- is generally sound advice. So when considering the purchase of additional stock in a company you are already invested in, remember to look at the combined total (old and new) when evaluating how the (potential) purchase will affect your overall portfolio.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "df3614b753ae87a1a270d904003756f7",
"text": "\"Yahoo's \"\"Adj Close\"\" data is adjusted for splits, but not for dividends. Despite Yahoo's webpage's footnote saying *Close price adjusted for dividends and splits. we can see empirically that the \"\"Adj Close\"\" is only adjusted for splits. For example, consider Siemens from Jan 27, 2017 to Mar 15, 2017: The Adj Close adjusts for splits: On any particular day, the \"\"Adj Close\"\" is equal to the \"\"Close\"\" price divided by the cumulative product of all splits that occurred after that day. If there have been no splits after that day, then the \"\"Adj Close\"\" equals the \"\"Close\"\" price. Since there is a 2-for-1 split on Mar 14, 2017, the Adj Close is half the Close price for all dates from Jan 27, 2017 to Mar 13, 2017. Note that if Siemens were to split again at some time in the future, the Adj Close prices will be readjusted for this future split. For example, if Siemens were to split 3-for-1 tomorrow, then all the Adj Close prices seen above will be divided by 3. The Adj Close is thus showing the price that a share would have traded on that day if the shares had already been split in accordance with all splits up to today. The Adj Close does not adjust for dividends: Notice that Siemens distributed a $1.87 dividend on Feb 02, 2017 and ~$3.74 dividend on Jan 30, 2017. If the Adj Close value were adjusted for these dividends then we should expect the Adj Close should no longer be exactly half of the Close amount. But we can see that there is no such adjustment -- the Adj Close remains (up to rounding) exactly half the Close amount: Note that in theory, the market reacts to the distribution of dividends by reducing the trading price of shares post-dividend. This in turn is reflected in the raw closing price. So in that sense the Adj Close is also automatically adjusted for dividends. But there is no formula for this. The effect is already baked in through the market's closing prices.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a11b5b0f914084e7fe0ca39051dd3794",
"text": "Here's a different take: Look through the lists of companies that offer shareholder perks. Here's one from Hargreaves Lansdown. See if you can find one that you already spend money with with a low required shareholding where the perks would actually be usable. Note that in your case, being curious about the whole thing and based in London, you don't have to rule out the AGM-based perks, unlike me. My reason for this is simple: with 3 out of 4 of the companies we bought shares in directly (all for the perks), we've made several times the dividend in savings on money we would have spent anyway (either with the company in which we bought shares or a direct competitor). This means that you can actually make back the purchase price plus dealing fee quite quickly (probably in 2/4 in our case), and you still have the shares. We've found that pub/restaurant/hotel brands work well if you use them or their equivalents anyway. Caveats: It's more enjoyable than holding a handful of shares in a company you don't care about, and if you want to read the annual reports you can relate this to your own experience, which might interest you given your obvious curiosity.",
"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": "f104a51bfb75f9b613df3748709974fd",
"text": "\"I'm not sure what you expect in terms of answers, but it depends on personal factors. It pretty well has to depend on personal factors, since otherwise everyone would want to do the same thing (either everyone thinks the current price is one to sell at, or everyone thinks it's one to buy at), and there would be no trades. You wouldn't be able to do what you want, except on the liquidity provided by market makers. Once that's hit, the price is shifting quickly, so your calculation will change quickly too. Purely in terms of maximising expected value taking into account the time value of money, it's all about the same. The market \"\"should\"\" already know everything you know, which means that one time to sell is as good as any other. The current price is generally below the expected acquisition price because there's a chance the deal will fall through and the stock price will plummet. That's not to say there aren't clever \"\"sure-fire\"\" trading strategies around acquisitions, but they're certain to be based on more than just timing when to sell an existing holding of stock. If you have information that the market doesn't (and assuming it is legal to do so) then you trade based on that information. If you know something the market doesn't that's going to be good for price, hold. If you know something that will reduce the price, sell now. And \"\"know\"\" can be used in a loose sense, if you have a strong opinion against the market then you might like to invest based on that. Nothing beats being paid for being right. Finally, bear in mind that expected return is not the same as utility. You have your own investment goals and your own view of risk. If you're more risk-averse than the market then you might prefer to sell now rather than wait for the acquisition. If you're more risk-prone than the market then you might prefer a 90% chance of $1 to 90c. That's fine, hold the stock. The extreme case of this is that you might have a fixed sum at which you will definitely sell up, put everything into the most secure investments you can find, and retire to the Caribbean. If that's the case then you become totally risk-averse the instant your holding crosses that line. Sell and order cocktails.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "932831d05e6499ccfc920fcf993dd86e",
"text": "Yes you can do that and it it wise to do so. However, you should make sure that the general trend of the stock is upwards and you buy during a trought in the uptrend. So basically if the stock is making higher highs and higher lows on the daily or weekly charts, then you would want to buy around one of the higher lows before the ex-dividend date. If the stock is making lower lows and lower highs, then it is in a downtrend, so never buy in this instance. It is better to miss out on a dividend of $1 rather than to buy just for this $1 dividend and lose $5 or more when the price continues to drop further.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fe6bc779bbc88c442ac003d44cff045a",
"text": "You guys seem to have forgotten the most important part of this equation ... i work for a bank and I can tell u this as a painful fact ... every business is governed by its paperwork ... articles bylaws operating agreements amendments and minutes .. if a companys paperwork says that the 51% owner can fire everyone and move to Alaska and that paperwork is proper (signed and binding) it is with minimal excavation law... case in point every company is different .. and it is formed and governed by its paperwork.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
f89a80d636f19c880a1aedf7ca0e0436
|
I file 83(b) election, but did't include a copy of it in that year’s tax return
|
[
{
"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": "0f02d14b3b88c6a19f10f13209e2455d",
"text": "I've talked to several very experienced accountants that deal with startup shares, stock 83(b)'s, etc. weekly (based in SF, CA) as this issue would have had a massive impact on me. The most important part of filing an 83(b) is notifying the IRS within 30 days. The law requires the written notification within the 30 day window. Adding it to that years tax return is an IRS procedure. Forgetting to include a copy of that years tax return is apparently a common occurrence when no tax was owed (0 spread, you actually paid the FMV). And the accepted method to resolve this is to simply file a blank amendment for that years return and include the copy of the 83(b) election.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4d8e6721496b0d8ad288f2a00eb81a13",
"text": "It matters because that is the requirement for the 83(b) selection to be valid. Since the context is 83(b) election, I assume you got stocks/options as compensation and didn't pay for them the FMV, thus it should have been included in your income for that year. If you didn't include the election letter - I can only guess that you also didn't include the income. Hence - you lost your election. If you did include the income and paid the tax accordingly, or if no tax was due (you actually paid the FMV), you may try amending the return and attaching the letter, but I'd suggest talking to a professional before doing it on your own. Make sure to keep a proof (USPS certified mailing receipt) of mailing the letter within the 30 days window.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8e274ec175a07406b483bff494df6ebd",
"text": "\"This may be relevant: it suggests that IRS is lenient with the attachment of the form with 1040. To paraphrase: \"\"The ruling involved a taxpayer who timely filed the election with the IRS within 30 days of the property transfer but who did not attach a copy of the election to his or her Form 1040 for the year of the transfer. Fortunately for the taxpayer in question, the ruling indicated that the submission of the election to the IRS within 30 days of the property transfer fulfilled the requirements for a valid election, and the failure to attach the copy to the tax return did not affect the validity of the election. The IRS requested that the taxpayer forward a copy of the election to the IRS to be associated with the processing of the tax return. - See more at: http://www.bnncpa.com/services/employee_benefit_plans/blog/irs_rules_that_failure_to_attach_83b_election_to_form_1040_did_not_invalida#sthash.0c3h2nJY.dpuf\"\" If someone wants to grok the IRS ruling: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-wd/1405008.pdf And this is the article where I saw the above referenced. www.bnncpa.com/services/employee_benefit_plans/blog/irs_rules_that_failure_to_attach_83b_election_to_form_1040_did_not_invalida\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "f665108e75778d4633b077a1254a892a",
"text": "He should look into the Voluntary Disclosures Program. He will have to keep up to date with his taxes thereafter, but the outcome will likely be better than if they discover he hasn't been filing before he discloses it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e39a1801cbfa777e2fda516c1822da31",
"text": "\"It's not quite as bad as the comments indicate. Form 1040ES has been available since January (and IME has been similarly for all past years). It mostly uses the prior year (currently 2016) as the basis, but it does have the updated (2017) figures for items that are automatically adjusted for inflation: bracket points (and thus filing threshhold), standard deductions, Social Security cap, and maybe another one or two I missed. The forms making up the actual return cannot be prepared very far in advance because, as commented, Congress frequently makes changes to tax law well after the year begins, and in some cases right up to Dec. 31. The IRS must start preparing forms and pubs -- and equally important, setting the specifications for software providers like Intuit (TurboTax) and H&RBlock -- several months ahead in order to not seriously delay filing season, and with it refunds, which nearly everyone in the country considers (at least publicly) to be worse than World War Three and the destruction of the Earth by rogue asteroids. I have 1040 series from the last 4 years still on my computer, and the download dates mostly range from late September to mid January. Although one outlier shows the range of possibility: 2013 form 1040 and Schedule A were tweaked in April 2014 because Congress passed a law allowing charitable contributions for Typhoon Haiyan to be deducted in the prior year. Substantive, but relatively minor, changes happen every year, including many that keep recurring like the special (pre-AGI) teacher supplies deduction (\"\"will they or won't they?\"\"), section 179 expensing (changes slightly almost every year), and formerly the IRA-direct-to-charity option (finally made permanent last year). As commented, the current Congress and President were elected on a platform with tax reform as an important element, and they are talking even more intensely than before about doing it, although whether they will actually do anything this year is still uncertain. However, if major reform is done it will almost certainly apply to future years only, and likely only start after a lag of some months to a year. They know it causes chaos for businesses and households alike to upend without advance warning the assumptions built in to current budgets and plans -- and IME as a political matter something that is enacted now and effective fairly soon but not now is just as good (but I think that part is offtopic).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b240c8733992c78e273ab69c01482f22",
"text": "\"If she reported the income on the business return, I'd treat this as a \"\"mail audit\"\". Try to get a clear statement from Square confirming what they reported, under which SSN/EIN, for what transactions. Make a copy of that. If at all possible, get them to send a letter to the IRS (copy to you) acknowledging that they reported it under the wrong number. Copy the IRS's letter. Square's letter, and both personal and business 2012 returns. Write a (signed) cover letter explaining what had happened and pointing out the specific line in the business return which corresponded to the disputed amount, so they can see that you did report it properly and did pay taxes on it as business income. End that letter with a request for advice on how to straighten this out. Certified-mail the whole package back to the IRS at whatever address the advisory letter gives. At worst, I'm guessing, they'll tell you to refile both returns for 2012 with that income moved over from the business return to the personal return, which will make everything match their records. But with all of this documentation in one place, they may be able to simply accept that Square misreported it and correct their files. Good luck. The IRS really isn't as unreasonable as people claim; if you can clearly document that you were trying to do the right thing, they try not to penalize folks unnecessarily.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a179b6735e2b581d1797b56142f6ba59",
"text": "Years ago I mailed my personal tax return one day after the due date, and my check was deposited as normal, and I never heard anything about it. As an employer, I once sent in my employee's withheld federal taxes one day after the due date, and I later received a letter stating my penalty for being late worked out to be around $600. The letter stated that since this was my first time being late they would waive the fee. In both cases, they could have charged me a late fee if they wanted to.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6b9621b60430f617188f8e6a7a7ba8da",
"text": "You should include the checks you received from the company, invoices you sent, bank statements showing the deposits, and your receipts, if any, you issued to the company. You'd be surprised to know that this is a fairly common tax fraud. You can also try and sue the company or its successor for the missing amounts, but if it has been dissolved it may be difficult. As with any non-trivial tax issue - I suggest you get a professional advice from a EA/CPA licensed in your State. You may need representation before the IRS - only EA, CPA or an Attorney may represent you in IRS proceedings (including audit and correspondence).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "9d125401d3513b5ef340f771897e138b",
"text": "\"http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc503.html says you can deduct \"\"Any prior year's state or local income tax you paid during the year.\"\" So I would say as long as you have good records, you can deduct the excess refund you had to pay back in the year in which you paid it. Whether or not your return was amended shouldn't affect whether or not it is deductible.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "afc5870704081a05228f2b6e1386741a",
"text": "From the IRS web site: So if your income was reported to the IRS (by the payer, not you) using one of the forms above, the IRS would have a record of it, regardless of whether you filed a tax return or not.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "202f61961efc3e68e6a0d7022716bdbb",
"text": "Is it true that you cannot amend a tax return to include both a futures loss carry back and a Schedule C at the same time? No, it is not true. You can include all the changes necessary in a single amended return, attaching statement explaining each of the changes. However you're talking about two different kinds of changes. Futures loss carryback is a Sec. 1212 carryback and not a correction of an error. Adding Schedule C would be a correction of an error. I'm guessing your CPA wants to separate the two kinds to avoid the situation where the IRS refuses to accept your correction of an error and by the way also doesn't accept the Sec. 1212 carryback on the same return. Or the CPA just wants to charge you twice for amendments.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cd95509e847580c275bb372e84f35c71",
"text": "An amended return is required for situations that impact tax owed, or your tax refund. 8606 purpose is to track non-deducted IRA deposits. I'd recommend you gather all your returns to form a paper trail, and when filing your 2016 return, show a proper 8606 as if you'd tracked it all along.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "91f4c060b9360b9405745f9a6e20c852",
"text": "File a 2nd amended return that corrects the mistake I made on the 1st amended return This. Pay the $500 before April 27th and try to get it back later This.",
"title": ""
},
{
"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": "b71efbb3f5044251b6e0a556fed686ed",
"text": "\"If you haven't been a US resident (not citizen, different rules apply) at the time you sold the stock in Europe but it was inside the same tax year that you moved to the US, you might want to have a look at the \"\"Dual Status\"\" part in IRS publication 519.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0df54c4fd766fcffc01e0aaeb445237d",
"text": "The IRS allows filers to attach a statement explaining the reason for late filing. I have had clients do this in the past, and there has never been an issue (not that that guarantees anything, but is still good to know). Generally, the IRS is much more lenient when a taxpayer voluntarily complies with a filing requirement, even if it's late, than if they figure it out themselves and send a notice.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "de91a74d3d2cb9541a9866e233ae6c28",
"text": "Typically that applies if the broker Form 1099-B reports an incorrect basis to the IRS. If the Form 1099-B shows incorrect basis relative to your records, then you can use 8949, column (g) to report the correct basis. The 8949 Instructions provide a brief example. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/i8949--2013.pdf Although you have an obligation to report all income, and hence to report the true basis, as a practical matter this information will usually be correct as presented by the broker. If you have separate information or reports relating to your investments, and you are so inclined, then you can double-check the basis information in your 1099-B. If you aren't aware of basis discrepancies, then the adjustments probably don't apply to you and your investments can stick to Schedule D.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
b5eb51bf1cb47f8cad9dcaaaebd6d34d
|
Offsetting the tax on vested RSUs with short term capital loss
|
[
{
"docid": "5bcda875269c06c6bd18b8d8deffda58",
"text": "No. The gain on RSU is not a capital gain, it is considered wages and treated as part of your salary, for tax purposes. You cannot offset it with capital losses in excess of $3000 a year. If you have RSUs left after they vest, and you then sell them at gain, the gain (between the vesting price and the sale price) is capital gain and can be offset by your prior years' capital losses.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "d5e71508fdf5bcc1d535cac18c15e692",
"text": "\"The best strategy for RSU's, specifically, is to sell them as they vest. Usually, vesting is not all in one day, but rather spread over a period of time, which assures that you won't sell in one extremely unfortunate day when the stock dipped. For regular investments, there are two strategies I personally would follow: Sell when you need. If you need to cash out - cash out. Rebalance - if you need to rebalance your portfolio (i.e.: not cash out, but reallocate investments or move investment from one company to another) - do it periodically on schedule. For example, every 13 months (in the US, where the long term cap. gains tax rates kick in after 1 year of holding) - rebalance. You wouldn't care about specific price drops on that day, because they also affect the new investments. Speculative strategies trying to \"\"sell high buy low\"\" usually bring to the opposite results: you end up selling low and buying high. But if you want to try and do that - you'll have to get way more technical than just \"\"dollar cost averaging\"\" or similar strategies. Most people don't have neither time nor the knowledge for that, and even those who do rarely can beat the market (and never can, in the long run).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "209e0a3561e14be2b77fe04a34c4f754",
"text": "Long term gains are taxed at 15% maximum. Losses, up to the $3K/yr you cited, can offset ordinary income, so 25% or higher, depending on your income. Better to take the loss that way. With my usual disclaimer: Do not let the tax tail wag the investing dog.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "82f690a6970b4b385556ab21e8dbe8ad",
"text": "Fidelity has a good explanation of Restricted Stock Awards: For grants that pay in actual shares, the employee’s tax holding period begins at the time of vesting, and the employee’s tax basis is equal to the amount paid for the stock plus the amount included as ordinary compensation income. Upon a later sale of the shares, assuming the employee holds the shares as a capital asset, the employee would recognize capital gain income or loss; whether such capital gain would be a short- or long-term gain would depend on the time between the beginning of the holding period at vesting and the date of the subsequent sale. Consult your tax adviser regarding the income tax consequences to you. So, you would count from vesting for long-term capital gains purposes. Also note the point to include the amount of income you were considered to have earned as a result of the original vesting [market value then - amount you paid]. (And of course, you reported that as income in 2015/2016, right?) So if you had 300 shares of Stock ABC granted you in 2014 for a price of $5/share, and in 2015 100 of those shares vested at FMV $8/share, and in 2016 100 of those shares vested, current FMV $10/share, you had $300 in income in 2015 and $500 of income in 2016 from this. Then in 2017 you sold 200 shares for $15/share:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "97614544e35e57ca982ce71562c3803a",
"text": "\"You cannot get \"\"your investment\"\" out and \"\"leave only the capital gains\"\" until they become taxable at the long-term rate. When you sell some shares after holding them for less than a year, you have capital gains on which you will have to pay taxes at the short-term capital gains rate (that is, at the same rate as ordinary income). As an example, if you bought 100 shares at $70 for a net investment of $7000, and sell 70 of them at $100 after five months to get your \"\"initial investment back\"\", you will have short-term capital gains of $30 per share on the 70 shares that you sold and so you have to pay tax on that $30x70=$2100. The other $4900 = $7000-$2100 is \"\"tax-free\"\" since it is just your purchase price of the 70 shares being returned to you. So after paying the tax on your short-term capital gains, you really don't have your \"\"initial investment back\"\"; you have something less. The capital gains on the 30 shares that you continue to hold will become (long-term capital gains) income to you only when you sell the shares after having held them for a full year or more: the gains on the shares sold after five months are taxable income in the year of sale.\"",
"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": "6c0110c21e3e15f28b53d04cc6b3dc73",
"text": "I assume US as mhoran_psprep edited, although I'm not sure IRS necessarily means US. (It definitely used to also include Britain's Inland Revenue, but they changed.) (US) Stockbrokers do not normally withhold on either dividends/interest/distributions or realized capital gains, especially since gains might be reduced or eliminated by later losses. (They can be required to apply backup withholding to dividends and interest; don't ask how I know :-) You are normally required to pay most of your tax during the year, defined as within 10% or $1000 whichever is more, by withholding and/or estimated payments. Thus if the tax on your income including your recent gain will exceed your withholding by 10% and $1000, you should either adjust your withholding or make an estimated payment or some combination, although even if you have a job the last week of December is too late for you to adjust withholding significantly, or even to make a timely estimated payment if 'earlier in the year' means in an earlier quarter as defined for tax (Jan-Mar, Apr-May, June-Aug, Sept-Dec). See https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/estimated-taxes and for details its link to Publication 505. But a 'safe harbor' may apply since you say this is your first time to have capital gains. If you did not owe any income tax for last year (and were a citizen or resident), or (except very high earners) if you did owe tax and your withholding plus estimated payments this year is enough to pay last year's tax, you are exempt from the Form 2210 penalty and you have until the filing deadline (normally April 15 but this year April 18 due to weekend and holiday) to pay. The latter is likely if your job and therefore payroll income and withholding this year was the same or nearly the same as last year and there was no other big change other than the new capital gain. Also note that gains on investments held more than one year are classified as long-term and taxed at lower rates, which reduces the tax you will owe (all else equal) and thus the payments you need to make. But your wording 'bought and sold ... earlier this year' suggests your holding was not long-term, and short-term gains are taxed as 'ordinary' income. Added: if the state you live in has a state income tax similar considerations apply but to smaller amounts. TTBOMK all states tax capital gains (and other investment income, other than interest on exempt bonds), and don't necessarily give the lower rates for long-term gains. And all states I have lived in have 'must have withholding or estimated payments' rules generally similar to the Federal ones, though not identical.",
"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": "182b561785b6dbb85ff8bf140ba84456",
"text": "\"If you only have to pay 23k federal taxes on 100k, that means you are in the long term capital gains tax rate, which is the lower of the tax rates available. First you get your federal income tax marginal tax rate, and then find the matching long term capital gains tax rate. For example, if your marginal federal income tax rate is 28%, your capital gains tax rate would be 15%. Or rather, if the amount of the gain would put you in the 28% rate, then your long term capital gains tax rate is 15%. You can reduce that by having more losses. If you have anything else invested anywhere that is taking a loss, then you can sell that this year and it will offset the other gains you have realized. The only note is that your losses have to be long term capital losses too. Tax loss harvesting takes this to an extreme where you sell something at a loss to lock in the tax loss, but you didn't really want to get rid of that investment, so then you buy a nearly identical investment. ie. if you owned shares of \"\"Direxion Tech Sector ETF\"\" and it was at a loss, you would sell that and then immediately buy \"\"ProShares Tech Sector ETF\"\", the competing product that does the exact same thing. Then there is charity. This still requires spending money and you not having it any longer. If you feel that a cause can use the money more directly than the US government, you can donate an appreciated asset to the charity - not report a gain and also take a charitable deduction.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b58965eac1ac22be6c97704ca003a1f0",
"text": "My understanding is that losses are first deductible against any capital gains you may have, then against your regular income (up to $3,000 per year). If you still have a loss after that, the loss may be carried over to offset capital gains or income in subsequent years As you suspect, a short term capital loss is deductible against short term capital gains and long term losses are deductible against long term gains. So taking the loss now MIGHT be beneficial from a tax perspective. I say MIGHT because there are a couple scenarios in which it either may not matter, or actually be detrimental: If you don't have any short term capital gains this year, but you have long term capital gains, you would have to use the short term loss to offset the long term gain before you could apply it to ordinary income. So in that situation you lose out on the difference between the long term tax rate (15%) and your ordinary income rate (potentially higher). If you keep the stock, and sell it for a long term loss next year, but you only have short-term capital gains or no capital gains next year, then you may use the long term loss to offset your short-term gains (first) or your ordinary income. Clear as mud? The whole mess is outlined in IRS Publication 550 Finally, if you still think the stock is good, but just want to take the tax loss, you can sell the stock now (to realize the loss) then re-buy it in 30 days. This is called Tax Loss Harvesting. The 30 day delay is an IRS requirement for being allowed to realize the loss.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7ca594024cad43676e532bdd3be3a86d",
"text": "No, it's not all long-term capital gain. Depending on the facts of your situation, it will be either ordinary income or partially short-term capital gain. You should consider consulting a tax lawyer if you have this issue. This is sort of a weird little corner of the tax law. IRC §§1221-1223 don't go into it, nor do the attendant Regs. It also somewhat stumped the people on TaxAlmanac years ago (they mostly punted and just declared it self-employment income, avoiding the holding period issue). But I did manage to find it in BNA Portfolio 562, buried in there. That cited to a court case Comm'r v. Williams, 256 F.2d 152 (5th Cir. 1958) and to Revenue Ruling 75-524 (and to another Rev. Rul.). Rev Rul 75-524 cites Fred Draper, 32 T.C. 545 (1959) for the proposition that assets are acquired progressively as they are built. Note also that land and improvements on it are treated as separate assets for purposes of depreciation (Pub 946). So between Williams (which says something similar but about the shipbuilding industry) and 75-524, as well as some related rulings and cases, you may be looking at an analysis of how long your property has been built and how built it was. You may be able to apportion some of the building as long-term and some as short-term. Whether the apportionment should be as to cost expended before 1 year or value created before 1 year is explicitly left open in Williams. It may be simpler to account for costs, since you'll have expenditure records with dates. However, if this is properly ordinary income because this is really business inventory and not merely investment property, then you have fully ordinary income and holding period is irrelevant. Your quick turnaround sale tends to suggest this may have been done as a business, not as an investment. A proper advisor with access to these materials could help you formulate a tax strategy and return position. This may be complex and law-driven enough that you'd need a tax lawyer rather than a CPA or preparer. They can sort through the precedent and if you have the money may even provide a formal tax opinion. Experienced real estate lawyers may be able to help, if you screen them appropriately (i.e. those who help prepare real estate tax returns or otherwise have strong tax crossover knowledge).",
"title": ""
},
{
"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": "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": "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": "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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
50e62bc2f46c527b66f6d2145f65d647
|
Medium-term money investment in Germany
|
[
{
"docid": "cbc8773cb5a67bbf55cba1b513b1816b",
"text": "\"Due to the zero percent interest rate on the Euro right now you won't find any investment giving you 5% which isn't equivalent to gambling. One of the few investment forms which still promises gains without unreasonable risks right now seems to be real estate, because real estate prices in German urban areas (not so in rural areas!) are growing a lot recently. One reason for that is in fact the low interest rate, because it makes it very cheap right now to take a loan and buy a home. This increased demand is driving up the prices. Note that you don't need to buy a property yourself to invest in real estate (20k in one of the larger cities of Germany will get you... maybe a cardboard box below a bridge?). You can invest your money in a real estate fund (\"\"Immobilienfond\"\"). You then don't own a specific property, you own a tiny fraction of a whole bunch of different properties. This spreads out the risk and allows you to invest exactly as much money as you want. However, most real estate funds do not allow you to sell in the first two years and require that you announce your sale one year in advance, so it's not a very liquid asset. Also, it is still a risky investment. Raising real estate prices might hint to a bubble which might burst eventually. Financial analysts have different opinions about this. But fact is, when the European Central Bank starts to take interest again, then the demand for real estate property will drop and so will the prices. When you are not sure what to do, ask your bank for investment advise. German banks are usually trustworthy in this regard.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "6208896a2c975207e5bd9acbc24275ec",
"text": "If you don't want to hassle with opening an account (and don't mind going without insurance) there are currency ETF's that basically invest in euro money market accounts. Here's an example of one Not sure if the return would be as much as you'd get if you opened your own account and went for longer term instruments like a 12 month CD (I think the Euro MM rate is around 1.1% compared to 0.1% for the US). But since it trades like a stock you can do it without having to establish an account with an overseas bank.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "60dbfff8b0fc19a14a628170f4c6aa8d",
"text": "\"The question is asking for a European equivalent of the so-called \"\"Couch Potato\"\" portfolio. \"\"Couch Potato\"\" portfolio is defined by the two URLs provided in question as, Criteria for fund composition Fixed-income: Regardless of country or supra-national market, the fixed-income fund should have holdings throughout the entire length of the yield curve (most available maturities), as well as being a mix of government, municipal (general obligation), corporate and high-yield bonds. Equity: The common equity position should be in one equity market index fund. It shouldn't be a DAX-30 or CAC-40 or DJIA type fund. Instead, you want a combination of growth and value companies. The fund should have as many holdings as possible, while avoiding too much expense due to transaction costs. You can determine how much is too much by comparing candidate funds with those that are only investing in highly liquid, large company stocks. Why it is easier for U.S. and Canadian couch potatoes It will be easier to find two good funds, at lower cost, if one is investing in a country with sizable markets and its own currency. That's why the Couch Potato strategy lends itself most naturally to the U.S.A, Canada, Japan and probably Australia, Brazil, South Korea and possibly Mexico too. In Europe, pre-EU, any of Germany, France, Spain, Italy or the Scandinavian countries would probably have worked well. The only concern would be (possibly) higher equity transactions costs and certainly larger fixed-income buy-sell spreads, due to smaller and less liquid markets other than Germany. These costs would be experienced by the portfolio manager, and passed on to you, as the investor. For the EU couch potato Remember the criteria, especially part 2, and the intent as described by the Couch Potato name, implying extremely passive investing. You want to choose two funds offered by very stable, reputable fund management companies. You will be re-balancing every six months or a year, only. That is four transactions per year, maximum. You don't need a lot of interaction with anyone, but you DO need to have the means to quickly exit both sides of the trade, should you decide, for any reason, that you need the money or that the strategy isn't right for you. I would not choose an ETF from iShares just because it is easy to do online transactions. For many investors, that is important! Here, you don't need that convenience. Instead, you need stability and an index fund with a good reputation. You should try to choose an EU based fund manager, or one in your home country, as you'll be more likely to know who is good and who isn't. Don't use Vanguard's FTSE ETF or the equivalent, as there will probably be currency and foreign tax concerns, and possibly forex risk. The couch potato strategy requires an emphasis on low fees with high quality funds and brokers (if not buying directly from the fund). As for type of fund, it would be best to choose a fund that is invested in mostly or only EU or EEU (European Economic Union) stocks, and the same for bonds. That will help minimize your transaction costs and tax liability, while allowing for the sort of broad diversity that helps buy and hold index fund investors.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d1138e355b81a7a8ac2647aa46a98c76",
"text": "It is interesting to consider the Netherlands which is part of the Euro zone. Germany uses 1 and 2 cent coins. Adjacent is the Netherlands where items remain priced to the cent but cash totals are rounded to the nearest 5c so 1 and 2c coins are out of circulation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d5c9a1be8b0cebc6874c1fb74293e3d8",
"text": "\"The number one difference is that bank savings accounts, or money market accounts (MMAs allow limited checking--six non-ATM withdrawals per month, max, else possible fees) have FDIC insurance up to $250,000. However don't put that much in--allow some room for interest, so you never go over the $250,000. Money Market Mutual Funds do not enjoy FDIC insurance. There may be some SPIC insurance--generally against brokerage failure though, but its coverage is questionable--search out those details, and if they apply to anything besides actual cash held at the brokerage. If the money market mutual fund is strictly invested in US Treasury securities (like T-Bills, or other short-term US Treasury instruments), it enjoys the full faith and credit of the US government, FWIW--but many MMMFs invest in corporate instruments. If the fund has any pricing issues, there might be a delay in getting paid off. (Extremely unlikely.) Number two, and more importantly, bank savings accounts (or MMAs) pay way more! You can get a bit over 1% APY now--many paying 0.90% APY, or higher. No money market mutual funds are close to that, generally yielding a small fraction of that, almost zero for US Treasury MMM funds. Sure 1.05% ain't too exciting, but you may as well get the most you can if holding \"\"cash,\"\" and fully insured to boot.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "94e4d5ca28ad25d8016392b2891ba804",
"text": "\"As many before me said but will say again for the sake of completeness of an answer: First off provision to have an emergency fund of 6 months living expenses to cover loss of employment, unforeseen medical issues etc. When that is done you re free to start investing. Do remember that putting all your eggs in one basket enable risks, so diversify your portfolio and diversify even within each investment vehicle. Stocks: I would personally stay away from stocks as it's for the most part a bear market right now (and I assume you re not interested day-trading to make any short term return) and most importantly you dont mention any trading experience which means you can get shafted. Mutual Funds: Long story short most of these work; mainly for the benefit for their management and people selling them. Bonds Instead, I would go for corporate bonds where you essentially buy the seller(aka the issuing company) and unlike gambling on stocks of the same company, you dont rely on speculation and stock gains to make a profit. As long as the company is standing when the bond matures you get your payment. This allows you to invest with less effort spent on a daily basis to monitor your investments and much better returns(especially if you find opportunities where you can buy bonds from structurally sound companies that have for reasons you deem irrelevant, purchase prices in the secondary market for cents in the dollar) than your other long term \"\"stable options\"\" like German issued bonds or saving accounts that are low in general and more so like in the current situation for German banks. Cryptocurrency I would also look into cryptocurrency for the long term as that seems to be past its childhood diseases and its also a good period of time to invest in as even the blue chips of that market are down party due to correction from all time highs and partly due to speculation. As Im more knowledgeable on this than German-locale bonds, a few coins I suggest you look into and decide for yourself would be the obvious ETH & BTC, then a slew of newer ones including but not limited to OmiseGO, Tenx(Pay), Augur and IOTA. Beware though, make sure to understand the basics of security and good practices on this field, as there's no central bank in this sector and if you leave funds in an exchange or your wallet's private key is compromised the money are as good as gone.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a2d60910cb79a2065d91fc98fe08826c",
"text": "Fundamental rule of investing money : Now come to the point, best money investment",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8aa4745955d3eeaef5710f6980b26d55",
"text": "You could buy a money order with your cash, then mail the money order to Deutsche Bank Germany for deposit into your account. You could also buy a prepaid debit card (like a Visa/AMEX giftcard) with your cash. Then, open a new Paypal account and add this prepaid card. Finally, send money to yourself using the prepaid card as the funding source. You could use a money transfer service, like Western Union, to transfer the cash to a friend/family in Germany. Then ask them to deposit it for you at Deutsche Bank Germany.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bf5b32f35f7abee59654d27bc3adecab",
"text": "There are legitimate multi currency mutual funds/efts. But I don't think their rate of return will produce the extra money you're looking for any faster than any other kind of investment with comparable risks. To make money fast, you have to accept nontrivial risk of losing money fast, which isn't what you seem to have in mind.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6d87e11efcd1821a28428fdb83e5d531",
"text": "Most US banks allow to initiate wire transfers online. (I do it regularly with BoA and JPMorgan-Chase) Once you have your account details in Germany, you log on to your US account, set it up, and initiate the transfer; that should go through within one day. The exchange ratio is better than anything you would get buying/selling currency (paper cash money), no matter where you do it. Chase takes a fee of 40$ per online transaction; BoA 45$. The receiving bank might or might not take additional fees, they should be lower though (I have experienced between 0€ and 0.35%). Therefore, it is a good idea to bundle your transfers into one, if you can.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "33c9b30f9dd396f4707a11d4ea5e3afb",
"text": "Fisher Capital Management: Leading 10 Monetary Suggestions Posted on 17/10/2011 by fcminvestment Even though resolutions boost financial condition a great idea to accomplish in any period for year is for numerous persons discover this less difficult from the starting of the New Year. Irrespective of any time one start, the fundamentals stay identical. Fisher Capital Management shares recommendations in order to be in advance monetarily. 1. Be Compensated How Much you are worth and Save Some Part of It This appears easy; however countless individuals have difficulty having this specific initial fundamental principle. Be positive and understand exactly what your task is worth within the industry, through executing the assessment of your expertise, productiveness, career responsibilities, involvement to the firm, and the current fee, equally within and beyond the organization, regarding what you perform. Becoming under compensated actually a thousand bucks a year may possess a substantial collective result more than the actual process of one’s employment existence. Irrespective of the amount or perhaps how small you are compensated, you will in no way obtain be advance in case one devote far more compared to a person gain. Frequently it is less difficult to invest much less compared to this will be to make much more, and the small efforts within the amount of places may outcome in large savings. This will not usually have that which includes producing large sacrifices. 2. Adhere to the Price Range How many people understand when the funds will be heading when one never budget? How does a person can easily established investing and saving targets when one never understands in which the cash is actually heading? People require the budget whether or not a person creates thousands or perhaps hundreds of thousands of bucks a year. 3. Settle Credit Card Accounts Credit card financial obligation is actually the number one hindrance to becoming ahead monetarily. These small items of plastic tend to be so convenient to utilize, it is therefore very easy to overlook that it is actual cash we are coping with whenever you whip these away to pay out for any transaction, big or even little. In spite of the great resolves in order to shell out balance away swiftly, the truth is that it usually will not, and wind up having to pay much more regarding issues compared to make paid off when you made use of money. 4. Chip in towards the Pension Program When the company has a 401(k) plan and a person do not contribute to this, you are running away through one of the finest discounts right there. Request the boss if they have the 401(k) plan (or even comparable program), and sign up right now. In the event that you happen to be contributing, attempt to increase the contribution. In case the company will not provide the pension program, think about the Individual retirement account. 5. Make Financial Savings Program You might have discovered this before: Pay for yourself first! If perhaps a person delay till you have satisfied most ones monetary commitments prior to finding what is remaining around for saving, probabilities tend to be you will in no way possess a wholesome financial savings accounts or perhaps opportunities. Deal with it in order to fix apart the minimal for 5% to 10% of the income to get savings prior to shelling out the expenses. More desirable however, get cash instantly taken off through the income and deposit straight into a distinct account. 6. Make Investments! Should you are contributing the pension program and the savings account as well as one may also handle to set a number of funds in to some other ventures, all the far better. 7. Improve Ones Career Rewards Work benefits such as the 401(k) program, flexible expenditure consideration, healthcare as well as dental care coverage, and so on. are usually valued at huge money. Try to make certain you will be making the most of your own and also getting benefit of these kinds which can easily help save cash through lowering taxation or perhaps out-of-pocket expenditures. 8. Evaluate Ones Coverage Protections Overly numerous individuals tend to be though in to spending a lot regarding life and impairment coverage, no matter if it is through incorporating all these protections to automobile mortgages, purchasing whole-life insurance if term-life creates a lot more feeling, or perhaps purchasing life insurance any time one possess absolutely no dependents. In the different side, it really is essential to an individual get sufficient insurance coverage to be able to safeguard the loved ones and also the earnings in the event of fatality or possibly impairment. 9. Revise Your Current Will 70% of American citizens do not possess a will. In case a person have dependents, irrespective of just how small or what amount a person own, an individual need a will. When the predicament is not very difficult a person may actually carry out the personal plan just like WillMaker through Nolo Press. Safeguard your own cherished family members. Create your will. 10. Maintain Suitable Data When a person do not maintain useful data, you are most likely in no way proclaiming all the allowable revenue taxes deductions as well as credits. Established a method today and utilize this each of the year. It is a lot simpler compared to rushing in order to discover all the things from taxes period, just to skip things which may have rescued a person capital.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8e321dba6754b86de234292e9a90b25f",
"text": "I think it really depends on how much you take out of your Nationwide account each month. At a certain point, it will become cheaper just to transfer your monthly rent + living allowance via an international bank transfer or using one of the currency transfer services like xe.com or Hifx. You will have to pay fees either way and/or you'll end up with a forex spread. If you have got enough money in your UK account to cover several months' worth of expenses in Germany, I would be tempted to make one big transfer every few months instead of a a monthly one; anything more than once a month is probably going to be too costly either way. It might also be worth comparing the transfer fees charged by the various banks, when I lived in the UK and had to regularly send money to Germany I found there was a massive difference between different banks for essentially the same service.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "017b585703b7e141a871ab54e579c57b",
"text": "\"If you are going to keep your US bank account for any period of time, the very best option I know of is to withdraw Euros from an atm using your US card once you are in Germany. I draw on my US account regularly (I'm in Munich) and always get the going \"\"mid market\"\" exchange rate, which is better than what you get from a currency conversion service, transfer agency, or bank transfer, and there are no fees from the atm or my bank for the currency conversion or withdrawal. Of course you should check with your bank to verify their rules and fees for atm use internationally. It would also be wise to put a travel advisory on your account to be sure your transaction is not denied because you are out of country.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c04c94c58cc1e469ef411466c4daa4f9",
"text": "\"The €100'000 limit is per bank, where \"\"bank\"\" is defined as a financial institution with a banking license from one of the ECB members. \"\"WeltSparen\"\", is operated by the MHB-Bank which is a German bank, recognized by the Bundesbank. That means your money is initially guaranteed by the Bundesbank. When it's moved to the final saving account, you'll be saving at other banks, which are identified in the individual offerings. This can be an effective technique to split capitals in excess of €100.000. You should obviously look for banks that are backed by ECB member banks, but keep in mind what happened to Iceland: the national banks can also fail. In particular, the Bank of Italy at the moment is looking a bit shaky because Monte dei Paschi di Siena is currently failing and will require a bail-out. There's no official back-up for failing national banks within the ECB system.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "883cafa8f5663e43e4c96d54317ed88f",
"text": "Banks in certain countries are offering such facility. However I am not aware of any Bank in Hungary offering this. So apart from maintaining a higher amount in HUF, there by reducing the costs [and taking the volatility risks]; there aren't many options.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3a3d14531b68486b10dd13d0e195dd6c",
"text": "Surely there's more to the picture than this. Breaking the borrowing limit by going to 3.5% multiple times is surely no where near as bad as going to 18% once. On top of this there was a fundamental difference in the use of capital. Borrowing to invest (as Germany did) has been ridiculously beneficial for them.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
f7e54594b300cbaa148ca5d31b38c333
|
Legal documents required for managing an investment portfolio among friends?
|
[
{
"docid": "824ed0c6128435f4ed078a8c39c90d8c",
"text": "Sounds like you are starting an investment club. What you need is an investment club partnership agreement. Have a look at this free document. EDIT Based on OP's comments, it appears that the OP will be acting as an adviser/manager of a private investment fund. If the fund is not open to the public, it may still be treated as a type of investment club, but different rules -- including possibly having to register with the SEC -- may apply (quoted from the first link): If the adviser is compensated for providing the advice regarding the club's investments, the adviser may need to register according to the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. Also, if one person selects investments for the club, that person may have to register as an investment adviser. In general, a person who has $25 million or more in assets under management is required to register with the SEC under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. A person managing less than $25 million may be required to register under the securities laws of the state or states in which the adviser transacts business.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c3dd0b3a98a60d2b576d8b0947ba25b4",
"text": "\"You have to register with the SEC as an Investment Company. The SEC has a \"\"Investment Company Regulation and Registration Package\"\", available here: http://www.sec.gov/divisions/investment/invcoreg121504.htm I found that off their overall page for funds and advisors: http://www.sec.gov/divisions/investment.shtml Finally, bear in mind that your state may have various requirements as well.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "d97c06abad3c4a42d88565ee028e4e58",
"text": "\"It appears as others have said that companies are not required to state this on as any sort of Asset. I remembered a friend of mine is a lawyer specializing in Intellectual Property Rights so asked him and confirmed that there's no document companies are required to file which states all patent holdings as assets. There are two ways he suggested for finding out. Once you find a company you're interested in can search patents by company using one of the two following: US Patent Office website's advanced search: http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-adv.htm aanm/company for example entering into the textarea, \"\"aanm/google\"\" without the quotation marks will find patents by Google. The other is a Google Patent Search: http://www.google.com/patents/\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5123b8df803ea05319dbed3861f4c591",
"text": "There's a sizable community of people and fiscal advisers who advocate not managing the money at all. Set your passive investor friend with automatic bank draft into a simple three/four fund portfolio of low cost index funds and never never ever trade. See https://www.bogleheads.org/RecommendedReading.php You might be able to beat the stock market for a few years, but probably not over the long term. Most mutual fund professionals don't. Playing with your own money is one thing: playing with other people's money is a whole other ball game.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2051b0442778b10df3a99b7fb3ac4b96",
"text": "\"That share class may not have a ticker symbol though \"\"Black Rock MSCI ACWI ex-US Index\"\" does have a ticker for \"\"Investor A\"\" shares that is BDOAX. Some funds will have multiple share classes that is a way to have fees be applied in various ways. Mutual fund classes would be the SEC document about this if you want a government source within the US around this. Something else to consider is that if you are investing in a \"\"Fund of funds\"\" is that there can be two layers of expense ratios to consider. Vanguard is well-known for keeping its expenses low.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f22e794d25699e76013708b1fc5884b6",
"text": "Not according to the SEC: A mutual fund is an SEC-registered open-end investment company that pools money from many investors and invests the money in stocks, bonds, short-term money-market instruments, other securities or assets, or some combination of these investments. The combined securities and assets the mutual fund owns are known as its portfolio, which is managed by an SEC-registered investment adviser. Each mutual fund share represents an investor’s proportionate ownership of the mutual fund’s portfolio and the income the portfolio generates. And further down: Mutual funds are open-end funds.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1837fcec79a87c1cec6e790d17ca2387",
"text": "No. This amount of money is not appropriate for friends to go in on. Although you could consider buying a house with a business partner, have the contracts drawn up, see an attorney, read up on the penalties if one of the partners doesn't hold up their end from the law's point of view. Also, since this is a business arrangement, write and sign all sorts of details regarding the penalties amongst the partners (not just the law) when one person doesn't hold up. It isn't that you don't have good intentions, or that you couldn't do it just fine if no problems ever happen. The issue is that over the course of a mortgage, which is at least several years, something is very likely to come up. If you and your friend aren't prepared to think about all those issues and how to handle them, you will lose a friend, probably a house and your good credit. I wouldn't go into business with my best friend because I want him to stay my best friend.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4746c7f0338bf0b473f7030d7e6dc408",
"text": "You can obtain a stocklist if you file a lawsuit as a shareholder against the company demanding that you receive the list. It's called an inspection case. The company then has to go to Cede and/or the Depository Trust Company who then compiles the NOBO COBO list of beneficiary stockholders. SEC.gov gives you a very limited list of people who have had to file 13g or 13d or similar filings. These are large holders. To get the list of ALL stockholders you have to go through Cede.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "5adcb66b7facb23889a1bb9856a5e2d9",
"text": "\"It sounds like maybe you want an \"\"investment club\"\". As defined by the SEC: An investment club is a group of people who pool their money to make investments. Usually, investment clubs are organized as partnerships and, after the members study different investments, the group decides to buy or sell based on a majority vote of the members. Club meetings may be educational and each member may actively participate in investment decisions. These \"\"typically\"\" do not need to register: Investment clubs usually do not have to register, or register the offer and sale of their own membership interests, with the SEC. But since each investment club is unique, each club should decide if it needs to register and comply with securities laws. There's more information from the SEC here: http://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/invclub.htm The taxes depend on how you organized the club, i.e. if you organize as a partnership, I believe that you will be taxed as a partnership. (Not 100% sure.) Some online brokerages have special accounts specifically for investment clubs. Check around.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f95c453a4c6f86cf44211f7041719aab",
"text": "\"You are opening up a large can of worms with how you are doing this. In very positive years, you'll have taxes based on your income, potential Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), etc. Each of the family members may be in a lower bracket, perhaps even needing to pay zero on capital gains. Even if you are 100% honest, if you are subject to a lawsuit, these funds are all in your name, and you'd be in a tough situation explaining to a court that these assets aren't \"\"really\"\" yours, but belong to family. And last, the movement of large chunks of money needs to be accounted for, and can easily run afoul of gifting rules. As mhoran stated, a Power of Attorney (POA) avoids this. When my father-in-law passed, I took over my mother-in-law's finances, via POA. I sign in to my brokerage account, and her accounts are there. I can trade, deal with her Individual Retirement Account (IRA) Required Minimum Distributions (RMDs) each year, and issue checks to her long term care facility. It's all under her social security number - our money isn't intermingled.\"",
"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": "2dbf368768764be2d269986232ac2534",
"text": "Sorry, I was thinking of PCs. which are professional corporations. LLPs are limited partnerships. If he has partners, an LLP might be suitable. Again, talk to a lawyer and accountant to see what is best for your friend.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "35ed04b2dace3b1397574bc03dc60917",
"text": "\"As for the letting the \"\"wise\"\" people only make the decisions, I guess that would be a bit odd in the long run. Especially when you get more experienced or when you don't agree with their decision. What you could do, is make an agreement that always 3/4 (+/-) of the partners must agree with an investment. This promotes your involvement in the investments and it will also make the debate about where to invest more alive, fun and educational). As for the taxes I can't give you any good advice as I don't know how tax / business stuff works in the US. Here in The Netherlands we have several business forms that each have their own tax savings. The savings mostly depend on the amount of money that is involved. Some forms are better for small earnings (80k or less), other forms only get interesting with large amounts of money (100k or more). Apart from the tax savings, there could also be some legal / technical reasons to choose a specific form. Again, I don't know the situation in your country, so maybe some other folks can help. A final tip if your also doing this for fun, try to use this investment company to learn from. This might come in handy later.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9044d7c7c10689009bd3f8351e47a96a",
"text": "Audible has it. http://www.audible.com/pd/Business/How-to-Win-Friends-Influence-People-Audiobook/B002V5BV96/ref=a_search_c4_1_1_srTtl?qid=1409496635&sr=1-1 No clue on torrents. If I had to pick three for someone just starting, grab the above and One up on Wall Street and Getting to Yes. That would put you on a great path. There is a lot of garbage in the category, but On Up was my beginning investment bible in high school and Getting to Yes is something anyone should read/listen to get a better understanding of basic negotiation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e50b5bb1e442c035db4970ad52e0f7bb",
"text": "Yes, but then either of you will need the other's permission to sell the car. I strongly recommend you get an agreement on that point, in writing, and possibly reviewed by a lawyer, before entering into this kind of relationship. (See past discussions of car titles and loan cosigners for some examples of how and why this can go wrong.) When doung business with friends, treating it as a serious business transaction is the best way to avoid ruining the friendship.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a6836e3ee612b5edaa4d1ad8008ede62",
"text": "My memory served me correctly. I remember this because it was on my Series 7, so that link is misleading if you are studying for the 7. Here is the exception: > Transactions to Which the Rule is Not Applicable (Proposed FINRA Rule 2121(d)) Consistent with the initial proposal, FINRA Rule 2121(d) provides that FINRA Rule 2121 is not applicable to: (1) **the sale of securities where a prospectus** or offering circular must be delivered and the securities are sold at the specific public offering price, based on NASD IM-2440-1(d); and (2) a transaction in a non-investment grade debt security with a QIB that meets the conditions set forth in proposed FINRA Rule 2122(b)(9), which is described below. If you're studying for the 7, you will know that every mutual fund sale requires the delivery of a prospectus.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
a77a957090af8b1cef499174dafe62c1
|
Professional investment planning for small net-worth individual in bearish market
|
[
{
"docid": "8f913c481b6e6bedab9ea544c959e216",
"text": "You're going to have a hard time finding a legit investment planner that is willing to do things like take short-term positions in shorts, etc for a small investor. Doing so would put them at risk of getting sued by you for mismanagement and losing their license or affiliation with industry associations.",
"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": "1c007d2f764ed54de2b635b1ceb950c4",
"text": "\"(Leaving aside the question of why should you try and convince him...) I don't know about a very convincing \"\"tl;dr\"\" online resource, but two books in particular convinced me that active management is generally foolish, but staying out of the markets is also foolish. They are: The Intelligent Asset Allocator: How to Build Your Portfolio to Maximize Returns and Minimize Risk by William Bernstein, and A Random Walk Down Wall Street: The Time Tested-Strategy for Successful Investing by Burton G. Malkiel Berstein's book really drives home the fact that adding some amount of a risky asset class to a portfolio can actually reduce overall portfolio risk. Some folks won a Nobel Prize for coming up with this modern portfolio theory stuff. If your friend is truly risk-averse, he can't afford not to diversify. The single asset class he's focusing on certainly has risks, most likely inflation / purchasing power risk ... and that risk that could be reduced by including some percentage of other assets to compensate, even small amounts. Perhaps the issue is one of psychology? Many people can't stomach the ups-and-downs of the stock market. Bernstein's also-excellent follow-up book, The Four Pillars of Investing: Lessons for Building a Winning Portfolio, specifically addresses psychology as one of the pillars.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "22b06c17c85ae6bd7f53ec84a3db119a",
"text": "\"Not sure what your needs are or what NIS is: However here in the US a good choice for a single fund are \"\"Life Cycle Funds\"\". Here is a description from MS Money: http://www.msmoney.com/mm/investing/articles/life_cyclefunds.htm\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5b683b5c56dadebd966fea31964fadf1",
"text": "\"One alternative to bogleheadism is the permanent portfolio concept (do NOT buy the mutual fund behind this idea as you can easily obtain access to a low cost money market fund, stock index fund, and bond fund and significantly reduce the overall cost). It doesn't have the huge booms that stock plans do, but it also doesn't have the crushing blows either. One thing some advisers mention is success is more about what you can stick to than what \"\"traditionally\"\" makes sense, as you may not be able to stick to what traditionally makes sense (all people differ). This is an excellent pro and con critique of the permanent portfolio (read the whole thing) that does highlight some of the concerns with it, especially the big one: how well will it do in a world of high interest rates? Assuming we ever see a world of high interest rates, it may not provide a great return. The authors make the assumption that interest rates will be rising in the future, thus the permanent portfolio is riskier than a traditional 60/40. As we're seeing in Europe, I think we're headed for a world of negative interest rates - something in the past most advisers have thought was very unlikely. I don't know if we'll see interest rates above 6% in my lifetime and if I live as long as my father, that's a good 60+ years ahead. (I realize people will think this is crazy to write, but consider that people are willing to pay governments money to hold their cash - that's how crazy our world is and I don't see this changing.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "609df879e23f8bc656b9519af3778ac2",
"text": "Many people have provided very good answers to this question and all the answers provide sound advice and justification. Below are some of my thoughts on the questions that you have put forward. 1) The investment manager question: The returns on your capital for a half year has been quite low; having said that, some investments do take more than half year to show some growth. You could try talking to your investment manager and ask where your money has been deployed and why the returns are low. If there are no real explanation given forth (which would be more likely as you have mentioned your investment manager does not like to discuss your money with you) you should conside Xolorus & Pete's advice and forthwith take all your money from investment manager and park it in the bank till you figure out what to do next with it. 2) Finances are not my forte: At 22 finance is nobodies forte, it takes longer than that; however having said that, how do you know finance is actually not your forte? Being a computer science graduate you would be more than comfortable with the mathematics required for finance. You may not have looked seriously at finance till now (I assume by your statement). Once way to be certain about this would be self learning, some good books have been refered above and there are online information, courses and articles on the Internet, for example here. You could give some spare time and explore if finance interests you or not. 3) If finance interests you: Then consider the 30K as your seed fund and take a small portion of it say 2K and try out your hand at investing on your own in the instruments that you feel most comfortable and see how you fare, you are young enough to take the risk. Rest of the money you could put in other low risk instruments (that you have identified through self study) 4) If finance does not interest you: The probably you are better off with an investment manager, as observed above, it will take some time for you to identify him/her 5) On returns: As mentioned above different instruments produce returns differently, however, one question that is universally asked is how much return on an invetment shoule one expect (you were expecting more than $12 on your investment). It is a difficult question to answer as invetment returns and investment needs depend on a persons financial goals and risk taking profile. One way to have some measure is to take 15-20 years CAGR of the stock index return and reduce it by 2-3%, that is (in many cases, not all) a reasonable return expectation in medium-long term.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0044b61fb390a15d42caa49119414285",
"text": "I have had similar thoughts regarding alternative diversifiers for the reasons you mention, but for the most part they don't exist. Gold is often mentioned, but outside of 1972-1974 when the US went off the gold standard, it hasn't been very effective in the diversification role. Cash can help a little, but it also fails to effectively protect you in a bear market, as measured by portfolio drawdowns as well as std dev, relative to gov't bonds. There are alternative assets, reverse ETFs, etc which can fulfill a specific short term defensive role in your portfolio, but which can be very dangerous and are especially poor as a long term solution; while some people claim to use them for effective results, I haven't seen anything verifiable. I don't recommend them. Gov't bonds really do have a negative correlation to equities during periods in which equities underperform (timing is often slightly delayed), and that makes them more valuable than any other asset class as a diversifier. If you are concerned about rate increases, avoid LT gov't bond funds. Intermediate will work, but will take a few hits... short term bonds will be the safest. Personally I'm in Intermediates (30%), and willing to take the modest hit, in exchange for the overall portfolio protection they provide against an equity downturn. If the hit concerns you, Tips may provide some long term help, assuming inflation rises along with rates to some degree. I personally think Tips give up too much return when equity performance is strong, but it's a modest concern - Tips may suit you better than any other option. In general, I'm less concerned with a single asset class than with the long term performance of my total portfolio.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "64179b9abe526e78ade3da280069e512",
"text": "You are likely thinking of a individual variable insurance contract (IVIC) , better known as a segregated fund, or a principal-protected note (PPN). For a segregated fund, to get a full guarantee on invested capital, you need a 100/100 where the maturity value and death benefit are each 100% guaranteed. The PPN works similar to a long-term GIC (or CD) with a variable investment component. The thing is, neither of these things are cheap and the cost structure that is built in behind them makes it difficult to make any real above market rates of return. In both cases, if you try to break the contracts early then the guarantees are null and void and you get out what you get out.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ee81a90148d0f963fa707fa0e5631b6c",
"text": "\"The standard low-risk/gain very-short-term parking spot these days tends to be a money market account. However, you have only mentioned stock. For good balance, your portfolio should consider the bond market too. Consider adding a bond index fund to diversify the basic mix, taking up much of that 40%. This will also help stabilize your risk since bonds tend to move opposite stocks (prperhaps just because everyone else is also using them as the main alternative, though there are theoretical arguments why this should be so.) Eventually you may want to add a small amount of REIT fund to be mix, but that's back on the higher risk side. (By the way: Trying to guess when the next correction will occur is usually not a winning strategy; guesses tend to go wrong as often as they go right, even for pros. Rather than attempting to \"\"time the market\"\", pick a strategic mix of investments and rebalance periodically to maintain those ratios. There has been debate here about \"\"dollar-cost averaging\"\" -- see other answers -- but that idea may argue for investing and rebalancing in more small chunks rather than a few large ones. I generally actively rebalance once a year or so, and between those times let maintainng the balance suggest which fund(s) new money should go into -- minimal effort and it has worked quite well enough.,)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "34cd5a23fbe463b0ccd510681344e33d",
"text": "As observed above, 1.5% for 3 years is not attractive, and since due to the risk profile the stock market also needs to be excluded, there seems about 2 primary ways, viz: fixed income bonds and commodity(e,g, gold). However, since local bonds (gilt or corporate) are sensitive and follow the central bank interest rates, you could look out investing in overseas bonds (usually through a overseas gilt based mutual fund). I am specifically mentioning gilt here as they are government backed (of the overseas location) and have very low risk. Best would be to scout out for strong fund houses that have mutual funds that invest in overseas gilts, preferably of the emerging markets (as the interest is higher). The good fund houses manage the currency volatility and can generate decent returns at fairly low risk.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d5c59181eaa85ca83e4e9e3a625e3d94",
"text": "This decision depends upon a few things. I will list a couple:- 1.) What is your perception about financial markets in your time span of investments? 2.) What kind of returns are you expecting? 3.) How much liquidity do you have to take care of your daily/monthly expenses? 1.)If your perception about financial markets is weak for the near future, do not invest all your money in a mutual fund at 1 time. Because, if the market falls drastically, chances are that your fund will also lose a lot of money and the NAV will go down. On the other hand, if you think it is strong, go ahead and invest all at one time. 2.) If you are expecting very high returns in a short time frame, then SIP might not be a very good option as you are only investing a portion of your money. So, if the market goes higher, then you will make money only on what you have invested till date and also buy into the fund in the upcoming month at a higher rate( So you will get less units). 3.) If you put all your money into a mutual fund, will you have enough money to take care of your daily needs and emergencies? The worst thing about an investment is putting in all what you have and then being forced to sell in a bear market at a lower rate because you really require the money. Other option is taking a personal loan(15-16%) and taking care of your daily needs, but that would not make sense either as the average return that you can expect from a mutual fund in India is 12-13%. To summarize:- 1.) If you have money to spare and think the market is going to go higher, a mutual fund is a better option. 2.) If you have the money to spare and think that the market is going to fall, DON'T DO ANYTHING!.(It is always better to be even than lose). 3.) If you don't have the money and don't know about markets, but want to be part of it, then you can invest in an SIP because the advantages of this are if the market goes high, you make money on what you've put it, and if the market falls, you get to buy more units of the fund for a cheaper price. Eventually, you can expect to make a return of 14-15% on these, but again, INVESTMENTS ARE SUBJECT TO MARKET RISK! Please watch the funds average return over the last 10 years and their portfolio holdings. All the best!:) PS:- I am assuming you are talking about equity funds.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2268cd97ad96813139a7a735fb5a81c3",
"text": "Unfortunately, that's a call only you can make and whichever route you choose comes with advantages and disadvantages. If you manage your money directly, you may significantly reduce costs (assuming that you don't frequently trade index funds or you use a brokerage like RobinHood) and take advantage of market returns if the indexes perform well. On the other hand, if the market experiences some bad years, a professional might (and this is a huge might) have more self-discipline and prevent a panic sell, or know how to allocate accordingly both before and after a rise or fall (keep in mind, investors often get too greedy for their own good, like they tend to panic at the wrong time). As an example of why this might is important: one family member of mine trusted a professional to do this and they failed; they bought in a rising market and sold in a falling market. To avoid the above example, if you do go with the professional service, the best course of action is to look at their track record; if they're new, you might be better on your own. Since I assume this one or more professionals at the company, testing to see what they've recommended over the years might help you evaluate if they're offering you a good choice. Finally, depending on how much money you have, you could always do what Scott Adams did: he took a portion of his own money and managed it himself and tested how well he did vs. how well his professional team did (if I recall, I believe he came out ahead of his professional team). With two decades left, that may help guide you the rest of the way, even through retirement.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6c045370f584af27f067804285d8c044",
"text": "It's hard to say for smaller cap firms because they are all so different. Take a look at SandP or other rating agencies at about the BB range. Then decide how much of a buffer you'd like. If all goes to hell, do you want to be able to cover all you salaries, debt etc for three months? Six? What kind of seasonal volatility does your industry face? Do you plan on any significant investment or FTE uplift any time soon? This will all play into how much retained earnings you will chose to have.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "816947f3eceb4fe3417ce1673e77d6ea",
"text": "\"If you want a Do-It-Yourself solution, look to a Vanguard account with their total market index funds. There's a lot of research that's been done recently in the financial independence community. Basically, there's not many money managers who can outperform the market index (either S&P 500 or a total market index). Actually, no mutual funds have been identified that outperform the market, after fees, consistently. So there's not much sense in paying someone to earn you less than a low fee index fund could do. And some of the numbers show that you can actually lose value on your 401k due to high fees. That's where Vanguard comes in. They offer some of the lowest fees (if not the lowest) and a selection of index funds that will let you balance your portfolio the way you want. Whether you want to go 100% total stock market index fund or a balance between total stock market index fund and total bond index fund, or a \"\"lazy 3 fund portfolio\"\", Vanguard gives you the tools to do it yourself. Rebalancing would require about an hour every quarter. (Or time span you declare yourself). jlcollinsnh A Simple Path to Wealth is my favorite blog about financial independence. Also, Warren Buffet recommended that the trustees for his wife's inheritance when he passes invest her trust in one investment. Vanguard's S&P500 index fund. The same fund he chose in a 10 year $1M bet vs. hedge fund managers. (proceeds go to charity). That was about 9 years ago. So far, Buffet's S&P500 is beating the hedge funds. Investopedia Article\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "733bdfd0269c974184d15a1ad82c5f9a",
"text": "For a non-technical investor (meaning someone who doesn't try to do all the various technical analysis things that theoretically point to specific investments or trends), having a diverse portfolio and rebalancing it periodically will typically be the best solution. For example, I might have a long-term-growth portfolio that is 40% broad stock market fund, 40% (large) industry specific market funds, and 20% bond funds. If the market as a whole tanks, then I might end up in a situation where my funds are invested 30% market 35% industry 35% bonds. Okay, sell those bonds (which are presumably high) and put that into the market (which is presumably low). Now back to 40/40/20. Then when the market goes up we may end up at 50/40/10, say, in which case we sell some of the broad market fund and buy some bond funds, back to 40/40/20. Ultimately ending up always selling high (whatever is currently overperforming the other two) and buying low (whatever is underperforming). Having the industry specific fund(s) means I can balance a bit between different sectors - maybe the healthcare industry takes a beating for a while, so that goes low, and I can sell some of my tech industry fund and buy that. None of this depends on timing anything; you can rebalance maybe twice a year, not worrying about where the market is at that exact time, and definitely not targeting a correction specifically. You just analyze your situation and adjust to make everything back in line with what you want. This isn't guaranteed to succeed (any more than any other strategy is), of course, and has some risk, particularly if you rebalance in the middle of a major correction (so you end up buying something that goes down more). But for long-term investments, it should be fairly sound.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6133f6d083b06457fb1454a44b740a51",
"text": "These scenarios discuss the period to 2025. They assess the deep uncertainty that is paralysing decision-taking. They identify the roots of this as the failure of the social model on which the West has operated since the 1920s. Related and pending problems imply that this situation is not recoverable without major change: for example, pensions shortfalls are greater in real terms that entire expenditure on World War II, and health care and age support will treble that. Due to the prolonged recession, competition will impact complex industries earlier than expected. Social responses which seek job protection, the maintenance of welfare and also support in old age will tear at the social fabric of the industrial world. There are ways to meet this, implying a major change in approach, and a characteristic way in which to fail to respond to it in time, creating a dangerous and unstable world. The need for such change will alter the social and commercial environment very considerably. The absence of such change will alter it even more. The summary is available [here](http://www.chforum.org/scenario2012/paper-4-6.shtml) or at the foot of the link given in the header. The much richer paper is [here](http://www.chforum.org/scenario2012/paper-4-1.shtml). These scenarios are the latest in a series in a project that dates back to 1995. Over a hundred people participated from every continent, over a six month period. The working documents are available on the web.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8466c5005eb2bad187a712362c942f99",
"text": "\"Don't ignore it. If this is a non-trivial amount of money you need a lawyer. You've acknowledged that a loan exists and have personally guaranteed it, so a court can and will ultimately order you to pay. In doing so, they can put liens on your assests. Depending on the state, how the property is titled and other factors, that can include your home. If you don't have the money and are pretty much broke, try to negotiate a settlement. If they balk, you'll eventually need to start talking about bankruptcy -- that's the \"\"nuclear option\"\" and a motivator to settle. Otherwise, you need to either seriously explore bankruptcy or be prepared to lose your stuff to a judgement and having your dirty laundry aired in court. If you're not broke, but don't have liquid capital, you need to figure out a way to raise the money somehow. Again, you need to consult an attorney.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
d3136e06f45f85292cbe778b99af7465
|
What does a reorganization fee that a company charges get applied to?
|
[
{
"docid": "0f575010cfb2d70008bd14a524d90fbf",
"text": "\"Its a broker fee, not something charged by the reorganizing company. E*Trade charge $20, TD Ameritrade charge $38. As with any other bank fee - shop around. If you know the company is going to do a split, and this fee is of a significant amount for you - move your account to a different broker. It may be that some portion of the fee is shared by the broker with the shares managing services provider of the reorgonizing company, don't know for sure. But you're charged by your broker. Note that the fees differ for voluntary and involuntary reorganizations, and also by your stand with the broker - some don't charge their \"\"premier\"\" customers.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "3bdc9f43a6dbeae09b8d7384d8c5badd",
"text": "\"The first 3 are the same as owning stock in a company would be measured in shares and would constitute some percentage of the overall shares outstanding. If there are 100 shares in the company in total, then owning 80 shares is owning 80% is the same as owning 80% of the common stock. This would be the typical ownership case though there can also be \"\"Restricted stock\"\" as something to note here. Convertible debt would likely carry interest charges as well as the choice at the end of becoming stock in the company. In this case, until the conversion is done, the stock isn't issued and thus isn't counted. Taking the above example, one could have a note that could be worth 10 shares but until the conversion is done, the debt is still debt. Some convertible debt could carry options or warrants for the underlying stock as there was the Berkshire convertible notes years ago that carried a negative interest rate that was studied in \"\"The Negative Coupon Bond\"\" if you want an example here. Options would have the right but not the obligation to buy the stock where there are \"\"Incentive Stock Options\"\" to research this in more depth. In this case, one could choose to not exercise the option and thus no stock changes hands. This is where some companies will experience dilution of ownership as employees and management may be given options that put more shares out to the public. Issuing debt wouldn't change the ownership and isn't direct ownership unless the company goes through a restructuring where the creditors become the new stock holders in the case of a Chapter 11 situation in the US. Note that this isn't really investing in a small business as much as it is making a loan to the company that will be paid back in cash. If the company runs into problems then the creditor could try to pursue the assets of the company to be repaid.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "01660d563246a14fbfa3a43f9d4ef01b",
"text": "\"If you owe the money to A, and B owes you money and goes bankrupt, that has no effect whatsoever on your loan from A. Obviously. Your best bet -- while you still owe and are owed by the same company -- is either get them to agree to apply your credit to your debt (reducing it to $30,000) -- or rush to the courthouse and ask a judge to order this done. You want to do this well before the bankruptcy is filed; too close and someone could object to you having been paid preferentially or \"\"out of turn\"\" -- and claw back the money, meaning you now owe it to the bankruptcy trustee. Your debt to them is, from their perspective, an asset. It is an asset with a cash value (based on the probability of people in that portfolio paying). It can be sold to gain some immediate cash instead of more cash over a time period. This is routine in the debt world. Before or during the throes of bankruptcy, and depending on what the reorganization plan is, the bank is quite likely to sell your debt to someone else to raise cash - typically a distress sale for a fraction of its principal value (e.g. 20% or $10,000). That goes into the pool of money to pay creditors such as yourself, and if you're lucky, you'll get some of it. So good on you, you got $2000 back from the bank and now you owe someone else $50,000. I'm assuming they owe you $20,000 for IT services or because you put a new roof on their branch, or something like that. If it's money on deposit at the bank, then two things are true: First, pre-bankruptcy, you can trivially command the bank to dump the entire $20,000 into paying down the debt. Instantly: done, and irreversible. The bankruptcy trustee can't claw that back because it was never the bank's money, it was yours. Second, any civilized country has deposit insurance, which they typically implement by helping another bank buy out your bank, and continue to honor your deposits, so this is seamless and hands-off for you. Your old checks continue to work, your branch just changes their sign. This deposit insurance has limits, which is only a problem for the very rich (who are dumb enough to put over the limit in one bank).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e43bb921795f329e027fb0dbae1f7eb0",
"text": "I'm not a fan of spending time negotiating prices within the company; that's just a waste of time, but I think assigning costs appropriately is important to evaluating the segment or department performance. If the internal sales are done across borders there are tax impacts and you are required to charge a market rate. Transfer pricing is a hot topic within the accounting industry",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "687883f52451d0e23983d4a65459900d",
"text": "If I were you, I would go to the bank right now, pay the $100 and close the account. I would stop the bleeding first then consider the fallout later. Do you own the account jointly with your partner(s) as a partner or does the partnership (a separate formal entity) own the bank account with you a named representative? Those are two very different situations. If you're a joint owner, you're liable for the fees; along with your other partners in accordance with your partnership agreement. You never closed yourself off the account and that's your problem. If the dissolved partnership owns the account, you're not personally liable for the fees. You were never a personal owner of the account, now that the account is negative you don't magically become personally liable. The differences here are very nuanced and the details matter. If this were a large amount of money I'd suggest you go see a lawyer. Since this is about $100 I'd just pay it, make sure the account is closed, and move on.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "36b125836234326ebb654d8145fa9fad",
"text": "\"Fees & liabilities Yes, the first problem is that liabilities are being improperly booked. If the fee you charge is fixed upon deposit then the fee should credit \"\"Revenue\"\", the fee charged to you should be booked by crediting cash and then debiting \"\"Expenses\"\", and the remaining should be booked as a liability. If the fee is fixed upon withdrawal then this will become more complex because of the fact that a change in the fee can occur before it can be applied. In this case, the current fee should be credited as \"\"Revenue\"\" and some \"\"Allowance for fee increase\"\" should also be credited. The amount owed to the withdrawer should be booked as a liability as before. Multiple currency bookings I will assume that this is for a cryptocurrency service of some sort considering the comments in your question and your presence on bitcoin.se. Accounting can become very dangerous when mixing denominations. This is why all major accounting standards mandate books be maintained single currency. In your case, if the deposit is in USD, for example, and the liability is in BTC then two books must be maintained, one for each. To account for your operation properly using single currency accounts, the denominations must be exchanged internally and balanced across the two sets of books. For a deposit of BTC/depository of USD, the operation would be the same as described above, but then the cash should be credited away and the liabilities debited away from the USD books with simultaneous cash debits and liability credits on the BTC books. Considering the extreme volatility of cryptocurrency exchange rates, denominating accounts on the wrong set of books will quickly lead to insolvency or loss from improper accounting or both. From revenue to income Revenue can be construed as a liability since it could theoretically exist on the balance sheet. I mention this because all books, despite their name and quarter, are really simply long T accounts, like a blockchain. A blockchain could be subdivided into users' individual income statements & balance sheets, as the reverse of this concept. Revenues are credited, expenses are debited. The difference, \"\"net income\"\", is debited away with a credit to \"\"owners' equity\"\".\"",
"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": "61ca24fc9ed4a1d70bc253d5905a22d6",
"text": "\"If all of the relocation expenses are paid by your employer to the moving companies, then you should not have any tax liability for those payments. Relocation expenses should be treated as normal business expenses by your employer. Note I emphasize \"\"should\"\" because it's possible that your employer \"\"could\"\" consider it income to you, but companies generally do not go out of their way to classify normal business expenses as income since it costs both them and you more money in taxes. As a side note, the reason your company is paying these expenses directly is probably to lessen the likelihood of these expenses being questioned in an audit (in comparison to if they cut you a reimbursement check which could get more scrutiny).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "675e8fe188d7bdd7b751d4327fb5f147",
"text": "The company can not collect interest on that money. The bank that processes the company payroll will give the company lower fees to use the debit card because the bank will then be able to charge the employees fees for low balance, out of network atm, and overdraft.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5a615eaaf29fdac7979f7a831c284c25",
"text": "\"If you are talking about a home office, you don't \"\"charge\"\" the business anything. If the area is used exclusively as an office you pro-rate by square footage just the actual expenses. TurboTax recent published an article \"\"Can I Take the Home Office Deduction?\"\" which is a must read if you don't understand the process. (Note: I authored said article.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "155d0c1494db49ba22a90434bef5ccbc",
"text": "Banks, the big ones, have shareholders and the board to answer to. Credit Unions have members and the board to answer to. You become a member by joining a CU. Banks' prime objective is profit maximization, a credit union's prime objective is members' welfare. Personal experience: I didn't mind that the banks charge fees, what was frustrating was keeping up with the policy changes. Have X amount to avoid Y fees. Once you fulfill that, do something else to avoid some other fees. You miss one notice and you'll pay dearly! This constant jumping of hoops was enough to switch. Not saying CUs don't change rules, but in my opinion, not as frequently as big banks. On fee, for instance, my overdraft with my CU is $5. With BofA it was something like $35 before regulations put a cap on such ridiculous fees.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e43efd4d3a220dd0bfa96725213ba2ef",
"text": "All request and new cases are productively evaluated and screened online at Contact Us. Introductory consultations, LLC formations, and records for routine land and business exchanges are taken care of only online at prudent level expenses. A scope of Delaware llc in-office benefits after the underlying conference is offered yet at expenses higher than those cited for online things. We will keep you refreshed all through the procedure. We give steady correspondence and continuous notices as we process your incorporation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "065f69630f86e51394730e12b6f82f9b",
"text": "To sum up: My question came from misunderstanding what cost basis applies to. Now I get it that it applies to stocks as physical entities. Consider a chain of buys of 40 stock A with prices $1-$4-$10-$15 (qty 10 each time) then IRS wants to know exactly which stock I am selling. And when I transfer stocks to different account, that cost basis transfers with them. Cost basis is included in transfers, so that removes ambiguity which stock is being sold on the original account. In the example above, cost basis of 20 stocks moved to a new account would probably be $1 x 10 and $4 x 10, i.e. FIFO also applies to transfers.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e80ecc90a2504eb59cf6772db217a9bb",
"text": "I litigated several of these cases to settlement back in 2011-2013 (the cases that followed on the Wells Fargo settlement out in NDCA). Many many banks were using the same few consultants who were pitching the same few computer programs to re-order transactions in order to maximize fee revenue. It was becoming standard industry practice until Judge Alsup entered the $200mm+ judgment against Wells Fargo for their California customers. After that, lawyers did what we do and descended on any other bank doing the same thing. As part of the settlements, the banks agreed to stop reordering transactions to maximize fee revenue (typically agreeing to order deposits first, then debits as they were presented to the bank). Class action attorneys get a bad rap (sometimes justifiably so), but there are many more instances like this where we catch bad actors actually hurting people.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "505430a35e0e009f900ddb5fa2316cb6",
"text": "Well, yes it does, but just because the debt is trading at 80 cents on the dollar doesn't mean that the company can actually legally get away with paying only 80 cents on the dollar. They would have to come to an agreement with the debt holders first. And perhaps they could, but the more conservative approach is to use the book value of the debt. Or what about debt that's trading at a premium to its face value, because, say, interest rates have come down relative to the time the debt was issued? The amount that the conpany owes to the debt holders hasn't suddenly gone up.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "464e3ae477e3950b605f238bc0de4589",
"text": "\"An order is your command to the broker to, say, \"\"sell 100 shares of AAPL\"\". An executed order (or partially executed order) is when all (or some) of that command is successfully completed. A transaction is an actual exchange of shares for money, and there may be one or more transactions per executed order. For example, the broker might perform all of the following 5 transactions in order to do what you asked: On the other hand, if the broker cannot execute your order, then 0 transactions have taken place. The fee schedule you quote is saying that no matter how many transactions the broker has to perform in order to fill your order -- and no matter what the share prices are -- they're only going to charge you $0.005 per share ($0.50 in this example of 100 shares), subject to certain limits. However, as it says at the top of the page you linked, Our Fixed pricing for stocks, ETFs (Exchange Traded Products, or ETPs) and warrants charges a fixed amount per share or a set percent of trade value, and includes all IB commissions, exchange and most regulatory fees with the exception of the transaction fees, which are passed through on all stock sales. certain transaction fees are passed through to the client. The transaction fee you included above is the SEC fee on sales. Many (but not all) transaction fees DO depend on the prices of the shares involved; as a result they cannot be called \"\"fixed\"\" fees. For example, if you sell 100 shares of AAPL at $150 each, But if you sell 100 shares of AMZN at $940 each, So the broker will charge you the same $0.50 on either of those orders, but the SEC will charge you more for the expensive AMZN shares than for the cheaper AAPL shares. The reason this specific SEC fee mentions aggregate sales rather than trade value is because this particular SEC fee applies only to the seller and not to the buyer. So they could have written aggregate trade value, but they probably wanted to highlight to the reader that the fee is only charged on sells.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
96bc5d32e7a48aba928f25149531624e
|
Allocating IRA money, clarification needed
|
[
{
"docid": "ad97d7fbf17859a1d8358f48cf94d807",
"text": "There was a time that a rule of thumb stated your stock allocation should be 100-your age. That rule suggests that you are at 65%stock/35% bond/cash. If you are comfortable having this money 100% invested, the best advice would be dollar cost averaging, anything more specific would suggest market timing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fbe2d50f620b608ba7aeb2a435476890",
"text": "You're saying that you're thinking of keeping 35% in cash? If you expect the market to plummet in the next few months and then head up again, this would be a smart strategy. Hold on to a bunch of cash, then when the market hits bottom buy, then as it goes back up collect your profits. In practice, the long-term trend of the market has been up for as long as there has been a stock market. Bear markets tend to be relatively short, usually just a few months or at most a year or two before the market gets back to where it was. If you are smart enough to predict when there will be a decline and how long it will last, you're smarter than 99% of the professionals, never mind the amateurs. Personally, I keep only trivial amounts of cash. Let's see, right now about 2% of my assets. If you're more active in managing your retirement accounts -- if you really watch the market on a monthly basis or more frequently and adjust your assets according -- it would make sense to keep a larger cash reserve and use it when the market goes down. But for the average person, I think it would be a big mistake to keep anywhere near 35% of your assets in cash. In the long run, you'll probably lose out on a lot of potential growth.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0adcaf91960b5299e36faa85f8a49618",
"text": "You'll likely see several more scary market events before your autumn years. Ahhh, everyone has an opinion on this so here is mine :) If you are constrained to picking canned mutual fund products then I would target something with decent yield for two points. The third is to keep some in cash for an 'event'. I would say 65/35 at this point so invest 65% and have some liquidity for an 'opportunity'. Because the next crisis is right around the corner. But stay invested.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "95d644f53fc866a2661814b7550582cd",
"text": "As littleadv suggested, you are mixing issues. If you have earned income and are able to deduct an IRA deposit, where those actual dollars came from is irrelevant. The fact that you are taking proceeds from one transaction to deposit to the IRA is a booking entry on your side, but the IRS doesn't care. By the way, when you get that $1000 gain, the broker doesn't withhold tax, so if you take the entire $1000 and put it in the IRA, you owe $150 on one line, but save $250 elsewhere, and are still $100 to the positive on your tax return.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c7efc2dd021ddf9a2a03b9622a11cf2a",
"text": "I have managed two IRA accounts; one I inherited from my wife's 401K and my own's 457B. I managed actively my wife's 401 at Tradestation which doesn't restrict on Options except level 5 as naked puts and calls. I moved half of my 457B funds to TDAmeritrade, the only broker authorized by my employer, to open a Self Directed account. However, my 457 plan disallows me from using a Cash-secured Puts, only Covered Calls. For those who does not know investing, I resent the contention that participants to these IRAs should not be messing around with their IRA funds. For years, I left my 401k/457B funds with my current fund custodian, Great West Financial. I checked it's current values once or twice a year. These last years, the market dived in the last 2 quarters of 2015 and another dive early January and February of 2016. I lost a total of $40K leaving my portfolio with my current custodian choosing all 30 products they offer, 90% of them are ETFs and the rest are bonds. If you don't know investing, better leave it with the pros - right? But no one can predict the future of the market. Even the pros are at the mercy of the market. So, I you know how to invest and choose your stocks, I don't think your plan administrator has to limit you on how you manage your funds. For example, if you are not allowed to place a Cash-Secured Puts and you just Buy the stocks or EFT at market or even limit order, you buy the securities at their market value. If you sell a Cash-secured puts against the stocks/ETF you are interested in buying, you will receive a credit in fraction of a dollar in a specific time frame. In average, your cost to owning a stock/ETF is lesser if you buy it at market or even a limit order. Most of the participants of the IRA funds rely too much on their portfolio manager because they don't know how to manage. If you try to educate yourself at a minimum, you will have a good understanding of how your IRA funds are tied up to the market. If you know how to trade in bear market compared to bull market, then you are good at managing your investments. When I started contributing to my employer's deferred comp account (457B) as a public employee, I have no idea of how my portfolio works. Year after year as I looked at my investment, I was happy because it continued to grow. Without scrutinizing how much it grew yearly, and my regular payroll contribution, I am happy even it only grew 2% per year. And at this age that I am ready to retire at 60, I started taking investment classes and attended pre-retirement seminars. Then I knew that it was not totally a good decision to leave your retirement funds in the hands of the portfolio manager since they don't really care if it tanked out on some years as long at overall it grew to a meager 1%-4% because they managers are pretty conservative on picking the equities they invest. You can generalize that maybe 90% of IRA investors don't know about investing and have poor decision making actions which securities/ETF to buy and hold. For those who would like to remain as one, that is fine. But for those who spent time and money to study and know how to invest, I don't think the plan manager can limit the participants ability to manage their own portfolio especially if the funds have no matching from the employer like mine. All I can say to all who have IRA or any retirement accounts, educate yourself early because if you leave it all to your portfolio managers, you lost a lot. Don't believe much in what those commercial fund managers also show in their presentation just to move your funds for them to manage. Be proactive. If you start learning how to invest now when you are young, JUST DO IT!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5e6025c1beb9ef476d24e9bf4cac6ba7",
"text": "The original contribution of X to Roth IRA in your reasoning is a red herring. It doesn't exist, never happened. You recharacterized it, so what you did in reality is contribute X to Traditional IRA.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ee473ed573e363dc31cbc27f420ce4a4",
"text": "\"I think what those articles are saying is: \"\"If you want to leave some money to charity and some to relatives, don't bequeath a Roth to charity while bequeathing taxable accounts to relatives.\"\" In other words, it's not \"\"bad\"\" to leave a Roth IRA to charity, it's just not as good as giving it to humans, if there are humans you want to give money to. In your situation, the total amount you want to leave to relatives is less than the value of your Roth. So it sounds like the advice as it applies to you is: \"\"Don't leave your relatives $30K from your taxable funds while leaving the whole Roth to charity. Instead, leave $30K of your Roth to your relatives, while leaving all the taxable funds to charity (along with the leftover $20K of the Roth).\"\" In other words, the Roth is a \"\"last resort\"\" for charitable giving --- only give away Roth money to charity if you already gave humans all the money you want to give them. (I'm unsure of the details of how you would actually designate portions of the Roth for different beneficiaries, but some googling suggests it is possible.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "62d87d57d8983cfcd5b6402e797eeef7",
"text": "She is very wrong. If the IRA is a traditional, i.e. A pretax IRA (not a Roth), all withdrawals are subject to tax at one's marginal rate. Read that to mean that a large sum can easily push her into higher brackets than normal. If it stayed with her, she'd take smaller withdrawals and be able to throttle her tax impact. Once she takes it all out, and gifts it to you, no gift tax is due, but there's form 709, where it's declared, and counts against her $5.5M lifetime estate exemption. There are a few things in the world of finance that offend me as much as lawyer malpractice, going into an area they are ignorant of.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "88bb43b977aa1af15ce7a4b0fd2dbc66",
"text": "Zero. Zero is reasonable. That's what Schwab offers with a low minimum to open the IRA. The fact is, you'll have expenses for the investments, whether a commission on stock purchase or ongoing expense of a fund or ETF. But, in my opinion, .25% is criminal. An S&P fund or ETF will have a sub-.10% expense. To spend .25% before any other fees are added is just wrong.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "56c0eb30c722c9f3e6541bf13bab17b2",
"text": "\"You can have as many IRA accounts as you want (whether Roth or Traditional), so you can have a Roth IRA with American Funds and another Roth IRA with Vanguard if you like. One disadvantage of having too many IRA accounts with small balances in each is that most custodians (including Vanguard) charge an annual fee for maintaining IRA accounts with small balances but waive the fee if the balance is large. So it is best to keep your Roth IRA in just one or two funds with just one or two custodians until such time as investment returns plus additional contributions made over the years makes the balances large enough to diversify further. Remember also that you cannot contribute the maximum to each IRA; the sum total of all your IRA contributions (doesn't matter whether to Roth or to Traditional IRAs) for any year must satisfy the limit for that year. You can move money from one IRA of yours to another IRA (of the same type) of yours without any tax issues to worry about. Such movements (called rollovers or transfers) are not contributions and do not count towards the annual contribution limit. The easiest way to do move money from one IRA account to another IRA account is by a trustee-to-trustee transfer where the money goes directly from one custodian (American Funds in this case) to the other custodian (Vanguard in this case). The easiest way of accomplishing this is to call Vanguard or go online on their website, tell them that you are wanting to establish a Roth IRA with them, and that you want to fund it by transferring money held in a Roth IRA with American Funds. Give Vanguard the account number of your existing American Funds IRA, tell them how much you want to transfer over -- $1000 or $20,000 or the entire balance as the case may be -- and tell Vanguard to go get the money. In a few days' time, the money will appear in your new Vanguard Roth IRA and the American Funds Roth IRA will have a smaller balance, possibly a zero balance, or might even be closed if you told Vanguard to collect the entire balance. DO NOT approach American Funds and tell them that you want to transfer money to a new Roth IRA with Vanguard: they will bitch and moan and drag their heels about doing so because they are unhappy to lose your business, and will probably screw up the transfer. Talk to Vanguard only. They are eager to get their hands on your IRA money and will gladly take care of the whole thing for you at no charge to you. DO NOT cash in any stock shares, or mutual fund shares, or whatever is in your Roth IRA in preparation for \"\"cashing out of the old account\"\". There is a method where you take a \"\"rollover distribution\"\" from your American Funds Roth IRA and then deposit the money into your new Vanguard Roth IRA within 60 days, but I recommend most strongly against using this because too many people manage to screw it up. It is 60 days, not two months; the clock starts from the day American Funds cuts your check, not when you get the check, and it is stopped when the money gets deposited into your new account, not the day you mailed the check to Vanguard or the day that Vanguard received it, and so on. In short, DO NOT try this at home: stick to a trustee-to-trustee transfer and avoid the hassles.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5d25e0544d7c8f33c5e088114db9e920",
"text": "\"You must have $x of taxable income that year in order to make a contribution of $x to IRA for that year. It doesn't matter where the actual \"\"money\"\" that you contribute comes from -- for tax purposes, all that matters is the total amount of taxable income and the total amount of contributions; how you move your money around or divide it up is irrelevant.\"",
"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": "3fe71a2fd1b30f99e0049fe1adfe7a54",
"text": "\"So you are paying taxes on your contributions regardless, the timing is just different. I am failing to see why would a person get an IRA, instead of just putting the same amount of money into a mutual fund (like Vanguard) or something like that. What am I missing? You are failing to consider the time value of money. Getting $1 now is more valuable to you than a promise to get $1 in a year, even though the nominal amount is the same. With a certain amount of principal now, you can invest it and it will (likely) grow into a bigger amount of money (principal + earnings) at a later time, and we can consider the two to have approximately equivalent value (the principal now has the same value as the principal + earnings later). With pre-tax money in Traditional IRA, the principal + earnings are taxed once at the time of withdrawal. Assuming the same flat rate of tax at contribution and withdrawal, this is equivalent to Roth IRA, where the principal is taxed at the time of contribution, because the principal now has the same value as the principal + earnings later, so the same rate of tax on the two have the same value of tax, even though when you look at nominal amounts, it might seem you are paying a lot less tax with Roth IRA (since the earnings are never \"\"taxed\"\"). With actual numbers, if we take a $1000 pre-tax contribution to Traditional IRA, it grows at 5% for 10 years, and a 25% flat rate tax, we are left with $1000 * 1.05^10 * 0.75 = $1221.67. With the same $1000 pre-tax contribution (so after 25% tax it's a $750 after-tax contribution) to a Roth IRA, growing at the same 5% for 10 years, and no tax at withdrawal, we are left with $1000 * 0.75 * 1.05^10 = $1221.67. You can see they are equivalent even though the nominal amount of tax is different (the lower amount of tax paid now is equivalent to the bigger amount of tax later). With a taxable investment which you will not buy and sell until you take it out, you contribute with after-tax money, and when you take it out, the \"\"earnings\"\" portion is subject to capital-gains tax. But remember that the principal + earnings later is equivalent to the principal now, which is already all taxed once, and if we tax the \"\"earnings\"\" portion later, that is effectively taxing a portion of the money again. Another way to look at it is the contribution is just like the Roth IRA, but the withdrawal is worse because you have to pay capital-gains tax instead of no tax. You can take the same numbers as for the Roth IRA, $1000 * 0.75 * 1.05^10 = $1221.67, but where the $1221.67 - $750 = $471.67 is \"\"earnings\"\" and is taxed again at, say, a 15% capital-gains rate, so you lose another $70.75 in tax and are left with $1150.92. You would need a capital-gains tax rate of 0% to match the advantage of the pre-tax Traditional IRA or Roth IRA. After-tax money in Traditional IRA has a similar problem -- the contribution is after tax, but after it grows into principal + earnings, the \"\"earnings\"\" part is taxed again, except it is worse than the capital-gains case because it is taxed as regular income. Like above, you can take the same numbers as for the Roth IRA, $1000 * 0.75 * 1.05^10 = $1221.67, but where the $471.67 \"\"earnings\"\" is taxed again at 25%, so you lose another $117.92 in tax and are left with $1103.75. So although the nominal amount of tax paid is the same as for pre-tax money in Traditional IRA, it ends up being a lot worse. (Everything I said above about pre-tax money in Traditional IRA, after-tax money in Traditional IRA, and Roth IRA, also applies to pre-tax money in Traditional 401(k), after-tax money in Traditional 401(k), and Roth 401(k), respectively.) Regarding the question you raise in the title of your question, why someone would get contribute to a Traditional IRA if they already have a 401(k), the answer is, mostly, they wouldn't. First, note that if you merely have a 401(k) account but neither you nor your employer contributes to it during the year, then that doesn't prevent you from deducting Traditional IRA contributions for that year, so basically you can contribute to one or the other; so if you only want to contribute below the IRA contribution limit, and don't need the bigger 401(k) contribution limit, and the IRA's investment options are more attractive to you than your 401(k)'s, then it might make sense for you to contribute to only Traditional IRA. If you or your employer is already contributing to your 401(k) during the year, then you cannot deduct your Traditional IRA contributions unless your income is very low, and if your income is really that low, you are in such a low tax bracket that Roth IRA may be more advantageous for you. If you make a Traditional IRA contribution but cannot deduct it, it is a non-deductible Traditional IRA contribution, i.e. it becomes after-tax money in a Traditional IRA, which as I showed in the section above has much worse tax situation in the long run because its earnings are pre-tax and thus taxed again. However, there is one good use for non-deductible Traditional IRA contributions, and that is as one step in a \"\"backdoor Roth IRA contribution\"\". Basically, there is an income limit for being able to make Roth IRA contributions, but there is no income limit for being able to make Traditional IRA contributions or for being able to convert money from Traditional IRA to Roth IRA. So what you can do is make a (non-deductible) Traditional IRA contribution, and then immediately convert it to Roth IRA, and if you did not previously have any pre-tax money in Traditional IRAs, this achieves the same as a regular Roth IRA contribution, with the same tax treatment, but you can do it at any income level.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5a2cb7d76c579655e90db636cdc2c738",
"text": "There's no one answer. You need to weigh the fees and quality of investment options on the one side against the slowly vesting employer contribution and tax benefits of 401k contributions in excess of IRA limits.",
"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": "0d451afa068fba7cee2fe211e4678508",
"text": "Depending on the student loan, this may be improper usage of the funds. I know the federal loans I received years ago were to be used for education related expenses only. I would imagine most, if not all, student loans would have the same restrictions. Bonus Answer: You must have earned income to contribute to an IRA (e.g. money received from working (see IRS Publication 590 for details)). So, if your earmarked money is coming from savings only, then you would not be eligible to contribute. As far as whether you can designate student loans for the educational expenses and then used earned income for an IRA I would imagine that is fine. However, I have not found any documentation to support my assumption.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "263f0df2357af278570138ee70aab0e7",
"text": "One can have a self-directed IRA. This is not like a Schwab, eTrade, etc IRA. It has a special type of custodian that knows how to manage it. I became aware of such an account as a way to purchase a rental property. There were two issues. The type of property I looked at wasn't anything a bank was willing to finance. And the rules regarding self dealing added a potential layer of expense as I technically could not perform the simplest of things for the property. For you, the obstacle looks like self-dealing. Any IRA can only be funded with cash or transfer/conversion from another IRA/401(k). I don't know how you would get the intelligent property into the IRA in the first place. Once you own a patent, or anything else, you can't sell it into the IRA. It's at times like this that member littleadv would suggest this is the time to talk to a pro before you do anything hazardous to your wealth.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bf8c35c876684b114ccea0e62fb51dde",
"text": "Your brokerage might be cautious about allowing you to loan your IRA money in a Peer-to-Peer lending deal because it might result in a prohibited transaction (e.g. the other Peer is your son-in-law; for the purposes of IRAs, the spouse of a lineal descendant is treated the same as you, and the transaction will be treated as if you have borrowed money from your IRA). If you want to put the money into a lending club, then there might be issues of how the club is structured, e.g. who makes the decisions as to whom the money is loaned to. Such issues don't arise if you are putting the money into a money-market mutual fund, for example, but with new-fangled institutions such as lending clubs, your brokerage might just being cautious. If you want to open an IRA account directly with a lending club, check if the club offers IRA accounts at all. For this, they will likely need to have a custodian company that will handle all the IRA paperwork. For example, the custodian of IRA accounts in Vanguard mutual funds is not the fund or even Vanguard itself but a separate company named Vanguard Fiduciary Trust Company. I am sure other large firms have similar set-ups. Whether your pet Peer-to-Peer lending club has something similar set up already is something you should look into. This part of the answer applies to an earlier version of the question in which the OP said that he wanted to invest in precious metals. Be careful in what you invest in when you say you want to invest in precious metals; in refusing to buy precious metals for you in your IRA, your brokerage (as your fiduciary) might be refusing to engage in a prohibited transaction on your behalf. Investments in what are called collectibles are deemed to have been distributed to you by the IRA, and if this is an early distribution, then penalties also apply in addition to the income tax. Publication 590 says Collectibles. These include: Exception. Your IRA can invest in one, one-half, one-quarter, or one-tenth ounce U.S. gold coins, or one-ounce silver coins minted by the Treasury Department. It can also invest in certain platinum coins and certain gold, silver, palladium, and platinum bullion. So, make sure that your new IRA custodian does allow you to buy (say) titanium or Krugerrands in your IRA if that is your pleasure.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
2b42df96e1b5b357a56d3df2d3276227
|
How can I invest in US Stocks from outside the US with a credit card instead of a bank account?
|
[
{
"docid": "fe88f147ee1185df8e18652d0ffef41a",
"text": "You'll have to take cash from your Credit Card account and use that to trade. I doubt any brokerage house will take credit cards as it's trading without any collateral (since credit cards are an unsecured credit)",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "219dc33bbbdbc9a3d247d551912f5e14",
"text": "\"Your broker, Ameritrade, offers a variety of Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) that you can buy and sell with zero commission. An ETF is like a mutual fund, but you buy and sell shares the same way you buy and sell shares of stocks. From your point of view, the relevance of this is that you can buy and sell as many or as few shares as you like, even down to a single share. Note that to get the commission-free trades on the available ETFs you have to sign up for it in your account profile. Be sure to do that before you enter any buy orders. You'll want to start by looking at the Ameritrade's list of commission-free ETFs. Notice that they are divided into different categories: stocks, bonds, international, and commodities. Which categories you pick from will depend on your personal investing goals, time horizon, risk tolerance, and so on. There are lots of questions and answers on this site that talk about asset allocation. You should read them, as it is the most important decision you will make with your portfolio. The other thing you want to be aware of is the expense ratio for each fund. These expenses reduce the fund's return (they are included in the calculation of the net asset value of the shares), so lower is definitely better. Personally, I wouldn't even consider paying more than about 0.10% (commonly read \"\"10 basis points\"\" or \"\"10 bp\"\") for a broad-based domestic stock fund. For a sectoral fund you might put up with as much as 20 bp in expenses. Bond funds tend to be a little more expensive, so maybe allow as much as 25 bp, and likewise for international funds. I've never invested in commodity funds, so I'll let someone else opine on appropriate expense ratios for those. Once you've decided what funds you want (and have signed up for commission-free trades), all you have to do is enter the trade orders. The website where you manage your account has tutorials on how to do that. After that you should be all set. Good luck with your investing!\"",
"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": "55094532cddaab9387ee3ea1019fb387",
"text": "First thing to consider is that getting your hands on an IPO is very difficult unless you have some serious clout. This might help a bit in that department (http://www.sec.gov/answers/ipoelig.htm) However, assuming you accept all that risk and requirements, YES - you can buy stocks of any kind in the US even if you are a foreigner. There are no laws prohibiting investment/buying in the US stock market. What you need is to get an online trading account from a registered brokerage house in the US. Once you are registered, you can buy whatever that is offered.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5390ccf80d5ca97b63c0c6cb1002ce4d",
"text": "Yes many people operate accounts in usa from outside usa. You need a brokerage account opened in the name of your sister and then her username and password. Remember that brokerages may check the location of login and may ask security questions before login. So when your sister opens her account , please get the security questions. Also note that usa markets open ( 7.00 pm or 8.00 pm IST depending on daylight savings in usa). So this means when they close at 4:00 pm ET, it will be 1:30 or 2:30 am in India. This means it will affect your sleeping hours if you intend to day trade. Also understand that there are some day trading restrictions and balances associate. Normally brokerages need 25,000 $ for you to be a day trader. Finally CFA is not a qualification to be a trader and desire to become a trader doesn't make one a trader. TO give an analogy , just because you want to be a cricketer doesn't make you one. It needs a lot of practice and discipline.Also since in bangladesh , you will always convert the usa amount to bangladeshi currency and think of profits and losses in those terms. This might actually be bad.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "510141ac2504a9acc193963a04ec046d",
"text": "\"In the US there is only one stock market (ignoring penny stocks) and handfuls of different exchanges behind it. NYSE and NASDAQ are two different exchanges, but all the products you can buy on one can also be bought on the other; i.e. they are all the same market. So a US equities broker cannot possibly restrict access to any \"\"markets\"\" in the US because there is only one. (Interestingly, it is commonplace for US equity brokers to cheat their customers by using only exchanges where they -- the brokers -- get the best deals, even if it means your order is not executed as quickly or cheaply as possible. This is called payment for order flow and unfortunately will probably take an Act of Congress to stop.) Some very large brokers will have trading access to popular equity markets in other countries (Toronto Stock Exchange, Mexico Stock Exchange, London Stock Exchange) and can support your trades there. However, at many brokers or in less popular foreign markets this is usually not the case; to trade in the average foreign country you typically must open an account with a broker in that country.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "184b63bf1790b8e69ca079b62aebdbb5",
"text": "Open an account with a US discount online broker, or with a European broker with access to the US market. I think ETRADE allow non-resident accounts, for instance, amongst others. The brokerage will be about $10, and there is no annual fee. (So you're ~1% down out of the gate, but that's not so much.) Brokers may have a minimum transaction value but very few exchanges care about the number of shares anymore, and there is no per-share fee. As lecrank notes, putting all your savings into a single company is not prudent, but having a flutter with fun money on Apple is harmless. Paul is correct that dividend cheques may be a slight problem for non-residents. Apple don't pay dividends so there's no problem in this specific case. More generally your broker will give you a cash account into which the dividends can go. You may have to deal with US tax which is more of an annoyance than a cost.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9b01a421429388d4440dfa1ad69ed3c9",
"text": "Your wife could open a non-registered margin trading account with a Canadian full-service or discount broker. An account at one of the top Canadian brokers should provide access to trade U.S.-listed options. I've traded both Canadian and U.S.-listed options with my own broker. On the application, you'd need to indicate an interest in trading options, and more specifically, what kind of option trades; e.g. long puts and calls only, covered writing, combination trades, etc. And yes, part of the application approval process (at least when I went through it) is to answer a few questions to prove that the applicant is aware of the types of risks with trading options. Be sure to do some research on the fees and currency/fx aspects before you choose a broker. If you plan to exercise any options purchased or expect to be assigned for any you write, be aware that those fees are often different from the headline cost-per-trade advertised by brokers. For instance, I pay in excess of $40 when a call option I write gets assigned, vs. ~$10 that I'd pay if I just plain sold the stock. One other thing to investigate is what kind of online option trading research and order entry tools are available; not every broker has the same set of features with respect to options — especially if it isn't a big part of their business.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "68e8dd4cb04f33ac12a48e82504d96dc",
"text": "If you wanted to spend money in another country, a specialist credit card would be the most cost-effective way. Near-spot exchange rate, zero-loading, no/low ATM fees. Likewise a pre-paid debit card would also allow for money transfer across borders. If this is the right situation, FOREX trading platforms are overkill to achieve a valid solution.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f3abf524688025b980ad223313b4ca8a",
"text": "\"Not every American credit card charges Foreign Currency conversion fees. I won't mention the specific one I know about as I'm not interested in shilling for them. However, if you Google \"\"No foreign transaction fee\"\" you will find a couple of options.\"",
"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": "3e89d3c295686a29498edd78227a5181",
"text": "Take a look at Everbank. They offer CDs and Money Market Accounts denominated in Euros for US residents. https://www.everbank.com/personal/foreign-currencies.aspx",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "924c06ef4114ce9a9f421443152b2e88",
"text": "\"As previously answered, the solution is margin. It works like this: You deposit e.g. 1'000 USD at your trading company. They give you a margin of e.g. 1:100, so you are allowed to trade with 100'000 USD. Let's say you buy 5'000 pieces of a stock at $20 USD (fully using your 100'000 limit), and the price changes to $20.50 . Your profit is 5000* $0.50 = $2'500. Fast money? If you are lucky. Let's say before the price went up to 20.50, it had a slight dip down to $19.80. Your loss was 5000* $0.2 = 1'000$. Wait! You had just 1000 to begin with: You'll find an email saying \"\"margin call\"\" or \"\"termination notice\"\": Your shares have been sold at $19.80 and you are out of business. The broker willingly gives you this credit, since he can be sure he won't loose a cent. Of course you pay interest for the money you are trading with, but it's only for minutes. So to answer your question: You don't care when you have \"\"your money\"\" back, the trading company will always be there to give you more as long as you have deposit left. (I thought no one should get margin explained without the warning why it is a horrible idea to full use the ridiculous high margins some broker offer. 1:10 might or might not be fine, but 1:100 is harakiri.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "60a9f5107226f646e8d26736cf930801",
"text": "\"Don't do it until you have educated yourself enough to know what you are doing. I hope you won't take this personally, but given that you are wandering around asking random strangers on the Internet how to \"\"get into investing,\"\" I feel safe in concluding that you are by no means a sophisticated enough investor to be choosing individual investments, nor should you be trusting financial advisors to choose investments for you. Believe me, they do not have your interests at heart. I usually advise people in your position to start by reading one book: A Random Walk Down Wall Street by Burton Malkiel. Once you've read the book by Malkiel you'll understand that the best strategy for all but the most sophisticated investors is to buy an index fund, which simply purchases a portfolio of ALL available stocks without trying to pick winners and losers. The best index funds are at Vanguard (there is also a Vanguard site for non-US residents). Vanguard is one of the very, very, very few honest players in the business. Unlike almost any other mutual fund, Vanguard is owned by its investors, so it has no profit motive. They never try to pick individual stocks, so they don't have to pay fancy high-priced analysts to pick stocks. If you find it impossible to open a Vanguard account from wherever you're living, find a local brokerage account that will allow you to invest in the US stock market. Many Vanguard mutual funds are available as ETFs which means that you buy and sell them just like any other stock on the US market, which should be easy to do from any reasonably civilized place.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "fcd9990896be0b5c627ec5da25a4af72",
"text": "I think George's answer explains fairly well why the brokerages don't allow this - it's not an exchange rule, it's just that the brokerage has to have the shares to lend, and normally those shares come from people's margin, which is impossible on a non-marginable stock. To address the question of what the alternatives are, on popular stocks like SIRI, a deep In-The-Money put is a fairly accurate emulation of an actual short interest. If you look at the options on SIRI you will see that a $3 (or higher) put has a delta of -$1, which is the same delta as an actual short share. You also don't have to worry about problems like margin calls when buying options. The only thing you have to worry about is the expiration date, which isn't generally a major issue if you're buying in-the-money options... unless you're very wrong about the direction of the stock, in which case you could lose everything, but that's always a risk with penny stocks no matter how you trade them. At least with a put option, the maximum amount you can lose is whatever you spent on the contract. With a short sale, a bull rush on the stock could potentially wipe out your entire margin. That's why, when betting on downward motion in a microcap or penny stock, I actually prefer to use options. Just be aware that option contracts can generally only move in increments of $0.05, and that your brokerage will probably impose a bid-ask spread of up to $0.10, so the share price has to move down at least 10 cents (or 10% on a roughly $1 stock like SIRI) for you to just break even; definitely don't attempt to use this as a day-trading tool and go for longer expirations if you can.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
6524c02acec59d78d880043de8f64e88
|
How to tell if an option is expensive
|
[
{
"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": "869bea64afaf453a4d2e013c925e62f7",
"text": "One way is to compare the implied volatility with the realised volatility over a period similar to the time left to expiry. However there are plenty of reasons why the implied may be higher than the historical, for example because the market volatility has increased overall or because the underlying company is going to report their results before the option expires.",
"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": "f0a6ae037fbb51b1c3c62cad032ee4ce",
"text": "I'm not positive my answer is complete, but from information on my broker's website, the following fees apply to a US option trade (which I assume you're concerned with given fee in dollars and the mention of the Options Clearing Corporation): They have more detail for other countries -- see https://www.interactivebrokers.co.uk/en/index.php?f=commission&p=options1 for North America. Use the sub-menu near the top of the page to pick Europe or Asia. The brokerage-charged commission for this broker is as low as $0.25 per contract with a $1.00 minimum. Though I've been charged less than $1 to STO an options position, as well as less than $1 to BTC an options position, so not sure about that minimum. Regarding what I read as your overall underlying question (why are option fees so high), in my research this broker has one of the cheapest commission rates on options I've ever seen. When I participate in certain discussions, I'm routinely told that these fees are unbelievable and that $5.95, $7.95, or even $9.95 are considered low fees. I've heard this so much, and discussed commissions with enough people who've refused to switch brokers, that I conclude there just isn't enough competition to drive prices lower. If most people won't switch brokers to go from $9.95 to $1 per trade, there simply isn't a reason to lower rates.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "73ba7fddc5657098f06a536c734a6205",
"text": "Yes, past option prices are available for many options, but as far as I know not for free. You can get them from, for example, OptionMetrics. Probably there are other providers as well, which may be cheaper for an individual or small institution. OptionMetrics data comes from the National Best Bid and Offer. Probably there are some over-the-counter options that are not included here, but for someone asking this question, OptionMetrics will most likely have the option you are interested in.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e9cf9dd3dcd45697a09d165c0c5ed726",
"text": "Power Options is one such example of what you seek, not cheap, but one good trade will recover a year's fee. There's a lot you can do with the stock price alone as most options pricing will follow Black Scholes. Keep in mind, this is a niche, these questions, while interesting to me, generate little response here.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6bf6a14a1513d13c389d1123443d40fb",
"text": "\"P/E is a useful tool for evaluating the price of a company, but only in comparison to companies in similar industries, especially for industries with well-defined cash flows. For example, if you compared Consolidated Edison (NYSE:ED) to Hawaiian Electric (NYSE:HE), you'll notice that HE has a significantly higher PE. All things being equal, that means that HE may be overpriced in comparison to ED. As an investor, you need to investigate further to determine whether that is true. HE is unique in that it is a utility that also operates a bank, so you need to take that into account. You need to think about what your goal is when you say that you are a \"\"conservative\"\" investor and look at the big picture, not a magic number. If conservative to you means capital preservation, you need to ensure that you are in investments that are diversified and appropriate. Given the interest rate situation in 2011, that means your bonds holding need to be in short-duration, high-quality securities. Equities should be weighted towards large cap, with smaller holdings of international or commodity-associated funds. Consider a target-date or blended fund like one of the Vanguard \"\"Life Strategy\"\" funds.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "06199f176acd73e7794e04c4be1ced82",
"text": "From what I see, it is more like .70 per contract, with a $1 minimum (for options that trade over a dime.) IB does not provide any help, at all, so you have to know what you are doing. I use tradeking, which charges about $6 for a contract, but you can call them for help if needed. There looks to be other fees for IB, like when you cancel an order, but that can be offset by other trades. It is one of the reason the Motley Fool Stock Adviser service has recommended IB for an investment.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5171a95db59f59c3e0215c4bef9d21e2",
"text": "I can often get the option at [a] price [between bid and ask] The keyword you use here is quite relevant: often. More realistically, it's going to be sometimes. And that's just how supply and demand should work. The ask is where you know you can buy right away. If you don't wanna buy at ask, you can try and put a higer bid but you can only hope someone will take it before the price moves. If prices are moving up fast, you will have missed a chance if you gambled mid-spread. Having said that, the larger the spread is, the more you should work with limits mid-spread. You don't want to just take ask or bid with illiquid options. Make a calculation of the true value of the option (i.e. using the Black Scholes Model), then set your bid around there. Of course, if not only the option but also the underlying is illiquid, this all gets even more difficult.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "adebc6f97829d7aef018c0582f2976c3",
"text": "ode2k noted the liquidity can very wildly especially 9 months out and there will be little volume even in the largest stocks. Victor noted standard measures of liquidity don't always apply cleanly to options as they are priced using a hybrid of model and market inputs. So your question is generally very hard to answer on SE, but you can get an answer yourself without too much trouble. The best way to get a feel for slippage in your case is to just get quotes. Most systems should let you get a quote for both buying and selling options at the same time. This will give you a feeling for how much you are paying in spread. Do the same for near dated options to get a feeling for spread size when you end up selling. You should factor in some widening of spreads at bad times, but this should get you a feeling for the scale of the slippage problem.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9a52969d6de27e78057142e53b34db9c",
"text": "You're realizing the perils of using a DCF analysis. At best, you can use them to get a range of possible values and use them as a heuristic, but you'll probably find it difficult to generate a realistic estimate that is significantly different than where the price is already.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "04bfc87cb156f3d2cd6b402f7d5d60ca",
"text": "Sounds to me like you're describing just how it should work. Ask is at 30, Bid is at 20; you offer a new bid at 25. Either: Depending on liquidity, one or the other may be more likely. This Investorplace article on the subject describes what you're seeing, and recommends the strategy you're describing precisely. Instead of a market order, take advantage of the fact that the options world truly is a marketplace — one where you can possibly get a better price just by asking. How does that work? If you use a limit order (instead of a market order) when opening a position, you can tell your broker how much you are willing to pay to enter a trade. For example, if you enter a limit price of $1.15, you can see whether the market-maker will bite. You will be surprised at how many times you will get your price (i.e., $1.15) instead of the ask price of $1.30. If your order at $1.15 is not filled after a few minutes, you can modify your order and pay the ask price by entering a market order or limit order at the ask price (that is, you can tell your broker to pay no more than $1.30).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bf0daa4cff8d959a279c6cc91d5bcc87",
"text": "\"You can interpret prices in any way you wish, but the commonly quoted \"\"price\"\" is the last price traded. If your broker routes those orders, unlikely because they will be considered \"\"unfair\"\" and will probably be busted by the exchange, the only way to drive the price to the heights & lows in your example is to have an overwhelming amount of quantity relative to the order book. Your orders will hit the opposing limit orders until your quantity is exhausted, starting from the best price to the worst price. This is the functional equivalent to a market order.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "786c95e1d4f564b1d1cad2e7b6dd075f",
"text": "The answer is actually very simple: the cost of data. Seriously. Call the CBOE tomorrow and ask yourself. They have two big programs: 1) the penny pilot program, where options trade at penny increments instead of 5 cent increments. This is only extended to a select few symbols because of the amount of data this can generate is too much for the data vendors. Data vendors store and sell historical data. The exchanges themselves often have a big data vending business too. 2) the weekly options program, where only select symbols get these chains because of the amount of data they will generate. Liquidity and demand are factors in determining if the CBOE will consider enabling those series on new issues. (although they have to give the list of which symbols are on these programs to the SEC)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "04ec120e0fd5643d3973311263ebe429",
"text": "\"Often you are right, and the current information is \"\"priced in\"\", but I would say in times of market boom like this that the market can definitely overprice. Price is driven by trades/last trade. Someone may be willing to pay X, and do so, making the price now X, but that does not mean it is worth X. You could very well be paying a premium for it's perceived desirability. This is why investors/analysts spend time and energy on valuations, they want to compare the markets current price to what the price theoretically should/would be if it were purely driven by the data, in effect trying to remove sentiment from the equation to gain a more realistic idea of what a company is worth. Side note adding on that, don't mistake this as saying one should pay a lot of attention to analysts or their price targets, though analysts do have insightful things to say.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5d7ecf7c5d091ee8984b5ed7a27e6fa4",
"text": "So, child, your goal is to make money? This is usually achieved by selling goods (say, lemonade) at a price that exceeds their cost (say, sugar, water and, well, lemons). Options, at first, are very much same in that you can buy the right to engage in a specific future trade. You make money in this situation if the eventual returns from the scheduled trade cover the cost of purchasing the option. Otherwise you can simply opt out of the trade -- you purchased the right to trade, after all, not any type of obligation. Makes sense? Good. Because what follows is what makes options a little different. That is, if you sell that same right to engage in a specific trade the situation is seemingly reversed: you lock in your return at the outset, but the costs aren't fully realized until the trade is either consumed or declined by the owner of the option. And keep in mind that it is always the owner of the option who is in the driver's seat; they may sell the option, hold on to it and do nothing, or use it to engage in the anticipated trade. And that's really all there's to it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "87762fba6c108480835b5f9945920f30",
"text": "\"I look for buying a call option only at the money, but first understand the background above: Let's suppose X stock is being traded by $10.00 and it's January The call option is being traded by $0.20 with strike $11.00 for February. (I always look for 2% prize or more) I buy 100 stocks by $10.00 each and sell the option, earning $0.20 for each X stock. I will have to deliver my stocks by $11.00 (strike value agreed). No problem for me here, I took the prize plus the gain of $1.00. (continuing from item 3) I still can sell the option for the next month with strike equal or higher than that I bought. For instance, I can sell a call option of strike $10.00 and it might be worth to deliver stocks by $10.00 and take the prize. (continuing from item 3) Probably, it won't be possible to sell a call option with strike at the price that I paid for the stock, but that's not a problem. At the end of the option life (in February), the strike was $11.00 but the stock's price is $8.00. I got the $0.20 as prize and my stocks are free for trade again. I'll sell the call option for March with strike $9.00 (taking around 2% of prize). Well, I don't want to sell my stocks by $9.00 and make loss, right? But I'm selling the call option anyway. Then I wait till the price of the stock gets near the strike value (almost ATM) and I \"\"re-buy\"\" the option sold (Example: [StockX]C9 where C means month = March) and sell again the call option with higher strike to April (Example [StockX]D10, where D means month = April) PS.: At item 9 there should be no loss between the action of \"\"re-buy\"\" and sell to roll-out to the next month. When re-buying it with the stock's price near the strike, option value for March (C9) will be lower than when selling it to April (D10). This isn't any rule to be followed, this is just a conservative (I think they call it hedge) way to handle options and stocks. Few free to make money according to your goals and your style. The perfect rule is the one that meet your expectation, don't take the generalized rules too serious.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
4f3d3bac97132bdedb478860d43d637f
|
Will a stop order get triggered if the floor is hit and trading is halted?
|
[
{
"docid": "f262d709888908d6bdfc25181e75d2eb",
"text": "During a circuit breaker, no trading occurs. These policies have been implemented to maintain exchange liquidity since the NYSE nearly went bankrupt during the 1987 crash because many members had become insolvent. If an order is filled before the halt, it will stand unless busted. During the Flash Crash, many orders were busted.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "14bb5604f85fc6db8e03265d2d756448",
"text": "quantycuenta is right, if a halt is in place, then no trading will occur, simple as that. But in the practice of risk management it is a little different. Want to remind you that you are assuming that trading is halted immediately upon the drop in price. That doesn't always happen, so if there is any time between the actual price drop and halt of trading, then it is possible that your order will be filled, depending on how liquid your security is. Also not every security has circuit breakers in place and the exact requirements to trigger a breaker is not public information. In some cases, trades are ordered to be rolled back (reversed) by the exchange but this is usually reserved for institutional traders who make some sort of mistake. This article below mentions day traders who bought at or near the bottom of the May 6, 2010 flash crash. This was before circuit breakers but I think it's a good story for someone looking to understand the finer workings of the electronic market. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/book-takes-a-look-inside-professional-day-traders-1339513989350",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "37c41674cbb1ba864f913bcb17ba5cf5",
"text": "\"EDIT: It was System Disruption or Malfunctions August 24, 2015 2:12 PM EDT Pursuant to Rule 11890(b) NASDAQ, on its own motion, in conjunction with BATS, and FINRA has determined to cancel all trades in security Blackrock Capital Investment. (Nasdaq: BKCC) at or below $5.86 that were executed in NASDAQ between 09:38:00 and 09:46:00 ET. This decision cannot be appealed. NASDAQ will be canceling trades on the participants behalf. A person on Reddit claimed that he was the buyer. He used Robinhood, a $0 commission broker and start-up. The canceled trades are reflected on CTA/UTP and the current charts will differ from the one posted below. It is an undesired effect of the 5-minute Trading Halt. It is not \"\"within 1 hour of opening, BKCC traded between $0.97 and $9.5\"\". Those trades only occurred for a few seconds on two occasions. One possible reason is that when the trading halt ended, there was a lot of Market Order to sell accumulated. Refer to the following chart, where each candle represents a 10 second period. As you can see, the low prices did not \"\"sustain\"\" for hours. And the published halts.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7bee16dbc6399156761aef1df1bf3748",
"text": "Limit books are managed by exchanges. If an order is not immediately filled, it is sent to the book. From there, orders are generally executed on price-time-priority. The one major exception is the precedence hide-not-slide orders have over earlier placed visible slidden limit orders since unslidden orders are treated like a modification/cancellation. To an exchange, a modification is the same as a cancellation since it charges no fees for placing or canceling orders, only for trades. The timestamp is reset, and price-time-priority is applied in the same way, so if a modified order isn't immediately filled, it is sent back to the book to be filled in order of price-time-priority.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0c7d88593f9a6f3ff7634377f2856e23",
"text": "On most exchanges, if you place a limit order to sell at 94.64, you will be executed before the market can trade at a higher price. However most stocks in the US trade across several exchanges and your broker won't place your limit order on all exchanges (otherwise you could be executed several times). The likeliest reason for wht happened to you is that your order was not on the market where those transactions were executed. Reviewing the ticks, there were only 8 transactions above your limit, all at 1:28:24, for a total 1,864 shares and all on the NYSE ARCA exchange. If your order was on a different exchange (NYSE for example) you would not have been executed. If your broker uses a smart routing system they would not have had time to route your order to ARCA in time for execution because the market traded lower straight after. Volume at each price on that day:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bbc2d0edf764253249ccd634b126769d",
"text": "As mentioned in the comments: According to the message from the exchange all trades at or below $5.86 that were executed in NASDAQ between 09:38:00 and 09:46:00 ET got canceled. If the short doesn't fall into those criteria but the long does, though luck the long is invalid, the short is valid. Traders that got the short end of the stick in the end, should contact their brokers and inquire about this situation. Depending on the terms of the broker the short might get canceled as well. If not, then it's up to the market. The trader can keep or close the short. IMO, what the person in question should have done is hold on to the trade and see what happens at the end of the trading day. He should've realized something was wrong when the price went from 8.xx to 0.8x.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e01ba922d7ea855c553ceb16ca5aee1f",
"text": "If the stock has dropped from $10 to $2 and now is range trading between $2 and $3, and you were not able to sell your shares earlier, then I would no be holding on to them now. As soon as the price hit $3 sell them. After you have sold them and you noticed the stock still range trading one strategy you could apply is to go long after the price bounces off the $2 support placing a stop just below $2, then as the price moves up you trail your stop up with the price. As it starts getting close to $3 tighten your stop. If it keeps range trading and bounces off the resistance at $3 and you get stopped out, you can either go short and reverse the process or wait for it to bounce off the support at $2 again. One word of warning though, the longer a stock range trades, the bigger the outbreak out of the rage (either up or down) will be, that is the reason why you should first wait for confirmation that the price has bounced off support/resistance before opening a position, and secondly why you should use a stop loss to get you out instead of just selling when it hits $3, because if it breaks through $3 you can continue profiting as it moves up.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "533b59d140181ceef084439bb6e71280",
"text": "Is this due to the delay? Yes, but the delay is caused by your broker and its affiliates. Trailing Stop Order is not exchange native, meaning that the broker is responsible for keeping track of whether the stop price has been reached, and the broker is responsible for sending the subsequent Market Order to the exchange. For certain exchange, even Stop Order or Stop Limit Order is not exchange native. Is it common to be so different? No, only in times of extreme volatility.",
"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": "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": "adea11b9d79992d36ec5bcd0b33fb64e",
"text": "why not just use a conditional order (http://www.investopedia.com/university/intro-to-order-types/conditional-orders.asp)? Like a one triggers one order? an order like this lets you place a buy order for the stock and if its executed another order is automatically placed. you could choose to let your second order be a stop order. so here's a company that offers stuff like this as an ex. (https://www.tradeking.com/education/tools/one-triggers-other-order)",
"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": "381a1ce7e502b1f9c4471e7dd0327f12",
"text": "\"This is called a Contingent Order and is set up so if one order is filled (in this case) the other order is cancelled. It's a common desire that one would wish to have a stop-loss in place but also a targeted sell price for their in-the-money sell point. Your broker will tell you all you need to know about how to enter this, if you explain you'd like to place a contingent order. (As Victor noted below, your specific order would be a \"\"One Cancels Other\"\" or \"\"OCO\"\") Great first question, welcome to Money,SE.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "661a82ae2d2703de1f52515e29710b2d",
"text": "Stop orders and stop limit orders typically do not execute during extended hours after the general market session has closed. Stop orders are market orders and market orders especially are not executed during extended hours. Although there are exceptions because a broker can say one thing and do another thing with the way order types are presented to customers vs what their programming actually does. The regulatory burden is a slap on the wrist, so you need to ask the broker what their practices are. Orders created during normal market hours do not execute in extended sessions, different orders would have to be made during the extended session. Your stop order should execute if the normal market hour price stays below your stop price. So a stop limit would actually be worse here, because a stop limit will create a limit order which may never get hit (since it is above the best bid best ask)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b2d49493cbcba625a15968c4ed511439",
"text": "This is to protect your position in specific highly volatile market conditions. If the stock is free falling and you only have a stop order at $90, it's possible that this order could be filled at $50 or even less. The limit is to protect you from that, as there are certain very specific times where it's better to just hold the stock instead of taking a huge loss (ie when price is whipsawing).",
"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": "c1d1d1731885d263af747739da2f2a3b",
"text": "The strategy could conceivably work if you had sufficient quantity of shares to fill all of the outstanding buy orders and fill your lower buy orders. But in this case you are forcing the market down by selling and reinforcing the notion that there is a sell off by filling ever lower buy orders. There is the potential to trigger some stop loss orders if you can pressure it low enough. There is a lot of risk here that someone sees what you are doing and decides to jump in and buy forcing the price back up. Could this work sure. But it is very risky and if you fail to create the panic selling then you risk losing big. I also suspect that this would violate SEC Rules and several laws. And if the price drops too far then trading on the stock would be halted and is likely to return at the appropriate price. Bottom line I can not see a scenario where you do not trigger the stop, net a profit and end up with as many or more stock that you had in the first place.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
ecc9aeee59c670b129b005d11bceb636
|
How to record a written put option in double-entry accounting?
|
[
{
"docid": "c1b97df8f72eb9db4c987059358d87ac",
"text": "\"Because you've sold something you've received cash (or at least an entry on your brokerage statement to say you've got cash) so you should record that as a credit in your brokerage account in GnuCash. The other side of the entry should go into another account that you create called something like \"\"Open Positions\"\" and is usually marked as a Liability account type (if you need to mark it as such). If you want to keep an accurate daily tally of your net worth you can add a new entry to your Open Positions account and offset that against Income which will be either negative or positive depending on how the position has moved for/against you. You can also do this at a lower frequency or not at all and just put an entry in when your position closes out because you bought it back or it expired or it was exercised. My preferred method is to have a single entry in the Open Positions account with an arbitrary date near when I expect it to be closed and each time I edit that value (daily or weekly) so I only have the initial entry and the current adjust to look at which reduces the number of entries and confusion if there are too many.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "2328833836397e7b0dd33404beb1c97f",
"text": "You're correct in your implied point: Selling a cash secured put has less risk (in terms of both volatility and maximum loss) than buying the security outright. However, many brokerages don't allow cash-secured put writing in IRA accounts. There are three reasons this tends to be the case:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aa1f9c1214d7c33fb2a1e73c46fcb482",
"text": "\"You don't. No one uses vanilla double entry accounting software for \"\"Held-For-Trading Security\"\". Your broker or trading software is responsible for providing month-end statement of changes. You use \"\"Mark To Market\"\" valuation at the end of each month. For example, if your cash position is -$5000 and stock position is +$10000, all you do is write-up/down the account value to $5000. There should be no sub-accounts for your \"\"Investment\"\" account in GNUCash. So at the end of the month, there would be the following entries:\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bf7662a065b8944e12c197ad5175fda5",
"text": "\"A few practical thoughts: A practical thing that helps me immensely not to loose important paperwork (such as bank statements, bills, payroll statement, all those statements you need for filing tax return, ...) is: In addition to the folder (Aktenordner) where the statements ultimately need to go I use a Hängeregistratur. There are also standing instead of hanging varieties of the same idea (may be less expensive if you buy them new - I got most of mine used): you have easy-to-add-to folders where you can just throw in e.g. the bank statement when it arrives. This way I give the statement a preliminary scan for anything that is obviously grossly wrong and throw it into the respective folder (Hängetasche). Every once in a while I take care of all my book-keeping, punch the statements, file them in the Aktenordner and enter them into the software. I used to hate and never do the filing when I tried to use Aktenordner only. I recently learned that it is well known that Aktenordner and Schnellhefter are very time consuming if you have paperwork arriving one sheet at a time. I've tried different accounting software (being somewhat on the nerdy side, I use gnucash), including some phone apps. Personally, I didn't like the phone apps I tried - IMHO it takes too much time to enter things, so I tend to forget it. I'm much better at asking for a sales receipt (Kassenzettel) everywhere and sticking them into a calendar at home (I also note cash payments for which I don't have a receipt as far as I recall them - the forgotten ones = difference ends up in category \"\"hobby\"\" as they are mostly the beer or coke after sports). I was also to impatient for the cloud/online solutions I tried (I use one for business, as there the archiving is guaranteed to be according to the legal requirements - but it really takes far more time than entering the records in gnucash).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c7a0db3a6ebee00e142ce84292f72158",
"text": "There are two basic issues here. First, there is the difference between accounting terms and their dictionary definitions. Second, once you dig into it there are dichotomies similar to put vs call options, long sales vs short sales, bond yield vs interest rate. (That is, while they are relatively simple ideas and opposite sides of the same coin, it will probably take some effort to get comfortable with them.) The salient points from the Wikipedia article on debits and credits: In double-entry bookkeeping debit is used for increases in asset and expense transactions and credit is used for increases in a liability, income (gain) or equity transaction. For bank transactions, money deposited in a checking account is treated as a credit transaction (increase) and money paid out is treated as a debit transaction, because checking account balances are bank liabilities. If cash is deposited, the cash becomes a bank asset and is treated as a debit transaction (increase) to a bank asset account. Thus a cash deposit becomes two equal increases: a debit to cash on hand and a credit to a customer's checking account. Your bank account is an asset to you, but a liability to your bank. That makes for a third issue, namely perspective.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "f2bee9d464e259fa7b7b4558c1080986",
"text": "I'm assuming this was a cashless exercise because you had income show up on your w-2. When I had a similar situation, I did the following: If you made $50,000 in salary and $10,000 in stock options then your W-2 now says $60,000. You'll record that on your taxes just like it was regular income. You'll also get a form that talks about your stock sale. But remember, you bought and sold the stock within seconds. Your forms will probably look like this: Bought stock: $10,000 Sold stock: $10,000 + $50 commission Total profit (loss): ($50) From the Turbotax/IRS view point, you lost $50 on the sale of the stock because you paid the commission, but the buy and sell prices were identical or nearly identical.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d2ecc077203c74417c448dd706889ea5",
"text": "hledger is a free software, cross-platform double-entry accounting tool I've been working on for a while. It has command-line and web-based interfaces to your local data, and some other interesting features. There's also ledger (http://wiki.github.com/jwiegley/ledger/) which is command-line only. These are.. different, but worth a look for some folks.",
"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": "94ddf1032cb45bb5c777b866ae873592",
"text": "\"I found your post while searching for this same exact problem. Found the answer on a different forum about a different topic, but what you want is a Cash Flow report. Go to Reports>Income & Expenses>Cash Flow - then in Options, select the asset accounts you'd like to run the report for (\"\"Calle's Checking\"\" or whatever) and the time period. It will show you a list of all the accounts (expense and others) with transactions effecting that asset. You can probably refine this further to show only expenses, but I found it useful to have all of it listed. Not the prettiest report, but it'll get your there.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8f39fca14ea7afb4292fba4707c494ce",
"text": "Your account entries are generally correct, but do note that the last transaction is a mixture of the balance sheet and income statement. If Quickbooks doesn't do this automatically then the expense must be manually removed from the balance sheet. The expense should be recognized on the balance sheet and income statement when it accrues, and it accrues when the prepaid rent is extinguished when consumed by the landlord, so that is when the second entry in your question should be booked. The cash flow statement will reflect all of these cash transactions immediately.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bc07ec18c9fb03eee7559c16f4f7175e",
"text": "Strictly speaking the terms arise from double entry book keeping terminology, and don't exactly relate to their common English usage, which is part of the confusion. All double entry book keeping operations consist of a (debit, credit) tuple performed on two different books (ledgers). The actual arithmetic operation performed by a debit or a credit depends on the book keeping classification of the ledger it is performed on. Liability accounts behave the way you would expect - a debit is subtraction, and a credit is addition. Asset accounts are the other way around, a debit is an addition, and a credit is a subtraction. The confusion when dealing with banks, partly comes from this classification, since while your deposit account is your asset, it is the bank's liability. So when you deposit 100 cash at the bank, it will perform the operation (debit cash account (an asset), credit deposit account). Each ledger account will have 100 added to it. Similarly when you withdraw cash, the operation is (credit cash, debit deposit). However the operation that your accountant will perform on your own books, is the opposite, since the cash was your asset, and now the deposit account is. For those studying math, it may also help to know that double entry book keeping is one of the earliest known examples of a single error detection/correction algorithm.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "32cef36b284aa6cef14527c27cb8bca0",
"text": "\"The standard double-entry approach would just be to create a Liability account for the loan, and then make a transfer from that account to your Asset (Savings) account when the loan proceeds are distributed to you. After that point, the loan doesn't \"\"belong\"\" to your Savings account in any way. Each account and transaction is tracked separately. So, you might for instance pay that loan back with a transfer from your Checking account, even though the initial disbursement arrived into your Savings account. In order to see how much of a loan you have remaining, you need to look at the loan's Liability account to see what transactions occurred in it and what its remaining balance is. It sounds like what you're really trying to accomplish is the idea of \"\"earmarking\"\" or \"\"putting into an envelope\"\" certain assets for certain purposes. This kind of budgeting isn't really something that Gnucash excels at. It does have some budget features, but there's more about being able to see how actual expenses are to expected expenses for a reporting period, not about being able to ask \"\"How much 'discretionary' assets do I have left before I start hitting my 'emergency fund'\"\". The closest you get is splitting up your asset accounts into subaccounts as you suggest, in which case you can \"\"allocate\"\" funds for your specific purposes and make transfers between them as needed. That can work well enough depending on your exact goals, though it can sometimes make it a little trickier to reconcile with your actual bank statements. But there's not really an accounting reason to associate the \"\"emergency fund\"\" portion of your assets with the remaining balance of your loan; though there's nothing stopping you from doing so if that's what you're trying to do. Accounting answers questions like \"\"How much have I spent on X in the past?\"\" and \"\"How much do I own right now?\"\". If you want to ask \"\"How much am I allowed to spend on X right now?\"\" or \"\"Am I likely to run out of money soon?\"\", you may want a budgeting tool rather than an accounting tool.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6332c443215c5f6a7e53bd0f681b871a",
"text": "\"If your business is structured as a partnership or sole proprietorship you call this investment \"\"partner equity\"\". If instead it is structured as a corporation, then the initial investment is called \"\"paid-in capital\"\". Either way, this represents the capital the initial investors or partners provided to the company in exchange for their ownership stake. The most important thing in your case is that since that initial investment is in the form of inventory, you are going to have to document the value of that investment somehow. You will definitely need a comprehensive manifest of what you contributed, including titles and condition, and if possible you should document the prices at which similar items are being offered for sale at the time you start operating. Having this information will support your claims as to the fair market value of the start-up contribution, should the tax authorities decide to question it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "710a087f30bc748887eb5a9f90bc93ea",
"text": "I'd say yes, and hope that my anecdotal evidence serves as proof. My IRA is not a margin account. It can't be. I attempt to create a covered call, buying a stock at say $20, and selling a call for $4, for net $16 cost. The account only had $1610 at the time, and the trades go through just fine. Yes, I needed to enter as a limit order, at the same time, a single order with the $16 debit limit. If this is not enough proof, I'd be curious - why not? The option proceeds must clear, of course, which it does.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f983c383262bb5e484be57c6f264612e",
"text": "In general, the higher the return (such as interest), the higher the risk. If there were a high-return no-risk investment, enough people would buy it to drive the price up and make it a low-return no-risk investment. Interest rates are low now, but so is inflation. They generally go up and down together. So, as a low risk (almost no-risk) investment, the savings account is not at all useless. There are relatively safe investments that will get a better return, but they will have a little more risk. One common way to spread the risk is to diversify. For example, put some of your money in a savings account, some in a bond mutual fund, and some in a stock index fund. A stock index fund such as SPY has the benefit of very low overhead, in addition to spreading the risk among 500 large companies. Mutual funds with a purchase or sale fee, or with a higher management fee do NOT perform any better, on average, and should generally be avoided. If you put a little money in different places regularly, you'll be fairly safe and are likely get a better return. (If you trade back and forth frequently, trying to outguess the market, you're likely to be worse off than the savings account.)",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
352f58769cb70b371f7e7caa363c115c
|
How do ETF fees get applied?
|
[
{
"docid": "9a2fb8987853dd7bb42da0a18d64dd5a",
"text": "The ETF price quoted on the stock exchange is in principle not referenced to NAV. The fund administrator will calculate and publish the NAV net of all fees, but the ETF price you see is determined by the market just like for any other security. Having said that, the market will not normally deviate greatly from the NAV of the fund, so you can safely assume that ETF quoted price is net of relevant fees.",
"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": "35c459b8792369297e41681430c55724",
"text": "Mutual funds are collections of investments that other people pay to join. It would be simpler to calculate the value of all these investments at one time each day, and then to deem that any purchases or sales happen at that price. The fund diversifies rather than magnifies risk, looking to hold rather than enjoy a quick turnaround. Nobody really needs hourly updated price information for an investment they intend to hold for decades. They quote their prices on a daily basis and you take the daily price. This makes sense for a vehicle that is a balanced collection of many different assets, most of which will have varying prices over the course a day. That makes pricing complicated. This primer explains mutual fund pricing and the requirements of the Investment Company Act of 1940, which mandates daily price reporting. It also illustrates the complexity: How does the fund pricing process work? Mutual fund pricing is an intensive process that takes place in a short time frame at the end of the day. Generally, a fund’s pricing process begins at the close of the New York Stock Exchange, normally 4 p.m. Eastern time. The fund’s accounting agent, which may be an affiliated entity such as the fund’s adviser, or a third-party servicer such as the fund’s administrator or custodian bank, is usually responsible for calculating the share price. The accounting agent obtains prices for the fund’s securities from pricing services and directly from brokers. Pricing services collect securities prices from exchanges, brokers, and other sources and then transmit them to the fund’s accounting agent. Fund accounting agents internally validate the prices received by subjecting them to various control procedures. For example, depending on the nature and extent of its holdings, a fund may use one or more pricing services to ensure accuracy. Note that under Rule 22c-1 forward pricing, fund shareholders receive the next daily price, not the last daily price. Forward pricing makes sense if you want shareholders to get the most accurate sale or purchase price, but not if you want purchasers and sellers to be able to make precise calculations about gains and losses (how can you be precise if the price won't be known until after you buy or sell?).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8cb549009ae9d2f1a8976238da587253",
"text": "\"My knowledge relates to ETFs only. By definition, an ETF's total assets can increase or decrease based upon how many shares are issued or redeemed. If somebody sells shares back to the ETF provider (rather than somebody else on market) then the underlying assets need to be sold, and vice-versa for purchasing from the ETF provider. ETFs also allow redemptions too in addition to this. For an ETF, to determine its total assets, you need to you need to analyze the Total Shares on Issue multipled by the Net Asset Value. ETFs are required to report shares outstanding and NAV on a daily basis. \"\"Total assets\"\" is probably more a function of marketing rather than \"\"demand\"\" and this is why most funds report on a net-asset-value-per-share basis. Some sites report on \"\"Net Inflows\"\" is basically the net change in shares outstanding multiplied by the ETF price. If you want to see this plotted over time you can use a such as: http://www.etf.com/etfanalytics/etf-fund-flows-tool which allows you to see this as a \"\"net flows\"\" on a date range basis.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7a55c44dfb0435d43f0e98deac371602",
"text": "ETrade allows this without fees (when investing into one of the No-Load/No-Fees funds from their list). The Sharebuilder plan is better when investing into ETF's or stocks, not for mutual funds, their choice (of no-fees funds) is rather limited on Sharebuilder.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c02e759961fc1045b5c3846be9ea8436",
"text": "The process would look something like: 1. Register your investment company with the SEC 2. Get the ETF approved by the SEC 3. Get a custodian bank (likely requires min assets of a few million) 4. Get listed on an exchange like NYSEARCA by meeting requirements and have an IPO 1 and 2 probably require a lot of time and fees and would be wise to have a lawyer advising, 3 is obviously difficult due to asset requirements and 4 would probably involve an investment bank plus more fees",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6794ad18ad2fa4de328253fa5f918bec",
"text": "While I might have to agree with PiratesSayARRR from below about missing case details, I have to say, your math seems to check out to me. Although the numbers aren't rouded off and pretty, they back out. $22,285.71 generates $334.28 of fees in a month; subtract from that the monthly cost of funds (.003333 x $22285.71)= $74.28... $334.28-74.28 = $260.00. Hate to say it, but maybe they didn't hire you for a different reason?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "86187aff29a5958bb1351d248820ce19",
"text": "NO. All the leveraged ETFs are designed to multiply the performance of the underlying asset FOR THAT DAY, read the prospectus. Their price is adjusted at the end of the day to reflect what is called a NAV unit. Basically, they know that their price is subject to fluctuations due to supply and demand throughout the day - simply because they trade in a quote driven system. But the price is automatically corrected at the end of the day regardless. In practice though, all sorts of crazy things happen with leveraged ETFs that will simply make them more and more unfavorable to hold long term, the longer you look at it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dab449e201a0e2457748c41c68865b9f",
"text": "The same reason a company would offer coupons. I'd guess they're just doing it as a way to entice people to do their investing with them. Since it is any ETF I doubt they are being compensated by the ETF companies, as is sometimes the case (iShares does this with Fidelity, for example). And they still get the commission on the sale.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b962d0c6c11e5ca3e77f09acaddf793b",
"text": "Most bond ETFs have switched to monthly dividends paid on the first of each month, in an attempt to standardize across the market. For ETFs (but perhaps not bond mutual funds, as suggested in the above answer) interest does accrue in the NAV, so the price of the fund does drop on ex-date by an amount equal to the dividend paid. A great example of this dynamic can be seen in FLOT, a bond ETF holding floating rate corporate bonds. As you can see in this screenshot, the NAV has followed a sharp up and down pattern, almost like the teeth of a saw. This is explained by interest accruing in the NAV over the course of each month, until it is paid out in a dividend, dropping the NAV sharply in one day. The effect has been particularly pronounced recently because the floating coupon payments have increased significantly (benchmark interest rates are higher) and mark-to-market changes in credit spreads of the constituent bonds have been very muted.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "893682084a5cd9dc30d884eb4ca6a379",
"text": "\"Usually the new broker will take care of this for you. It can take a couple of weeks. If you are planning to go with Vanguard, you probably want to actually get an account at Vanguard, as Vanguard funds usually aren't \"\"No Transaction Fee\"\" funds with many brokers. If you are planning to invest in ETFs, you'll get more flexibility with a broker.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9381d589de0907189c958cae99ba34b6",
"text": "The ETF supply management policy is arcane. ETFs are not allowed to directly arbitrage their holdings against the market. Other firms must handle redemptions & deposits. This makes ETFs slightly costlier than the assets held. For ETFs with liquid holdings, its price will rarely vary relative to the holdings, slippage of the ETF's holdings management notwithstanding. This is because the firms responsible for depositing & redeeming will arbitrage their equivalent holdings of the ETF assets' prices with the ETF price. For ETFs with illiquid holdings, such as emerging markets, the ETF can vary between trades of the holdings. This will present sometimes large variations between the last price of the ETF vs the last prices of its holdings. If an ETF is shunned, its supply of holdings will simply drop and vice versa.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a78a822b2b626375e6377614588064f4",
"text": "\"ETF Creation and Redemption Process notes the process: While ETF trading occurs on an exchange like stocks, the process by which their shares are created is significantly different. Unless a company decides to issue more shares, the supply of shares of an individual stock trading in the marketplace is finite. When demand increases for shares of an ETF, however, Authorized Participants (APs) have the ability to create additional shares on demand. Through an \"\"in kind\"\" transfer mechanism, APs create ETF units in the primary market by delivering a basket of securities to the fund equal to the current holdings of the ETF. In return, they receive a large block of ETF shares (typically 50,000), which are then available for trading in the secondary market. This ETF creation and redemption process helps keep ETF supply and demand in continual balance and provides a \"\"hidden\"\" layer of liquidity not evident by looking at trading volumes alone. This process also works in reverse. If an investor wants to sell a large block of shares of an ETF, even if there seems to be limited liquidity in the secondary market, APs can readily redeem a block of ETF shares by gathering enough shares of the ETF to form a creation unit and then exchanging the creation unit for the underlying securities. Thus, the in-kind swap to the underlying securities is only done by APs so the outflow would be these individuals taking a large block of the ETF and swapping it for the underlying securities. The APs would be taking advantage of the difference between what the ETF's trading value and the value of the underlying securities.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ce67213c02975c72d0ddd432803db58a",
"text": "1: Low fees means: a Total Expense Ratio of less than 0,5%. One detail you may also want to pay attention to whether the fund reinvests returns (Thesaurierender Fonds) which is basically good for investing, but if it's also a foreign-based fund then taxes get complicated, see http://www.finanztip.de/indexfonds-etf/thesaurierende-fonds/",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1d78a5b716489ff3fa60038e90e411c1",
"text": "\"Don't put money in things that you don't understand. ETFs won't kill you, ignorance will. The leveraged ultra long/short ETFs hold swaps that are essentially bets on the daily performance of the market. There is no guarantee that they will perform as designed at all, and they frequently do not. IIRC, in most cases, you shouldn't even be holding these things overnight. There aren't any hidden fees, but derivative risk can wipe out portions of the portfolio, and since the main \"\"asset\"\" in an ultra long/short ETF are swaps, you're also subject to counterparty risk -- if the investment bank the fund made its bet with cannot meet it's obligation, you're may lost alot of money. You need to read the prospectus carefully. The propectus re: strategy. The Fund seeks daily investment results, before fees and expenses, that correspond to twice the inverse (-2x) of the daily performance of the Index. The Fund does not seek to achieve its stated investment objective over a period of time greater than a single day. The prospectus re: risk. Because of daily rebalancing and the compounding of each day’s return over time, the return of the Fund for periods longer than a single day will be the result of each day’s returns compounded over the period, which will very likely differ from twice the inverse (-2x) of the return of the Index over the same period. A Fund will lose money if the Index performance is flat over time, and it is possible that the Fund will lose money over time even if the Index’s performance decreases, as a result of daily rebalancing, the Index’s volatility and the effects of compounding. See “Principal Risks” If you want to hedge your investments over a longer period of time, you should look at more traditional strategies, like options. If you don't have the money to make an option strategy work, you probably can't afford to speculate with leveraged ETFs either.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bdc088e3c947f07ccdf31e5b845889e8",
"text": "\"I just looked at a fund for my client, the fund is T Rowe Price Retirement 2015 (TRRGX). As stated in the prospectus, it has an annual expense ratio of 0.63%. In the fine print below the funds expenses, it says \"\"While the fund itself charges no management fee, it will indirectly bear its pro-rata share of the expenses of the underlying T. Rowe Price funds in which it invests (acquired funds). The acquired funds are expected to bear the operating expenses of the fund.\"\" One of it's acquired funds is TROSX which has an expense ratio of 0.86%. So the total cost of the fund is the weighted average of the \"\"acquired funds\"\" expense ratio's plus the listed expense ratio of the fund. You can see this at http://doc.morningstar.com/docdetail.aspx?clientid=schwab&key=84b36f1bf3830e07&cusip=74149P796 and its all listed in \"\"Fees and Expenses of the Fund\"\"\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
64c595c4b77c23aace35ae0861ea5dd9
|
Profiting off $0.01 changes in real life?
|
[
{
"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": "9ab34fa1e97c390c4c13e64aa2032e11",
"text": "What is the probability of a real occasion (meaning not just an example) being exactly zero? Even if you have 0.1 you can still do the math. Also, it is kind of depending on the occasion. For example, you want to calculate the ROI of an investment for which you had zero capital and you made that investment with leverage, meaning you got a loan. In order to get that loan you should have provided a collateral, so in this case as a starting sum you use the collateral. In another example, say EAT it's difficult to have exactly zero. So, in most cases you won't have to deal with zero values, only positives and negatives.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2c563cd84f91feb303bc9883e56d5032",
"text": "\"You will make a profit in nominal dollars (or nominal units of whatever currency you used to buy the token). Whether you'll make a profit in real dollars depends on inflation, and in practice whether it would be possible to sell your existing tokens to someone else for the new price. Suppose when the price was 50 U (50 \"\"units\"\", since you didn't specify a currency), you bought one token. Today you can either spend 52 U for a token, and get a liter of milk, or you can spend your existing token (for which you paid 50 U) and get a liter of milk. It looks like you are making a profit of 2 U by spending your token. However, whether that profit is real or illusory depends on what else you could do with the token. For instance, suppose that, since the price of a token is now 52 U, you will have no trouble finding someone who wants to buy your token from you for 52 U. If you sell your token for 52 U, you'll still only be able to buy 1 L of milk. So if you measure your wealth in milk, you have made no profit: in the past you had a token representing 1 L of milk, and today you still have a token representing 1 L of milk. Suppose now that in the past, when a token cost 50 U, a hamburger also cost 50 U. Suppose further that a hamburger now costs 52 U. So you can sell your token for 52 U, but that 52 U will still only buy you one hamburger. So, again, if you measure your wealth in hamburgers, your have made no profit. In the past, you could have sold your token and bought a hamburger; today, you can still sell your token and buy a hamburger, and you'll have nothing left over, so you have gained nothing. If, on the other hand, the price of a hamburger today is still 50 U, then you call sell your token for 52 U, buy a hamburger for 50 U, and still have 2 U left over. You have made a profit. What this all goes to show is that, in practice, the idea of \"\"profit\"\" depends on the overall economy, and whether you could exchange the currency units you have in your possession for a greater quantity of goods than you could in the past. Whether this is possible depends on the relative changes in price of various goods. In other words, if you get your money by selling Product A, and later you buy Product B, you may or may not make a profit depending on how the prices of the two products moved relative to one another. Also, in your hypothetical setup, the \"\"currency\"\" (the token) is directly linked to the value of a single good, so you can always at least get 1 L of milk for your token. Most real currency is not bound to specific goods like your milk token, so it is possible for your currency to lose value in an absolute sense. For instance, suppose you sell a book for $5. The $5 is not a \"\"book token\"\" and you cannot rely on being able to exchange it for a book in the future; in the future, all books may cost $10, and the prices of all goods may rise similarly, so your currency will actually be worth less no matter how you try to use it. This could happen with the milk token if the milkman announces that henceforth 1 L of milk will cost 2 tokens; your existing token suddenly loses half its value. In sum, it is easy to calculate whether you made a profit in currency units. What is harder is to calculate whether you made a profit in \"\"real terms\"\" (often referred to as \"\"real dollars\"\" or \"\"inflation-adjusted dollars\"\", or the equivalent in your favorite currency). The reason this is hard is because the idea of \"\"real dollars\"\" is fundamentally linked to the possibility of exchanging currency for goods (and services), and so it depends what goods you're buying. Inflation statistics published by governments and the like use a \"\"basket\"\" of goods to approximate the overall price movements in the economy as a whole.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "adf3784d7c0d24870c3d6ccd2fed1685",
"text": "There are a few ways to make money from a market correction:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "546e0c06691b487e035f23ed55eccc9a",
"text": "\"I am strongly skeptical of this. In fact, after reading your question, I did the following: I wrote a little program in python that \"\"simulates\"\" a stock by flipping a coin. Each time the coin comes up heads, the stock's value grows by 1. Each time the coin comes up tails, the stock's value drops by 1. I then group, say, 50 of these steps into a \"\"day\"\", and for each day I look at opening, closing, maximum and minimum. This is then graphed in a candlestick chart. Funny enough, those things look exactly like the charts analysts look at. Here are a few examples: If you want to be a troll, show these to a technical analyst and ask them which of these stocks you should sell short and which of them you should buy. You can try this at home, I posted the code here and it only needs Python with a few extra packages (Numpy and Pylab, should both be in the SciPy package). In reply to a comment from JoeTaxpayer, let me add some more theory to this. My code actually performs a one-dimensional random walk. Now Joe in the comments says that an infinite number of flips should approach the zero line, but that is not exactly correct. In fact, there is a high chance to end up far from the zero line, because the expected distance from the start for a random walk with N steps is sqrt(N). What does indeed approach the zero line is if you took a bunch of these random walks and then performed the average over those. There is, however, one important aspect in which this random walk differs from the stock market: The random walk can go down as far as it likes, whereas a stock has a bottom below which it cannot fall. Reaching this bottom means the company is bankrupt and gets removed from the market. This means that the total stock market, which we might interpret as a sum of random walks, does indeed have a bias towards upwards movement, since I'm only averaging over those random walks that don't go below a certain threshold. But you can really only benefit from this effect by being broadly diversified.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "15c5d78ccb8d6d61e0703f8875d028f5",
"text": "\"Yes, of course there have been studies on this. This is no more than a question about whether the options are properly priced. (If properly priced, then your strategy will not make money on average before transaction costs and will lose once transaction costs are included. If you could make money using your strategy, on average, then the market should - and generally will - make an adjustment in the option price to compensate.) The most famous studies on this were conducted by Black and Scholes and then by Merton. This work won the Nobel Prize in 1995. Although the Black-Scholes (or Black-Scholes-Merton) equation is so well known now that people may forget it, they didn't just sit down one day and write and equation that they thought was cool. They actually derived the equation based on market factors. Beyond this \"\"pioneering\"\" work, you've got at least two branches of study. Academics have continued to study option pricing, including but not limited to revisions to the original Black-Scholes model, and hedge funds / large trading house have \"\"quants\"\" looking at this stuff all of the time. The former, you could look up if you want. The latter will never see the light of day because it's proprietary. If you want specific references, I think that any textbook for a quantitative finance class would be a fine place to start. I wouldn't be surprised if you actually find your strategy as part of a homework problem. This is not to say, by the way, that I don't think you can make money with this type of trade, but your strategy will need to include more information than you've outlined here. Choosing which information and getting your hands on it in a timely manner will be the key.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fcb7db1a6c827df2536e19a202f8f991",
"text": "\"Where goes the Delta? To the sea, of course. Your question is very valid and for once, I think most of the answers are too involved into mechanical details and are badly missing the big picture. At the risk of over simplifying things, let me try to describe the situation in broad strokes: Inflation: the volume of money grows faster than production (including services). Deflation: production increase faster than the volume of money. Imagine an economy with 10 products and $10. 1 product = $1. In an inflationary scenario, money available increase: $20 for 10 products. 1 product = $2. In a deflationary scenario, money available decrease: $5 for 10 products. 1 product = $0.5. So far, it's pretty textbook. Now onto the stuff that you don't usually read in textbooks: Time. Say 10 people are attending an auction, each with $10 bucks. 10 items are for sale. $100 and 10 items. Item price is $10. Now, if just before opening the bidding, you go around and give each person $40, every one has $50. Each product sells for $50. That's the picture people have of inflation. Prices have increased, but everybody has more money, so it comes down to the same thing. Now, let's bring this example closer to reality: You have to distribute $400, so the total amount of money is $500, which means that the normal price of each item should be $50. Now, imagine that instead of giving money to everyone at the same time, you started by giving $40 to 1 guy who was hanging out in front. The auction starts. While you go around distributing the money, the first guy manages to buy 2 items at $10 each. Now, there is $480 in the market, and only 8 items, making each item $60 on average. The next guy to get money manages to snap 2 items at $15. 6 items left and $450 in play. Each item now costs $75....and keep increasing in price as things move along. People who get the money early buy items under their real value, and people who get paid at the end pick up the tab, because by then, there are only a few items left. Back to reality, while inflation means that wages eventually increase (and they do), actual purchasing decrease for most people due to this simple trick. Employees are pretty much at the end of the chain. Income tax Another major source of \"\"signal loss\"\" is income tax. It works by brackets, as you certainly know. Simplifying again because I am lazy: Take a guy who earns $100. Pays no taxes. Can buy 100 products at $1 each. Now, put in some inflation... He earns $500. He pays $50 in taxes and can buy 90 products at $5 each. By the time he earns $10,000, he can only buy 50 products on account of income tax. So this is another area where you are bleeding purchasing power, and why income tax, which was originally presented as a tax for the ultra-rich is now a fact of life for most people (except the ultra-rich, of course). Money as debt Next stop: Money itself. Money is created as debt in our society. At the risk of over-simplifying things again, let's say Bank A has $1000 in assets. In the fractional reserve system (our current system), Bank A can lend out many times over that amount. Let's say $9,000, for a total of $10,000 (much more in reality). And of course, it lends that money at interest. When bank A has made $10,000 available through 10% interest loans, the total amount of money has increased by $10,000, but when the loans are paid back, $11,000 must be paid to the bank, so the net result of the operation is that $1,000 get taken out of the market. This system explains why almost all companies and governments have huge debts, and why most of the world's large companies belong to financial institutions of some kind, and why most of the world's wealth rest in very very few hands. To fully answer your question and provide details and references and names, one would have to write a book or 5. There is a lot more than can be said on the subject, and of course, all the examples given here are extremely simplified, but I think they illustrate the key issues pretty well. Bottom-line is that our system is designed that way. Our economic system is rigged and the delta bleeds out on automatic.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "12ce6bf1901e7a59419a3c340b6d6bfc",
"text": "I could be mistaken on this, but after the GM bailout and others, weren't laws put in place to essentially force companies to maintain a certain level of liquidity? Also, that 0% is probably closer to .25~.50 through way of credit swaps, no? Or if we assume it's earning .1%, that's still $6,666,667/month ($80,000,000,000 x .001/12).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eda543db876b5d150a730688db867bef",
"text": "This is called currency speculation, and it's one of the more risky forms of investing. Unless you have a crystal ball that tells you the Euro will move up (or down) relative to the Dollar, it's purely speculation, even if it seems like it's on an upswing. You have to remember that the people who are speculating (professionally) on currency are the reason that the amount changed, and it's because something caused them to believe the correct value is the current one - not another value in one direction or the other. This is not to say people don't make money on currency speculation; but unless you're a professional investor, who has a very good understanding of why currencies move one way or the other, or know someone who is (and gives free advice!), it's not a particularly good idea to engage in it - while stock trading is typically win-win, currency speculation is always zero-sum. That said, you could hedge your funds at this point (or any other) by keeping some money in both accounts - that is often safer than having all in one or the other, as you will tend to break even when one falls against the other, and not suffer significant losses if one or the other has a major downturn.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "033b3dc786aabf615ad1a76442c0e644",
"text": "\"There are moral distinctions that can be drawn between gambling and investing in stocks. First and I think most important, in gambling you are trying to get money for nothing. You put $100 down on the roulette wheel and you hope to get $200 back. In investing you are not trying to get something for nothing. You are buying a piece of a hopefully profit-making company. You are giving this company the use of your money, and in exchange you get a share of the profits. That is, you are quite definitely giving something: the use of your money for a period of time. You invest $100 of your money, and you hope to see that grow by maybe $5 or $10 a year typically. You may get a sudden windfall, of course. You may buy a stock for $100 today and tomorrow it jumps to $200. But that's not the normal expectation. Second, gambling is a zero sum game. If I gamble and win $100, then someone else had to lose $100. Investing is not a zero sum game. If I buy $100 worth of stock in a company and that grows to $200, I have in a sense \"\"won\"\" $100. But no one has lost $100 to give me that money. The money is the result of the profit that the company made by selling a valuable product or service to customers. When I go to the grocery store and buy a dozen eggs for $2, some percentage of that goes to the stockholders in the grocery store, say 5 cents. So did I lose 5 cents by buying those eggs? No. To me, a dozen eggs are worth at least $2, or I wouldn't have bought them. I got exactly what I paid for. I didn't lose anything. Carrying that thought further, investing in the stock market puts money into businesses. It enables businesses to get started and to grow and expand. Assuming these are legitimate businesses, they then provide useful products and services to customers. Gambling does not provide useful products and services to anyone -- except to the extent that people enjoy the process of gambling, in which case you could say that it is equivalent to playing a video game or watching a movie. Third -- and these are all really related -- the whole goal of gambling is to take something from another person while giving him nothing in return. Again, if I buy a dozen eggs, I give the store my $2 (or whatever amount) and I get a dozen eggs in exchange. I got something of value and the store got something of value. We both walk away happy. But in gambling, my goal is that I will take your money and give you nothing in return. It is certainly true that buying stocks involves risk, and we sometimes use the word \"\"gamble\"\" to describe any risk. But if it is a sin to take a risk, then almost everything you do in life is a sin. When you cross the street, there is a risk that you will be hit by a car you didn't see. When you drink a glass of water, there is the risk that it is contaminated and will poison you. When you get married, there is a risk that your spouse will divorce you and break your heart. Etc. We are all sinners, we all sin every day, but we don't sin quite THAT much. :-) (BTW I don't think that gambling is a sin. Nothing in the Bible says that gambling is a sin. But I can comprehend the argument for it. I think gambling is foolish and I don't do it. My daughter works for a casino and she has often said how seeing people lose money in the casino regularly reminds her why it is stupid to gamble. Like she once commented on people who stand between two slot machines, feed them both coins and then pull the levers down at the same time, \"\"so that\"\", she said, \"\"they can lose their money twice as fast\"\".)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cb493ea94dd0fef17315bb6e00b6823b",
"text": "There is a misunderstanding somewhere that your question didn't illuminate. You should have lost $0.04 as you say. Assuming the prices are correct the missing $0.02 aren't covered by a reasonable interpretations of the Robinhood fees schedule. For US-listed stocks: $0 plus SEC fees: 0.00221% of principal ($22.10 per $1,000,000 of principal) plus Trading Activity Fee: $0.000119/share rounded to nearest penny plus short/long term capital gains taxes The total fee rate is 0.002329% or 0.00002329*the price of the trade. With you trades totaling around $11, the fee would be ~0.000256 or ~1/40 of a penny. The answer is probably that they charge $0.01 for any fraction of a penny. It's difficult to explain as anything other than avarice, so I won't try.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "276a698e578e85d0ec7b4898cd575268",
"text": "Look at Price/book value and there are more than a few stocks that may have a P/B under 1 so this does happen. There are at least a couple of other factors you aren't considering here: Current liabilities - How much money is the company losing each quarter that may cause it to sell repeatedly. If the company is burning through $100 million/quarter that asset is only going to keep the lights on for another 2.5 years so consider what assumptions you make about the company's cash flow here. The asset itself - Is the price really fixed or could it be flexible? Could the asset seen as being worth $1 billion today be worth much less in another year or two? As an example, suppose the asset was a building and then real estate values drop by 40% in that area. Now, what was worth $1 billion may now be worth only $600 million. As something of a final note, you don't state where the $100 million went that the company received as if that was burned for operations, now the company's position on the asset is $900 million as it only holds a 90% stake though I'd argue my 2 previous points are really worth noting. The Following 6 Stocks Are Trading At or Below 0.5 x Book Value–Sep 2013 has a half dozen examples of how this is possible. If the $100 million was used to pay off debt, then the company doesn't have that cash and thus its assets are reduced by the cash that is gone. Depending on what the plant is producing the value may or may not stay where it is. If you want an example to consider, how would you price automobile plants these days? If the company experiences a reduction in demand, the plant may have to be sold off at a reduced price for a cynic's view here.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "1f26c59fd47f52343873a025355c1497",
"text": "Let's say the money-giver gets apples by you and he gives you money for them. The money you now have is worth to get apples. If the money now would change its value to negative, the roles would change opposites and you'd owe the money-giver (whom you already gave apples to) even more apples. That's simply insane. The worst money value can be is zero.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c49acb0fec8e63a0b3a15cbc4e4d64cd",
"text": "In a simple world yes, but not in the real world. Option pricing isn't that simplistic in real life. Generally option pricing uses a Monte Carlo simulation of the Black Scholes formula/binomial and then plot them nomally to decide the optimum price of the option. Primarily multiple scenarios are generated and under that specific scenario the option is priced and then a price is derived for the option in real life, using the prices which were predicted in the scenarios. So you don't generate a single price for an option, because you have to look into the future to see how the price of the option would behave, under the real elements of the market. So what you price is an assumption that this is the most likely value under my scenarios, which I predicted into the future. Because of the market, if you price an option higher/lower than another competitor you introduce an option for arbitrage by others. So you try to be as close to the real value of the option, which your competitor also does. The more closer your option value is to the real price the better it is for all. Did you try the book from Hull ? EDIT: While pricing you generally take variables which would affect the price of your option. The more variables you take(more nearer you are to the real situation) the more realistic your price will be and you would converge on the real price faster. So simple formula is an option, but the deviations maybe large from the real value. And you would end up loosing money, most of the time. So the complicated formula is there for getting a more accurate price, not to confuse people. You can use your formula, but there will be odds stacked against you to loose money, from the onset, because you didn't consider the variables which might/would affect the price of your option.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "41738846c29b227d7c9af116f730c97e",
"text": "Ok so Arbitrage? I was looking specifically at the people who took this deal to the extreme taking the $5k and using the $10 giftcards to buy prepaid credit cards. Would the better term would be positive-feedback loop, since the only constraint would be time and energy to the people exploit this deal. Is there a financial term that fits this better?",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
893e1fd87f87f6f0e04a61f16725bbc2
|
Will the popularity of index funds cause a pricing bubble in the stocks that make up an index?
|
[
{
"docid": "7c0d3a1bc064540d90e0849afb6be205",
"text": "With regard to commodity futures, a paper released in January 2010 by Aulerich, Irwin, and Garcia, concluded that index funds have essentially no impact on commodity futures. Looking at stocks, a stock that gets included in a major index does increase in price. It increases its turnover by 27% and increases its price by between 2.7% and 5.5%, according to information cited by Kula in this paper, though it looks like the price increase tends to happen in the lead up to the stock being included. Interestingly, I have read an article but cannot now locate it, which states that there's a measurable, albeit fairly small, price bubble on stocks included in common indexes, on Monday mornings, Friday afternoons, and at the start and end of the month. That is, the times when mutual funds are most likely to rebalance their holdings. This almost certainly applies to a lesser extent to other stocks, too. My understanding is that the price difference was very small, however. Generally speaking, stocks which make part of well-known indexes will tend to be in higher demand than stocks which do not. It remains the case that almost all actively-managed mutual funds are unable to consistently beat the indexes, even with this taken into account.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "90060bf73122200477cb8a9d766468aa",
"text": "The idea with passive investing in ETFs is to eliminate the all important firm specific risk. I agree with him that it surely creates a herd mentality and might over/understate the fundamental prices for individual stocks. If fund managers could consistently maintain alpha, lower their 2/20, and not shutdown when they can't reach their high water mark, then maybe investors might come back to them. As it stands now, the money goes where it can get the best return with only market risk to worry about.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "91ac8519ecdfef7fe122c4fde90a549d",
"text": "\"Note that an index fund may not be able to precisely mirror the index it's tracking. If enough many people invest enough money into funds based on that index, there may not always be sufficient shares available of every stock included in the index for the fund to both accept additional investment and track the index precisely. This is one of the places where the details of one index fund may differ from another even when they're following the same index. IDEALLY they ought to deliver the same returns, but in practical terms they're going to diverge a bit. (Personally, as long as I'm getting \"\"market rate of return\"\" or better on average across all my funds, at a risk I'm comfortable with, I honestly don't care enough to try to optimize it further. Pick a distribution based on some stochastic modelling tools, rebalance periodically to maintain that distribution, and otherwise ignore it. That's very much to the taste of someone like me who wants the savings to work for him rather than vice versa.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e20d35dcd991462583b6f350778cbfaf",
"text": "To start with gold has value because it is scarce, durable, attractive and can be made into jewellery. But that does not explain its current value. In the current economic climate, it is difficult for many investors to get a positive return on conventional investments such as equities or bonds. I theorise that, in such conditions, investors decide to park their money in gold simply because there are few other good options. This in itself drives the price of gold up, making it a better investment and causing a speculative boom. As you will see here, here, and here the gold price is negatively correlated with stock market indices.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1d50559be065fadfef22499cb91fe9e9",
"text": "By definition, actively managed funds will underperform passive index funds as a whole. Or more specifically: The aggregate performance of all actively managed portfolio of publicly-tradable assets will have equal performance to those of passively managed portfolios. Which taken with premise two: Actively managed funds will charge higher fees than passively managed funds Results in: In general, lower-fee investment vehicles (e.g. passive index investments) with broad enough diversification to the desired risk exposure will outperform higher-fee options But don't take my wonkish approach, from a more practical perspective consider:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b3cbd45fe7f0dcc84547f3ffbd8426e9",
"text": "I hate to point to Wikipedia as an answer, but it does describe exactly what you are looking for... The S&P 500 is a free-float capitalization-weighted index published since 1957 of the prices of 500 large-cap common stocks actively traded in the United States. The stocks included in the S&P 500 are those of large publicly held companies that trade on either of the two largest American stock market exchanges; the New York Stock Exchange and the NASDAQ. The components of the S&P 500 are selected by committee... The committee selects the companies in the S&P 500 so they are representative of the industries in the United States economy. In addition, companies that do not trade publicly (such as those that are privately or mutually held) and stocks that do not have sufficient liquidity are not in the index. The S&P is a capitalization weighted index. If a stock price goes up, then it comprises more of the total index. If a stock goes down, it comprises less, and if it goes down too much, the committee will likely replace it. So to answer your question, if one stock were to suddenly skyrocket, nothing would happen beyond the fact that the index was now worth more and that particular stock would now make up a larger percentage of the S&P 500 index.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e8d272549bd8dca7f9b1ca34a0d46963",
"text": "\"Stocks are regarded as an inflation hedge because when your money is worth less, everything else is worth more. i.e. Stocks are more expensive (go up) simply because your money is worth less, but not because of better earnings across individual companies. So that general idea can effect sentiment, whereby if everyone believes it then more people buy stocks if they think there will be a lot of inflation. But it doesn't explain actual behavior (whether \"\"more\"\" people buy, hold or sell.) It's worth noting that individual companies and stocks also may be adversely affected by inflation, since their own assets or accounting may already be outside of the currency and/or they may already be engaging in their own hedging.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c9f68cf6c96303817224c46de8bb225c",
"text": "Irrational exuberance leads to crashes but the fundamentals recover. This is absolutely going to hurt some companies with already announced IPO's and will delay others from going public. But nothing fundamental has changed - some speculators just got shot down.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5a9e3e301321b3674f2d82b887ba6c30",
"text": "\"Comparing index funds to long-term investments in individual companies? A counterintuitive study by Jeremy Siegel addressed a similar question: Would you be better off sticking with the original 500 stocks in the S&P 500, or like an index fund, changing your investments as the index is changed? The study: \"\"Long-Term Returns on the Original S&P 500 Companies\"\" Siegel found that the original 500 (including spinoffs, mergers, etc.) would do slightly better than a changing index. This is likely because the original 500 companies take on a value (rather than growth) aspect as the decades pass, and value stocks outperform growth stocks. Index funds' main strength may be in the behavior change they induce in some investors. To the extent that investors genuinely set-and-forget their index fund investments, they far outperform the average investor who mis-times the market. The average investor enters and leaves the market at the worst times, underperforming by a few percentage points each year on average. This buying-high and selling-low timing behavior damages long-term returns. Paying active management fees (e.g. 1% per year) makes returns worse. Returns compound on themselves, a great benefit to the investor. Fees also compound, to the benefit of someone other than the investor. Paying 1% annually to a financial advisor may further dent long-term returns. But Robert Shiller notes that advisors can dissuade investors from market timing. For clients who will always follow advice, the 1% advisory fee is worth it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d7e580929c80c1a59673b0da603501aa",
"text": "In the short term the market is a popularity contest In the short run which in value investing time can extend even to many years, an equity is subject to the vicissitudes of the whims by every scale of panic and elation. This can be seen by examining the daily chart of any large cap equity in the US. Even such large holdings can be affected by any set of fear and greed in the market and in the subset of traders trading the equity. Quantitatively, this statement means that equities experience high variance in the short rurn. in the long term [the stock market] is a weighing machine In the long run which in value investing time can extend to even multiple decades, an equity is more or less subject only to the variance of the underlying value. This can be seen by examining the annual chart of even the smallest cap equities over decades. An equity over such time periods is almost exclusively affected by its changes in value. Quantitatively, this statement means that equities experience low variance in the long run.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8dad87928431875301308fad68c7ae0c",
"text": "\"Indexes are down during the summer time, and I don't think it has something to do with specific stocks. If you look at the index history you'll see that there's a price drop during the summer time. Google \"\"Sell in May and go away\"\". The BP was cheap at the time for a very particular reason. As another example of a similar speculation you can look at Citibank, which was less than $1 at its lowest, and within less than a year went to over $4 ( more than 400%). But, when it was less than $1 - it was very likely for C to go bankrupt, and it required a certain amount of willingness to loose to invest in it. Looking back, as with BP, it paid off well. But - that is looking back. So to address your question - there's no place where people tell you what will go up, because people who know (or think they know) will invest themselves, or buy lottery tickets. There's research, analysts, and \"\"frinds' suggestions\"\" which sometimes pay off (as in your example with BP), and sometimes don't. How much of it is noise - I personally don't think I can tell, until I can look back and say \"\"Damn, that dude was right about shorts on Google, it did go down 90% in 2012!\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "00d5c1b18b8f93f3798b0573fb5daba2",
"text": "\"You cannot actually buy an index in the true sense of the word. An index is created and maintained by a company like Standard and Poor's who licenses the use of the index to firms like Vanguard. The S&P 500 is an example of an index. The S&P 500 \"\"index includes 500 leading companies\"\", many finical companies sell products which track to this index. The two most popular products which track to indexes are Mutual Funds (as called Index Funds and Index Mutual Funds) and Exchange Traded Funds (as called ETFs). Each Index Mutual Fund or ETF has an index which it tracks against, meaning they hold securities which make up a sample of the index (some indexes like bond indexes are very hard to hold everything that makes them up). Looking at the Vanguard S&P 500 Index Mutual Fund (ticker VFINX) we see that it tracks against the S&P 500 index. Looking at its holdings we see the 500-ish stocks that it holds along with a small amount of bonds and cash to handle cash flow for people buying and sell shares. If we look at the Vanguard S&P 500 ETF (ticker VOO) we see that it also tracks against the S&P 500 index. Looking at its holdings we see they are very similar to the similar Index Mutual Fund. Other companies like T. Rowe Price have similar offering. Look at the T. Rowe Price Equity Index 500 Fund (ticker PREIX) its holdings in stocks are the same as the similar Vanguard fund and like the Vanguard fund it also holds a small amount of bonds and cash to handle cash flow. The only real difference between different products which track against the same index is in the expense ratio (fees for managing the fund) and in the small differences in the execution of the funds. For the most part execution of the funds do not really matter to most people (it has a very small effect), what matters is the expense (the fees paid to own the fund). If we just compare the expense ratio of the Vanguard and T. Rowe Price funds we see (as of 27 Feb 2016) Vanguard has an expense ratio of 0.17% for it Index Mutual Fund and 0.05% for its ETF, while T. Rowe Price has an expense ratio of 0.27%. These are just the fees for the funds themselves, there are also account maintenance fees (which normally go down as the amount of money you have invested at a firm go up) and in the case of ETFs execution cost (cost to trade the shares along with the difference between the bid and ask on the shares). If you are just starting out I would say going with the Index Mutual Fund would easier and most likely would cost less over-all if you are buying a small amount of shares every month. When choosing a company look at the expense ratio on the funds and the account maintenance fees (along with the account minimals). Vanguard is well known for having low fees and they in fact were the first to offer Index Mutual Funds. For more info on the S&P 500 index see also this Investopedia entry on the S&P 500 index. Do not worry if this is all a bit confusing it is to most people (myself included) at first.\"",
"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": "e4b523852599b8e2fba6ddcef5849ac9",
"text": "Now company A has been doing ok for couple of weeks, but then due to some factors in that company its stock has been tanking heavily and doesn't appear to have a chance to recover. In this kind of scenario, what does happen? In this scenario, if that company is included in the index being tracked, you will continue holding until such time that the index is no longer including that company. Index funds are passively managed because they simply hold the securities contained in the index and seek to keep the allocations of the fund in line with the proportions of the index being tracked. In an actively managed fund the fund manager would try to hedge losses and make stock/security picks. If the manager thought a particular company had bad news coming maybe they would offload some or all the position. In an index fund, the fund follows the index on good days and bad and the managers job is to match the asset allocations of the index, not to pick stocks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eccf9dca165c289a85667fa2f8911b12",
"text": "Passive implies following an index. Your question seems to ask about a hypothetical fund that starts, say, as an S&P fund, but as the index is adjusted, the old stocks stay in the fund. Sounds simple enough, but over time, the fund's performance will diverge from the index. The slight potential gain from lack of cap gains will be offset by the fund being unable to market itself. Keep in mind, the gains distributed each year are almost exclusively long term, taxed at a favorable rate.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aed1fd6d5095bdb95b78195c5e93386d",
"text": "\"Index funds do leech a \"\"free ride\"\" on the coattails of active traders. Consider what would happen if literally everyone bought index funds. For a company there would be no motivation to excel. Get listed; all the index funds are forced to buy your stock; now sit on your derriere playing Freecell, or otherwise scam/loot the company. Go bankrupt. Rinse wash repeat. This \"\"who cares who John Galt is\"\" philosophy would kill the economy dead. Somebody has to actually buy stocks based on research, analysis and value. Company managers need to actively fear, respect and court those people. They don't need to be mutual-fund managers, but they do need to be somebody. Maybe activist investors like Warren Buffett will suffice. Maybe retirement fund or endowment managers like CalPERS or Harvard can do this. Better be somebody! I'm all for index funds... Just saying only a fraction of the market's capital can be in index funds before it starts into a tragedy of the commons.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
ee1aa3155b73d4ae8d02e2b139c40f4d
|
Savings account with fixed interest or not?
|
[
{
"docid": "a1e02d70e74b7b833e135cb1e6c40f21",
"text": "\"Personally I would have a hard time \"\"locking up\"\" the money for that very little return. I would probably rather earn no interest in favor of the liquidity. However, you should find out what the early removal penalties are. If those are minimal and you are very confident that you will not need the money over the term period then its definitely better to earn something rather than nothing. If inflation is negative you aren't out as much not getting any interest as you would be normally. Consider that in 2014 US inflation was 0.8%. Online liquid savings accounts pay about 1%. so that's only .2% positive. In comparison at -.4% you are better off with no interest than a US person putting their money in a paying savings account. Keep in mind though that inflation can change month to month so just because June was negative doesn't mean the year will be that way. Not sure your ability to invest in the US market or what stable dividend payers may exist in Sweden.... You said you are risk averse, but it may be worth it to find a stable dividend paying fund. I like one called PFF, it pays a monthly dividend of 6% and over 5 years stock price is very stable. Of course this is quite a significant jump in risk because you can lose money if markets tank (PFF is down over 10 years quite a bit). Maybe splitting up the money and diversifying?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "34cd5a23fbe463b0ccd510681344e33d",
"text": "As observed above, 1.5% for 3 years is not attractive, and since due to the risk profile the stock market also needs to be excluded, there seems about 2 primary ways, viz: fixed income bonds and commodity(e,g, gold). However, since local bonds (gilt or corporate) are sensitive and follow the central bank interest rates, you could look out investing in overseas bonds (usually through a overseas gilt based mutual fund). I am specifically mentioning gilt here as they are government backed (of the overseas location) and have very low risk. Best would be to scout out for strong fund houses that have mutual funds that invest in overseas gilts, preferably of the emerging markets (as the interest is higher). The good fund houses manage the currency volatility and can generate decent returns at fairly low risk.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "301bfdde2a9a2b9e9e1161c2eb7aba16",
"text": "You can't both enforce saving and have access to the money -- from what you say, it's clear that if you can access the money you will spend it. Can you find an account that allows one withdrawal every six months but no more, which should help to cut down on the impulse buys but still let you get at your money in an emergency?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "39a433a84ddadd612b78e80c78d4808f",
"text": "\"The UK has Islamic banks. I don't know whether Germany has the same or not (with a quick search I can find articles stating intentions to establish one, but not the results). Even if there's none in Germany, I assume that with some difficulty you could use banks elsewhere in the EU and even non-Euro-denominated. I can't recommend a specific provider or product (never used them and probably wouldn't offer recommendations on this site anyway), but they advertise savings accounts. I've found one using a web search that offers an \"\"expected profit rate\"\" of 1.9% for a 12 month fix, which is roughly comparable with \"\"typical\"\" cash savings products in pounds sterling. Typical to me I mean, not to you ;-) Naturally you'd want to look into the risk as well. Their definition of Halal might not precisely match yours, but I'm sure you can satisfy yourself by looking into the details. I've noticed for example a statement that the bank doesn't invest your money in tobacco or alcohol, which you don't give as a requirement but I'm going to guess wouldn't object to!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "effc766ab2ff7ff0d8f339d421412be5",
"text": "But is the money saved taxable? Not sure I understand the Question. If say you have salary of Rs 5 Lacs, after paying taxes and expenses, lets say you save Rs 1 lacs. If you keep this 1 lacs in savings account. You will get interest. If this interest is less than Rs 10,000/- it is not taxable. If it is more that Rs 10,000 then the additional amount is taxable. i.e. if you get a savings bank interest of Rs 15,000/- the difference Rs 15,000 minus Rs 10,000; i.e. Rs 5000 is taxable. Note if you keep the 1 lacs in Fixed Deposits, then all interest even if you get Rs 1 is taxable. Edit: If you invest the Rs 1 lacs in Tax Saving FD [lock-in period of 6 years], then Yes. You can claim deduction under section 80C.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1987a4c02059deb3b349f0f1ebff01a3",
"text": "Savings accounts with 8% APY? Unheard of these days. You're lucky if you find one at 1%. You should use checking and savings accounts only to hold an emergency fund (6 to 12 months of living expenses), or money that you will need in 2 years or so. The rest, invest in stocks and bonds.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "13e247966c6621e10a75515d13ff0ef9",
"text": "1.8% interest isn't bad, but unless you're a higher rate taxpayer a Santander 123 account might be better for you than an ISA. See http://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/mar/23/cash-isas-pointless-savings-revolution",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "47b0e5018962cd5b091dffb879e6d7f5",
"text": "There is a strange puzzle today where savings account interest rates are not rising in-line with the Federal Funds rate. Either customers are apathetic to their alternative uses of cash, or banks have some-how formed a cartel to keep their cost of funding low. I'm leaning towards the former since bank customers today likely value readily accessible cash more than the interest rate they could earn by investing in money market mutual funds.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f27db9be9f670568435ea70473cb7ef7",
"text": "Well, people have been saying interest rates have to go up for years now and have been wrong so far. Also there is an opportunity cost in waiting to buy - if another five years passes with nothing happen, you earn 0% on checking accounts, but at least earn 1.65% per year or so on your 10y bond.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ccb53ec70fd1c7e3b4addbd3a77698da",
"text": "\"There are two reasons you would get a higher yield for savings accounts: either because it is not guaranteed by a national deposit insurance fund (CDIC I presume in Canada), or you have to hold it for a longer term. Money Market Accounts are insured in the U.S. and are also very liquid since you can debit from it any time. Because of this, they offer much lower rates of interest than comparable products. If you look at the savings products such as the 1.50% momentum savings account offered by ScotiaBank, you actually have to hold a $5000 balance and not make any debit from it for 90 days in order to get the extra 0.75% that would get you to 1.50%. Essentially this is roughly equivalent to offering you a 1.50% GIC with a 0.75% withdrawal penalty fee, but simply presented in more \"\"positive\"\" terms. As for the Implicity Financial Financial 1.75% offering, it looks like it is not insured by the CDIC.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a92f7d57341d16580b73939484db1966",
"text": "Risk. Volatility. Liquidity. Etc. All exist on a spectrum, these are all comparative measures. To the general question, is a mutual fund a good alternative to a savings account? No, but that doesn't mean it is a bad idea for your to allocate some of your assets in to one right now. Mutual funds, even low volatility stock/bond blended mutual funds with low fees still experience some volatility which is infinitely more volatility than a savings account. The point of a savings account is knowing for certain that your money will be there. Certainty lets you plan. Very simplistically, you want to set yourself up with a checking account, a savings account, then investments. This is really about near term planning. You need to buy lunch today, you need to pay your electricity bill today etc, that's checking account activity. You want to sock away money for a vacation, you have an unexpected car repair, these are savings account activities. This is your foundation. How much of a foundation you need will scale with your income and spending. Beyond your basic financial foundation you invest. What you invest in will depend on your willingness to pay attention and learn, and your general risk tolerance. Sure, in this day and age, it is easy to get money back out of an investment account, but you don't want to get in the habit of taping investments for every little thing. Checking: No volatility, completely liquid, no risk Savings: No volatility, very liquid, no principal risk Investments: (Pick your poison) The point is you carefully arrange your near term foundation so you can push up the risk and volatility in your investment endeavors. Your savings account might be spread between a vanilla savings account and some CDs or a money market fund, but never stock (including ETF/Mutual Funds and blended Stock/Bond funds). Should you move your savings account to this mutual fund, no. Should you maybe look at your finances and allocate some of your assets to this mutual fund, sure. Just look at where you stand once a year and adjust your checking and savings to your existing spending. Savings accounts aren't sexy and the yields are awful at the moment but that doesn't mean you go chasing yield. The idea is you want to insulate your investing from your day to day life so you can make unemotional deliberate investment decisions.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d0ad9f9eb2ce3f554c89fd6e9644f846",
"text": "\"If you've already got emergency savings sufficient for your needs, I agree that you'd be better served by sending that $500 to your student loan(s). I, personally, house the bulk of my emergency savings in CDs because I'm not planning to touch it and it yields a little better than a vanilla savings account. To address the comment about liquidity. In addition to my emergency savings I keep plain vanilla savings accounts for miscellaenous sudden expenses. To me \"\"emergency\"\" means lost job, not new water pump for my car; I have other budgeted savings for that but would spend it on a credit card and reimburse myself anyway so liquidity there isn't even that important. The 18 month CDs I use are barely less liquid than vanilla savings and the penalty is just a couple months of the accrued interest. When you compare a possible early distribution penalty against the years of increased yield you're likely to come out ahead after years of never touching your emergency savings, unless you're budgeted such that a car insurance deductible is an emergency expense. Emergency funds should be guaranteed and non-volatile. If I lose my job, 90 days of accrued interest isn't a hindrance to breaking open some of my CDs, and the process isn't so daunting that I'd meaningfully harm my finances. Liquidity in 2017 and liquidity in whatever year a text book was initially written are two totally different animals. My \"\"very illiquid\"\" brokerage account funds are only one transaction and 3 settlement days less liquid than my \"\"very liquid\"\" savings account. There's no call the bank, sell the security, wait for it to clear, my brokerage cuts a check, mail the check, cash the check, etc. I can go from Apple stock on Monday to cash in my hand on like Thursday. On the web portal for the bank that holds my CDs I can instantly transfer the funds from a CD to my checking account there net of a negligible penalty for early distribution. To call CDs illiquid in 2017 is silly.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "22f0bf466653652cd2727314a799604c",
"text": "Very little, as you expected. The CD locks the rate in, meaning you get the rate for sure. The savings account can change any day, so it could fall below the CD's rate. Chances are small, obviously, but it is theoretically possible. If you pay attention, if this happens, you could simply moving it to a CD then (if it is still offered). People with little understanding that want 'security' might be suckered into buying a CD; or there could be versions offered where all the interest comes on the last day (so you delay taxes).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9b138a5fa6a06ef00012efc7b4a477e3",
"text": "I don't know, maybe saving for 30+ years you'd want to see how your investments are doing to plan for retirement? Or should I just use an interest calc on google and expect that average market return on my deposits will be there in 2045. Looking at the statements builds trust with the advisor. What makes them trusted?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "685f41d0666957a5964f2687f3f79aee",
"text": "\"The \"\"Yield Pledge\"\" looks like a marketing promise to me. It may well be true, but I'm not sure it's useful. As you say, it's currently not the best account out there. If those extra $24 per $10000 are really important to you, why not do your own analysis? Put the money in the highest interest account you can find, and then every three months survey the accounts available and, if it isn't still the highest, transfer the funds to the one that is. Personally I wouldn't put that much effort in for $24, but you may be different.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b78126fdc6c804920f109cb784af572d",
"text": "I am using ING for my emergency savings, but sometime last year I discovered SmartyPig. As of 4/24/2010 they offer 2.1%, which is even better than the 1 year CDs at most banks. I've switched two small accounts to SmartyPig and plan to switch my emergency savings. Their accounts are geared around monthly contributions, but you don't have to use that feature.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "522126a55f542900e3ee89f63cfd3395",
"text": "\"Given the current low interest rates - let's assume 4% - this might be a viable option for a lot of people. Let's also assume that your actual interest rate after figuring in tax considerations ends up at around 3%. I think I am being pretty fair with the numbers. Now every dollar that you save each month based on the savings and invest with a higher net return of greater than 3% will in fact be \"\"free money\"\". You are basically betting on your ability to invest over the 3%. Even if using a conservative historical rate of return on the market you should net far better than 3%. This money would be significant after 10 years. Let's say you earn an average of 8% on your money over the 10 years. Well you would have an extra $77K by doing interest only if you were paying on average of $500 a month towards interest on a conventional loan. That is a pretty average house in the US. Who doesn't want $77K (more than you would have compared to just principal). So after 10 years you have the same amount in principal plus $77k given that you take all of the saved money and invest it at the constraints above. I would suggest that people take interest only if they are willing to diligently put away the money as they had a conventional loan. Another scenario would be a wealthier home owner (that may be able to pay off house at any time) to reap the tax breaks and cheap money to invest. Pros: Cons: Sidenote: If people ask how viable is this. Well I have done this for 8 years. I have earned an extra 110K. I have smaller than $500 I put away each month since my house is about 30% owned but have earned almost 14% on average over the last 8 years. My money gets put into an e-trade account automatically each month from there I funnel it into different funds (diversified by sector and region). I literally spend a few minutes a month on this and I truly act like the money isn't there. What is also nice is that the bank will account for about half of this as being a liquid asset when I have to renegotiate another loan.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
fe03df81f9457d0000e323fe3903db61
|
Avoiding timing traps with long term index investing
|
[
{
"docid": "26319fad3c7c2643b6c4d66d4084a2d5",
"text": "1) The risks are that you investing in financial markets and therefore should be prepared for volatility in the value of your holdings. 2) You should only ever invest in financial markets with capital that you can reasonably afford to put aside and not touch for 5-10 years (as an investor not a trader). Even then you should be prepared to write this capital off completely. No one can offer you a guarantee of what will happen in the future, only speculation from what has happened in the past. 3) Don't invest. It is simple. Keep your money in cash. However this is not without its risks. Interest rates rarely keep up with inflation so the spending power of cash investments quickly diminishes in real terms over time. So what to do? Extended your time horizon as you have mentioned to say 30 years, reinvest all dividends as these have been proven to make up the bulk of long term returns and drip feed your money into these markets over time. This will benefit you from what is known in as 'dollar cost averaging' and will negate the need for you to time the market.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f4787628c60d6a60b91a5d4684dfa6b6",
"text": "What are the risks pertaining to timing on long term index investments? The risks are countless for any investment strategy. If you invest in US stocks, and prices revert to the long term cyclically adjusted average, you will lose a lot of money. If you invest in cash, inflation may outpace interest rates and you will lose money. If you invest in gold, the price might go down and you will lose money. It's best to study history and make a reasonable decision (i.e. invest in stocks). Here are long term returns by asset class, computed by Jeremy Siegel: $1 invested in equities in 1801 equals $15.22 today if was not invested and $8.8 million if it was invested in stocks. This is the 'magic of compound interest' and cash / bonds have not been nearly as magical as stocks historically. 2) How large are these risks? The following chart shows the largest drawdowns (decreases in the value of an asset) since 1970 (source): Asset prices decrease in value frequently. Financial assets are volatile, but historically, they have increased over time, enabling investors to earn compounded returns (exponential growth of money is how to get rich). I personally view drawdowns as an excellent time to buy - it's like going on a shopping spree when everything in the store is discounted. 3) In case I feel not prepared to take these risks, how can I avoid them? The optimal asset allocation depends on the ability to take risk and your tolerance for risk. You are young and have a long investment horizon, so if stocks go down, you will have plenty of time to wait for them to go back up (if you're smart, you'll buy more stocks when they go down because they're cheap), so your ability to bear risk is high. From your description, it seems like you have a low risk tolerance (despite a high ability to be exposed to risk). Here's the return of various asset classes and how the average investor has fared over the last 20 years (source): Get educated (read Common Sense on Mutual Funds, A Random Walk Down Wall Street, etc.) and don't be average! Closing words: Investing in a globally diversified portfolio with a dollar cost averaging strategy is the best strategy for most investors. For investors that are unable to stay rational when markets are volatile (i.e. the investor uncontrollably sells their stocks when stocks decrease 20%), a more conservative asset allocation is recommended. Due to the nature of compounded interest, a conservative portfolio is likely to have a much lower future value.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6e9a090a15122f80c6db595f6ccc4fa9",
"text": "\"It's amusing that despite all the evidence that \"\"you can't time the market\"\", everyone still wants to try. Of course I understand your fear. If you invest all your money in the stock market today and it suddenly falls tomorrow you will feel very bad. There are a few things you can do to reduce your risk with respect to timing, however: Don't plop all your money down on the same day. Invest in the market over time, perhaps a few hundred dollars per month worth (depending on your appetite). This averages your purchase cost to ensure you aren't buying at the time when prices are highest. The down side is of course that if you leave cash sitting around, you might also not be buying when the prices are lowest either and will probably miss out on some gains. Still, if risk is your concern, this is a sound strategy. Invest in various markets overseas. This will expose you to some currency risk, but lower your timing risk, as even with globalization markets don't rise and fall in tandem. Even with both of the above, you can still be just plain unlucky (or lucky). I would recommend that you invest only money that you don't need to take out in the near future (in order to reduce the chance that the money will have lost value since you put it in!), and that you don't watch the markets since it makes a lot of people nervous and tends to prod them into doing exactly the wrong thing at exactly the wrong time.\"",
"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": "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": "d4dff35891ae13eeff3533f54e752a6d",
"text": "R/stockmarket is probably the best. When I have some free time I can test that strategy back as long as you would like in quantstrat, although the only problem with testing futures is joining the consolidated contracts, however I can test it with SPY as SPY returns and ES_F track very closely.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "08d5925d71bac21221c3b6a39b518ede",
"text": "There is a difference between trading which is short term focussed and investing which is longterm focussed. On the long term what drives stock prices is still the overall economy and the performance of the underlying business aspects. I do not think that any trading algorithms will change this. These are more concerned with short term profits regardless of the underlying business economics. Therefore I think that longterm investing using index funds is still a viable strategy for most private investors.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "e1690ef048e092b7227b71e406ca5b96",
"text": "If you have such a long term investment goal there really is no reason to try time the markets, 1990s market high was nothing compared to 1999s market high which was nothing to 2006 etc and so on(years quoted as example). Also consider cost of opportunity missed by holding back investing your immediately available investment capital and have it sit in a bank account for 18-24months, collecting meager returns instead of a 5-10% potential return for example(which isnt a strech by any means). Now if you re really hell-bent on timing the market, since you re in the UK, if you really want to attempt it, I would pay close attention to Brexit news and talks that are scheduled for 2018 onwards. Any delays on that deal and/or potential bad development may lead to speculation and temporary lows for you to buy in. If thats worth the effort and cost of opportunity mentioned before is up to you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "64440338a893914c038cd0251d2410ea",
"text": "\"This simulation game uses actual historical S&P 500 data to test whether you can \"\"time the market.\"\" You start with $10,000 invested, and it plays back 10 years of index values, in which time you can choose to sell (once), and if you do sell you can subsequently buy (once). Then you find out how you did relative to just holding what you started with. If you play it enough times, you might eventually beat it once. I never did.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3a1e3d82f34b8a2dede53cd3eeaa8651",
"text": "I assume you mean Stock Mutual funds. 2008 wasn't that long ago. Down 37%. 07/08 combined were down 34%, or 07/09 down 20%. The point of the long term is that over time, a decade will almost ensure a positive return. 2 years is too short, in my opinion.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "06ca6b7b052a8a23dd05e70c68e92efb",
"text": "\"You have a good thing going. One of the luxuries of being invested in an index fund for the long term is that you don't have to sweat the inevitable short term dips in the market. Instead, look at the opportunity that presents itself on market dips: now your monthly investment is getting in at a lower price. \"\"Buy low, sell high.\"\" \"\"Don't lose money.\"\" These are common mantras for long term investment mentality. 5-8 years is plenty of time -- I'd call it \"\"medium-term\"\". As you get closer to your goals (~2-3 years out) you should start slowly moving money out of your index fund and start dollar cost averaging out into cash or short-term bonds (but that's another question). Keep putting money in, wait, and sell high. If it's not high, wait another year or two to buy the house. A lot of people do the opposite for their entire lives: buying high, panic selling on the dips, then buying again when it goes up. That's bad! I recommend a search on \"\"dollar cost averaging\"\", which is exactly what you are doing right now with your monthly investments.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a1e8a47f391e470ba0989ee1d6f99efa",
"text": "Stop loss orders are the exact opposite of what you should be doing if you are implementing a long term buy-and-hold strategy. The motivation of a buy-and-hold strategy is that in the long term, the market rises even despite the occasional crash or recession. Setting a stop loss simply increases the probability that you will sell for a low price in a temporary market downturn. Unless you are likely to need near-term liquidity (in which case you're not a long term investor), that makes no sense.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b39b705716edf980e950a2be747a7b36",
"text": "\"Two main points to answer this in my opinion. First, most people don't start with say half a million dollar to buy all the stocks they need in one shot but rather they accumulate this money gradually. So they must make many Buys in their lifetime. Similarly, most people don't need to withdraw all their investment in one day (and shouldn't do this anyway as it cuts the time of investment). So there will be many Sells. Performing a single buy or sell per year is not efficient since it means you have lots of cash sitting doing nothing. So in this sense, low cost indexing lets you quickly invest your money (and withdraw it when needed after say you retire) without worrying about commission costs each time. The second and most important point to me to answer this is that we should make a very clear distinction between strategy and outcome. Today's stock prices and all the ups and downs of the market are just one possible outcome that materialized from a virtually uncountable number of possible outcomes. It's not too hard to imagine that tomorrow we hear all iPhones explode and Apple stock comes crashing down. Or that in a parallel universe Amazon never takes off and somehow Sears is the king of online commerce. Another item in the \"\"outcome\"\" category is your decisions as a human being of when to buy and sell. If that exploding iPhone event does occur, would you hold on to your stocks? Would you sell and cut your losses? Does the average person make the same decision if they had $1000 invested in Apple alone vs $1M? Index investing offers a low cost strategy that mitigates these uncertainties for the average person. Again here the key is the word \"\"average\"\". Picking a handful of the heavyweight stocks as you mention might give you better returns in 30 years, but it could just as easily give you worse. And the current data suggest the latter is more likely. \"\"Heavyweights\"\" come and go (who were they 30 years ago?) and just like how the other 450 companies may seem right now as dragging down the portfolio, just as easily a handful of them can emerge as the new heavyweights. Guaranteed? No. Possible? Yes. Jack Bogle is simply saying low cost indexing is one of the better strategies for the average person, given the data. But nowhere is it guaranteed that in this lifetime (e.g. next 30 years) will provide the best outcome. Berkshire on the other hand are in the business of chasing maximum outcomes (mid or short term returns). It's two different concepts that shouldn't be mixed together in my opinion.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3d1babfc30d5ff74831c9c3ab4156b3c",
"text": "\"If you want to make a profit from long term trading (whatever \"\"long term\"\" means for you), the best strategy is to let the good performers in your portfolio run, and cull the bad ones. Of course that strategy is hard to follow, unless you have the perfect foresight to know exactly how long your best performing investments will continue to outperform the market, but markets don't always follow the assumption that perfect information is available to all participants, and hence \"\"momentum\"\" has a real-world effect on prices, whether or not some theorists have chosen to ignore it. But a fixed strategy of \"\"daily rebalancing\"\" does exactly the opposite of the above - it continuously reduces the holdings of good performers and increases the holdings of bad. If this type of rebalancing is done more frequently than the constituents of benchmark index are adjusted, it is very likely to underperform the index in the long term. Other issues in a \"\"real world\"\" market are the impact of increased dealing costs on smaller parcels of securities, and the buy/sell spreads incurred in the daily rebalancing trades. If the market is up and down 1% on alternate days with no long tern trend, quite likely the fund will be repeatedly buying and selling small parcels of the same stocks to do its daily balancing.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a80dc7533ccb40699db040f79d2ee423",
"text": "\"There was a time when everyone felt their goal was to beat the respective index they followed. But of course, in aggregate, that's a mathematical impossibility. The result was that the average say large cap fund, whose benchmark index would be the S&P, would lag on average by 1-2%. A trend toward ETFs that would match the market had begun, and the current ETFs that follow the S&P are sub .1% expense. For the fact that studies (Google \"\"Dalbar\"\" for examples) show the typical investor lags not by 1% or 2%, but by far more for reasons of bad timing, my own statement that \"\"I've gotten a return these past years of .06% less than the S&P\"\" would have been seen many years ago as failure, now it's bragging. It handily beats the typical investor and yet, can be had by anyone wishing to stay the course, keep the ETF very long term.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "44ba2db5b1aef4a7e750473944a5d3ab",
"text": "True, but the number of investors who are successful with this strategy is negligible. You are basically just trading return for volatility. A well built portfolio will be better than trying to time the market, at least historically.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1f844c3721d14b0eb0bbbb2963e0852d",
"text": "I researched quite a bit around this topic, and it seems that this is indeed false. Long ter asset growth does not converge to the compound interest rate of expected return. While it is true that standard deviations of annualized return decrease over time, because the asset value itself changes over time, the standard deviations of the total return actually increases. Thus, it is wrong to say that you can take increased risk because you have a longer time horizon. Source",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
11476ebeea4835613aa3f78f398cd543
|
How much should I save up per trade?
|
[
{
"docid": "f027ce814b88c3ba150778d55c32c992",
"text": "\"I'd answer it this way: What do you want to do? I'd say any amount is acceptable from as low as $100. When you look at the specific \"\"tree\"\" of investing paying $5 for a $100 seems unacceptable. However when observing the \"\"forest\"\" what does it matter if you \"\"waste\"\" $5 on a commission? Your friends (and maybe you) probably waste more than $5 multiple times per day. For them buying a latte might empower them, if buying another share of HD, for a similar cost, empowers you than do it. In the end who will be better off? Studies show that the more important part of building a significant investment portfolio is actually doing it. Rate of return and the cost of investing pales in comparison to actually doing it. How many of your peers are doing similar things? You are probably in very rare company. If it makes you happy, it is a wonderful way to spend your money.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "4c83b107714c3ed736f7c06ca4f817b8",
"text": "Unless you're an active trader, 30 trades per month is a number you'll probably never hit, so you might as well take advantage of the offer while you have it. But don't trade more than you normally would. Discount brokerages make money on the arbitrage between the bid and ask prices on the exchanges (legal as long as you get a price that was available on the open market - they disclose this in the fine print in your account paperwork). So they want you to trade as often as they can get you to. As you say, it's really just a mind game. There is always a cost to doing business with a bank or brokerage. They charge you fees for services and they make money on your deposits while you're not using them. So while it looks like they're paying you interest, which they are, they're not paying you all the interest they've earned using your money. So there's the cost. It was only when interest rates dropped so low that they were starting to feel it, that they started rolling out more overt fees for services. If you'll notice, the conditions that cause the fees to be waived in your account all lead to increased deposits or transactions, either directly or indirectly. If your main concern is the efficiency of your investments, which by your description appear to be rather modest, you should consider dollar-cost averaging (DCA) into a mutual fund (of which there are plenty of high quality no-load/no-fee options around), or into a stock if your brokerage offers a lower-fee DCA program for stocks (where you can often buy partial shares).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "129bdb80fca89317d965a8135a162d36",
"text": "\"Congrats on saving the money but unfortunately, you're looking for a 24% annual rate of return and that's not \"\"reasonable\"\" to expect. $200 per month, is $2,400 per year. $2,400/$10,000 is 24%. In a 1% savings account with spending of $200 per month spending you'll have about $7,882 at the end of the year. You'll earn about $90 of interest over the course of the year. I'm sure other people will have more specific opinions about the best way to deploy that money. I'd open a brokerage account (not an IRA, just a regular plain vanilla brokerage account), break off $5,000 and put it in to a low fee no commission S&P index fund; which CAN lose value. Put the rest in a savings account/checking account and just spend wisely.\"",
"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": "fbcc31b3b194bb4a06218bfa4438d6f3",
"text": "The stock market at large has about a 4.5% long-term real-real (inflation-fees-etc-adjusted) rate of return. Yes: even in light of the recent crashes. That means your money invested in stocks doubles every 16 years. So savings when you're 25 and right out of college are worth double what savings are worth when you're 41, and four times what they're worth when you're 57. You're probably going to be making more money when you're 41, but are you really going to be making two times as much? (In real terms?) And at 57, will you be making four times as much? And if you haven't been saving at all in your life, do you think you're going to be able to start, and make the sacrifices in your lifestyle that you may need? And will you save enough in 10 years to live for another 20-30 years after retirement? And what if the economy tanks (again) and your company goes under and you're out of a job when you turn 58? Having tons of money at retirement isn't the only worthy goal you can pursue with your money (ask anyone who saves money to send kids to college), but having some money at retirement is a rather important goal, and you're much more at risk of saving too little than you are of saving too much. In the US, most retirement planners suggest 10-15% as a good savings rate. Coincidentally, the standard US 401(k) plan provides a tax-deferred vehicle for you to put away up to 15% of your income for retirement. If you can save 15% from the age of 20-something onward, you probably will be at least as well-off when you retire as you are during the rest of your life. That means you can spend the rest on things which are meaningful to you. (Well, you should also keep around some cash in case of emergencies or sudden unemployment, and it's never a good idea to waste money, but your responsibilities to your future have at least been satisfied.) And in the UK you get tax relief on your pension contribution at your income tax rate and most employers will match your contributions.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "beb1fdddf8e9c18e2038837e823bed0d",
"text": "In the United States, the Securities Investor Protection Corporation protects the first $500,000 you have at a brokerage including up to $250,000 in cash. This means that if the firm holding your securities fails financially, you have some coverage. That insurance does not prevent your investment itself from losing money. Even traditionally save money market funds can potentially lose value in a situation called Breaking the buck. This means that the Net Asset Value of the fund falls below $1/share. Alas, during periods of market calamity, even traditionally safe stores of value are subject to increased risk.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bf9700a40846d89acd57e1341d961289",
"text": "Before you decide on moving into trading, whether you have experience or not, you need to sort out a couple of questions. How much do you really understand about the markets ? How much money you have and what would be the maximum loss you may be able to take ? What supporting Eco-system you have to help you in terms of trading i.e. hardware, software, research, connections who can provide you with solid information and sorts of it ? Are you really prepared to take on institutions who have billions to spend and take losses i.e. amounts which might break you will be peanuts for them ? I am assuming you are in US, so this website may help you a bit, trading websites where you can open an account. Even if you reply in affirmative to the above questions, you should still be wary about making money by trading. It is a field where even the best people have been smacked in the face without any mercy. And above all don't expect any person will take mercy on your hard earned cash. They will take you to the cleaners if they have to. There are some websites which allow you to participate in trading, not involving real money. Try that out and see where you get to ? That should give you some pointers on where you are headed. And realize that it is human nature to assume, when you hear news that such and such trader make loads of money in such and such trades, trading is easy, unless you do it for yourself. The truth is such traders would be on their desk for 18-20 hours at a stretch, 6-7 days a week, without a life to make such money. And they have loads of support staff i.e. analysts, IT guys who makes it easier for them. Do you have such help ? If no, then look the other side. But giving up without trying at all will be cowardly, but do it in limits which you can bear and not to get carried away when things are good.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0da918b800de4d65fda74dc3184b1060",
"text": "Discount brokers come and go. They tend to come with ridiculously cheap prices, and they go when they fail to gain traction, or raise their prices, at which point they can be undercut by a new player. Some brokers are nicer to people with more money, while others cater to small traders on simple low commissions. No matter which broker you choose, you aren't liable to make much money doing frequent trades with a small account. You either risk most of your money on every trade, or several small trades get sapped by commissions. It is understandable that you want to pay less given the disadvantages of a small account. Just2Trade, USAA, Sogotrade, etc. have each been reasonable options in the < $4 a trade range. Many websites will give you a list of the top discount brokers of the year. As with any heavy discounter/deal that is too good to be true, find reputable referrals from people who use the service, and complaints from customers who have been burned.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7bf0d506705cfb813417bf5edc31f44c",
"text": "\"Emotion aside, you can calculate the cost of the funds you have tied up at the bank. If I can earn 5% in a CD, my \"\"free\"\" checking with minimum $5000 balance really costs me $250/yr. You have money tied up, I understand, but where would you place it otherwise, and at what return? The subject of frequent trading even at zero cost is worth addressing, but not the real subject of your question. So, I'll leave it for elsewhere.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1cf001967728581cbc9cf897c10f6944",
"text": "\"I've never used them myself, but Scottrade might be something for you to look at. They do $7 internet trades, but also offer $27 broker assisted trades (that's for stocks, in both cases). Plus, they have brick-and-morter storefronts all over the US for that extra \"\"I gotta have a human touch\"\". :-) Also, they do have after hours trading, for the same commission as regular trading.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "073adf7932d6d76d7e50e9b95d479d14",
"text": "The FDIC guarantee is up to $250,000 per depositor per insured bank. If your goal is primarily to protect your money, you may want to consider depositing your money in multiple insured banks. I'll leave it to someone else to accurately define money market accounts and how they function, and the (very low) risks you take with them. Don't forget that inflation will eat into your money. It's unlikely you'll make enough interest either in a savings account or in a money market account to cover the inflation. You should factor this in to your overall investment plan.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e52155c7cd64c68a652f09464c274bcc",
"text": "If you have money and may need to access it at any time, you should put it in a savings account. It won't return much interest, but it will return some and it is easily accessible. If you have all your emergency savings that you need (at least six months of income), buy index-based mutual funds. These should invest in a broad range of securities including both stocks and bonds (three dollars in stocks for every dollar in bonds) so as to be robust in the face of market shifts. You should not buy individual stocks unless you have enough money to buy a lot of them in different industries. Thirty different stocks is a minimum for a diversified portfolio, and you really should be looking at more like a hundred. There's also considerable research effort required to verify that the stocks are good buys. For most people, this is too much work. For most people, broad-based index funds are better purchases. You don't have as much upside, but you also are much less likely to find yourself holding worthless paper. If you do buy stocks, look for ones where you know something about them. For example, if you've been to a restaurant chain with a recent IPO that really wowed you with their food and service, consider investing. But do your research, so that you don't get caught buying after everyone else has already overbid the price. The time to buy is right before everyone else notices how great they are, not after. Some people benefit from joining investment clubs with others with similar incomes and goals. That way you can share some of the research duties. Also, you can get other opinions before buying, which can restrain risky impulse buys. Just to reiterate, I would recommend sticking to mutual funds and saving accounts for most investors. Only make the move into individual stocks if you're willing to be serious about it. There's considerable work involved. And don't forget diversification. You want to have stocks that benefit regardless of what the overall economy does. Some stocks should benefit from lower oil prices while others benefit from higher prices. You want to have both types so as not to be caught flat-footed when prices move. There are much more experienced people trying to guess market directions. If your strategy relies on outperforming them, it has a high chance of failure. Index-based mutual funds allow you to share the diversification burden with others. Since the market almost always goes up in the long term, a fund that mimics the market is much safer than any individual security can be. Maintaining a three to one balance in stocks to bonds also helps as they tend to move in opposite directions. I.e. stocks tend to be good when bonds are weak and vice versa.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f03ab3bf6064ae72ee8f79afd2225323",
"text": "\"1000 (£/$/€) is also not a lot to start with. Assuming you want to buy stocks or ETFs you will be paying fees on both ends. Even with online brokerages you are looking at 7.95 (£/$/€) a trade. That of course translates to a min of .795% x 2 = 1.59% increase in value you would need just to break even already. There is a way around some of this as a lot of the brokerages do not charge fees for their ETFs or their affiliated ones. However, I would try to hold out till at least $5000 before investing in assets such as stocks. In the meantime there are many great books out there to \"\"invest in knowledge\"\".\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7f2e8904ee826e725d3ddb59be9cac0d",
"text": "Before putting any significant money into stocks, I would recommend spending at least a year paper trading. It is amazing how much money you can lose trading stocks when you don't know what you are doing!",
"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": "a1abedec9054e063de2c7d95de1f32b5",
"text": "Each trade will cost you nearly $10 to buy and then $10 to sell. With $1800 that is literally 1% of your initial investment lost to fees. It would be far wiser for you to learn with play money instead. Head over to investopedia and use pretend money: http://www.investopedia.com/simulator/ If you're absolutely fine with losing your $1800 than go ahead and jump into some companies you like. I would not recommend that though. Put the $1800 into one single position that you will hold for a few years and play with pretend money to get a better feel for short term trades.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
546b8c529d5a2d758c1d7a7ff498bd91
|
Finding stocks following performance of certain investor, like BRK.B for Warren Buffet
|
[
{
"docid": "c1402c618145c984650ff00198caab0f",
"text": "Remember that unless you participate in the actual fund that these individuals offer to the public, you will not get the same returns they will. If you instead do something like, look at what Warren Buffet's fund bought/sold yesterday (or even 60 minutes ago), and buy/sell it yourself, you will face 2 obstacles to achieving their returns: 1) The timing difference will mean that the value of the stock purchased by Warren Buffet will be different for your purchase and for his purchase. Because these investors often buy large swathes of stock at once, this may create large variances for 2 reasons: (a) simply buying a large volume of a stock will naturally increase the price, as the lowest sell orders are taken up, and fewer willing sellers remain; and (b) many people (including institutional investors) may be watching what someone like Warren Buffet does, and will want to follow suit, chasing the same pricing problem. 2) You cannot buy multiple stocks as efficiently as a fund can. If Warren Buffet's fund holds, say, 50 stocks, and he trades 1 stock per day [I have absolutely no idea about what diversification exists within his fund], his per-share transaction costs will be quite low, due to share volume. Whereas for you to follow him, you would need 50 transactions upfront, + 1 per day. This may appear to be a small cost, but it could be substantial. Imagine if you wanted to invest 50k using this method - that's $1k for each of 50 companies. A $5 transaction fee would equal 1% of the value of each company invested [$5 to buy, and $5 to sell]. How does that 1% compare to the management fee charged by the actual fund available to you? In short, if you feel that a particular investor has a sound strategy, I suggest that you consider investing with them directly, instead of attempting to recreate their portfolio.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "84970ca5d7695ca327e863dbd790f588",
"text": "Since nobody seems to have an answer here is the list I've came up so far: I'll keep adding to the list - also feel free to edit or comment if can add to the list.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "99c15aaf3ab361336a8b7a425d667db5",
"text": "A couple points, first you don't point out what investors you want to invest with, and second BRK.B does not track anything; it is just a very small slice of his entire holdings BRK.A minus the voting rights. One solid way to go would be to buy BRK.B and also a tech ETF like QQQ, or XLK, ..or both.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "991cef19bbf007ca750f256f14ac5d3a",
"text": "Since the vast majority of fund managers/big investors run private entities, it's not possible to track their performance. It's possible to look at what they are holding (that's never real-time information) and emulate their performance.",
"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": "7edf5d450d98f1513b4faaa546c6202e",
"text": "No. You're lucky, maybe, but not really a successful investor. Warren Buffet is, you're not him. Sometimes it is easier to pick stocks to bid on, sometimes its harder. I got my successes too. It is easier on a raising market, especially when it is recovering after a deep fall, like now. But generally it is very hard to beat the market. You need to remember that an individual investor, not backed by deep pockets, algo-trading and an army of analysts, is in a disadvantage on the market by definition. So what can you do? Get the deep pockets, algo-trading and an army of analysts. How? By pooling with others - investing through funds.",
"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": "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": "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": "af663004e9020b11230f58c727f636bf",
"text": "True on the second point. It is information based. My bad. With regard to the first point, I don't think he's Jesus returned. He makes plenty of mistakes but he does provide the return record of a very disparate group of investors following the same method. That method may not work anymore (hard to say) but I think it does. I'm obviously a true believer. With respect to third point, I don't think you were being a dick. Enjoyed the debate. Thanks for the perspective",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "adc58170ab394a0f0d40e7c03f1b1f41",
"text": "Yes definitely Warren Buffet averaged returns of only around 21% throughout his 40 years in business. ROE of 23% is probably more than double the ROE of most companies , whats more as the saying goes its easier to grow sales from 1 million to 100 million than to grow sales from 100 million to 10 billion",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "43b5e2eff2438cb0614ae2ecf7afe2da",
"text": "Yes, Alpha Vantage. As MasticatedTesticle points out, it is worth asking where it originally comes from, but it looked to me like a solid source for, in particular, intraday trading data. Additionally, Yahoo finance is done on R (zoo, PerformanceAnalytics libraries don't work anymore as far as I can tell). The numbers look right to me tho, let me know if things are off.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cd5245ce5576b9ef54a0c5b4ea5a1aa0",
"text": "I would say any of the top weighted stocks in the XLK etf. I wouldn't use a leader like IBM Goog or aapl. If anything, try and find one that is not extremely recognizable and present it like you discovered this particular stock in this sector you follow closely.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "20fb453bd63f1f4ded5fa3e211933994",
"text": "Value investing is just an investment strategy, it's an alternative to technical investing. Buffet made money picking stocks. It's not obvious how that adds value, but it does. Everything about the stock market is ultimately about IPOs. Without active trading, of stocks after issue, no one would buy at the IPO. The purpose of an IPO is to finance the long-term growth of a business, which is the point in the process where the value to the people gets created. There is a group of elites that needs to be dealt with, you're correct, but I worry that your definition of this group is overly broad.",
"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": "57296981569f8b7f4358c2884380af9a",
"text": "\"The first article you link clearly refers to Warren Buffet and doesn't, in regard to taxes, refer in any way to Berkshire Hathaway. The second article you link is titled, \"\"Ways Professional Traders Can Save Big At Tax Time.\"\" Berkshire Hathaway is not a firm primarily engaged in trading. It is engaged in investing in companies that it feels offer long-term growth and appreciation. In some cases, their investment is in the entire company; in others, a very large percentage of its total capitalization. Trading, on the other hand, involves buying stocks, bonds, futures, etc. for near-term resale, ideally at a profit. Stock speculation is a risky and complex occupation because the direction of the markets are generally unpredictable and lack transparency. As has been mentioned above, we are confident that Berkshire Hathaway use every technique at its disposal to reduce its tax burden. I am confident, as well, that they spend considerable effort and expense to be certain that they are never discovered making errors in their tax returns.\"",
"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": "f6b93d56422824ec67ede47fd8faf611",
"text": "Very interesting. I would like to expand beyond just precious metals and stocks, but I am not ready just to jump in just yet (I am a relatively young investor, but have been playing around with stocks for 4 years on and off). The problem I often find is that the stock market is often too overvalued to play Ben Graham type strategy/ PE/B, so I would like to expand my knowledge of investing so I can invest in any market and still find value. After reading Jim Rogers, I was really interested in commodities as an alternative to stocks, but I like to play really conservative (generally). Thank you for your insight. If you don't mind, I would like to add you as a friend, since you seem quite above average in the strategy department.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c3ac0b78be10b95f31383ab7fc2eb0a9",
"text": "He owns some giants. I'd bet Coca-Cola is his biggest cash cow. This is a non-story. The revenue naturally follows actual value provided, as opposed to buying and selling shares with the swings of the stock market. Buffet buys and holds, and builds and collects the revenue from his companies, that's been his core philosophy since the beginning.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
222363f5ae741a012f1d03b352c2675b
|
Using P/E Ratio of an ETF to decide on asset mix
|
[
{
"docid": "81995de733ba6e149014bbf4128058a4",
"text": "\"P/E alone would not work very well. See for example http://www.hussmanfunds.com/html/peak2pk.htm and http://www.hussmanfunds.com/rsi/profitmargins.htm (in short, P/E is affected too much by cyclical changes in profit margins, or you might say: booms inflate the E beyond sustainable levels, thus making the P/E look more favorable than it is). Here's a random blog post that points to Schiller's normalized earnings measure: http://seekingalpha.com/article/247257-s-p-500-is-expensive-using-normalized-earnings I think even Price to Sales is supposed to work better than P/E for predicting 10-year returns on a broad index, because it effectively normalizes the margins. (Normalized valuation explains the variance in 10-year returns better than the variance in 1-year returns, I think I've read; you can't rely on things \"\"reverting to mean\"\" in only 1 year.) Another issue with P/E is that E is more subject to weird accounting effects than for example revenues. For example whether stock compensation is expensed or one-time write-offs are included or whatever can mean you end up with an economically strange earnings number. btw, a simple way to do what you describe here would be to put a chunk of money into funds that vary equity exposure. For example John Hussman's fund has an elaborate model that he uses to decide when to hedge. Say you invest 40% bonds, 40% stocks, and 20% in Hussman Strategic Growth. When Hussman fully hedges his fund, you would effectively have 40% in stocks; and when he fully unhedges it, you would have 60% in stocks. This isn't quite the whole story; he also tries to pick up some gains through stock picking, so when fully hedged the fund isn't quite equivalent to cash, more like a market-neutral fund. (For Hussman Funds in particular, he's considered stocks to be overvalued for most of the last 15 years, and the fund is almost always fully hedged, so you'd want to be comfortable with that.) There are other funds out there doing similar stuff. There are certainly funds that vary equity exposure though most not as dramatically as the Hussman fund. Some possibilities might be PIMCO All-Asset All-Authority, PIMCO Multi-Asset, perhaps. Or just some value-oriented funds with willingness to deviate from benchmarks. Definitely read the prospectus on all these and research other options, I just thought it would be helpful to mention a couple of specific examples. If you wanted to stick to managing ETFs yourself, Morningstar's premium service has an interesting feature where they take the by-hand bottom-up analysis of all the stocks in an ETF, and use that to calculate an over- or under-valuation ratio for the ETF. I don't know if the Morningstar bottom-up stuff necessarily works; I'm sure they make the \"\"pro\"\" case on their site. On the \"\"con\"\" side, in the financial crisis bubble bursting, they cut their valuation on many companies and they had a high valuation on a lot of the financials that blew up. While I haven't run any stats and don't have the data, in several specific cases it looked like their bottom-up analysis ended up assuming too-high profit margins would continue. Broad-brush normalized valuation measures avoided that mistake by ignoring the details of all the individual companies and assuming the whole index had to revert to mean. If you're rich, I think you can hire GMO to do a varied-equity-exposure strategy for you (http://www.gmo.com/America/). You could also look at the \"\"fundamental indexing\"\" ETFs that weight by dividends or P/E or other measures of value, rather than by market cap. The bottom line is, there are lots of ways to do tactical asset allocation. It seems complex enough that I'm not sure it's something you'd want to manage yourself. There are also a lot of managers doing this that I personally am not comfortable with because they don't seem to have a discipline or method that they explain well enough, or they don't seem to do enough backtesting and math, or they rely on macroeconomic forecasts that probably aren't reliable, or whatever. All of these tactical allocation strategies are flavors of active management. I'm most comfortable with active management when it has a fairly objective, testable, and logical discipline to it, such as Graham&Buffett style value investing, Hussman's statistical methods, or whatever it is. Many people will argue that all active management is bad and there's no way to distinguish among any of it. I am not in that camp, but I do think a lot of active managers are bad, and that it's pretty hard to distinguish among them, and I think active management is more likely to help with risk control than it is to help with beating the market. Still you should know (and probably already do know, but I'll note for other readers) that there's a strong argument smart people make that you're best off avoiding this whole line of tactical-allocation thinking and just sticking to the pure cap-based index funds.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6bf6a14a1513d13c389d1123443d40fb",
"text": "\"P/E is a useful tool for evaluating the price of a company, but only in comparison to companies in similar industries, especially for industries with well-defined cash flows. For example, if you compared Consolidated Edison (NYSE:ED) to Hawaiian Electric (NYSE:HE), you'll notice that HE has a significantly higher PE. All things being equal, that means that HE may be overpriced in comparison to ED. As an investor, you need to investigate further to determine whether that is true. HE is unique in that it is a utility that also operates a bank, so you need to take that into account. You need to think about what your goal is when you say that you are a \"\"conservative\"\" investor and look at the big picture, not a magic number. If conservative to you means capital preservation, you need to ensure that you are in investments that are diversified and appropriate. Given the interest rate situation in 2011, that means your bonds holding need to be in short-duration, high-quality securities. Equities should be weighted towards large cap, with smaller holdings of international or commodity-associated funds. Consider a target-date or blended fund like one of the Vanguard \"\"Life Strategy\"\" funds.\"",
"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": "be1b32a07b443f30339d679ae66b7750",
"text": "There are the EDHEC-risk indices based on similar hedge fund types but even then an IR would give you performance relative to the competition, which is not useful for most hf's as investors don't say I want to buy a global macro fund, vs a stat arb fund, investors say I want to pay a guy to give me more money! Most investors don't care how the OTHER funds did or where the market went, they want that NAV to go always up , which is why a modified sharpe is probably better.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "85e308f5578c0e21d72ce7e1102351cf",
"text": "You weren't really clear about where you are in the world, what currency you are using and what you want your eventual asset allocation to be. If you're in the US, I'd recommend splitting your international investment between a Global ex-US fund like VEU (as Chris suggested in his comment) and an emerging markets ETF like VWO. If you're not in the US, you need to think about how much you would like to invest in US equities and what approach you would like to take to do so. Also, with international funds, particularly emerging markets, low expense ratios aren't necessarily the best value. Active management may help you to avoid some of the risks associated with investing in foreign companies, particularly in emerging markets. If you still want low expenses at all cost, understand the underlying index that the ETF is pegged to.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "54d0a04493a4b5b0306b714af1d5f04c",
"text": "\"I think Swenson's insight was that the traditional recommendation of 60% stocks plus 40% bonds has two serious flaws: 1) You are exposed to way too much risk by having a portfolio that is so strongly tied to US equities (especially in the way it has historically been recommend). 2) You have too little reward by investing so much of your portfolio in bonds. If you can mix a decent number of asset classes that all have equity-like returns, and those asset classes have a low correlation with each other, then you can achieve equity-like returns without the equity-like risk. This improvement can be explicitly measured in the Sharpe ratio of you portfolio. (The Vanguard Risk Factor looks pretty squishy and lame to me.) The book the \"\"The Ivy Portfolio\"\" does a great job at covering the Swenson model and explains how to reasonably replicate it yourself using low fee ETFs.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1d803314fd4abb02146c490a5f97aed2",
"text": "It depends on what you are looking for in the investment. Sharpe is generally used when you are choosing among portfolios(mutual funds, hedge funds, ETFs, etc.) to be the optimal risky portfolio. Treynor is typically used when deciding which security will be added to your portfolio. And the information ratio (alpha/residual standard deviation) is used when deciding which one you will add to a passive portfolio. Also don't forget, when analyzing a stock you need to look at the fundamentals. I hope this helps. And correct me if I'm wrong any you more experienced guys.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e3cc2326e8fa93452b5c41bfe54f0584",
"text": "Right now, the unrealized appreciation of Vanguard Tax-Managed Small-Cap Fund Admiral Shares is 28.4% of NAV. As long as the fund delivers decent returns over the long term, is there anything stopping this amount from ballooning to, say, 90% fifty years hence? I'd have a heck of a time imagining how this grows to that high a number realistically. The inflows and outflows of the fund are a bigger question along with what kinds of changes are there to capital gains that may make the fund try to hold onto the stocks longer and minimize the tax burden. If this happens, won't new investors be scared away by the prospect of owing taxes on these gains? For example, a financial crisis or a superior new investment technology could lead investors to dump their shares of tax-managed index funds, triggering enormous capital-gains distributions. And if new investors are scared away, won't the fund be forced to sell its assets to cover redemptions (even if there is no disruptive event), leading to larger capital-gains distributions than in the past? Possibly but you have more than a few assumptions in this to my mind that I wonder how well are you estimating the probability of this happening. Finally, do ETFs avoid this problem (assuming it is a problem)? Yes, ETFs have creation and redemption units that allow for in-kind transactions and thus there isn't a selling of the stock. However, if one wants to pull out various unlikely scenarios then there is the potential of the market being shut down for an extended period of time that would prevent one from selling shares of the ETF that may or may not be as applicable as open-end fund shares. I would however suggest researching if there are hybrid funds that mix open-end fund shares with ETF shares which could be an alternative here.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2f6dbee2a64e74d7236cc6693d80ca1c",
"text": "I do this very thing, but with asset allocation and risk parity in mind. I disagree with the cash or bust answers above, but many of the aforementioned facts are valuable and I don't mean to undermine them in anyway. That said, let's look at two examples: Option 1: All-in For the sake of argument let's say you had $100k invested in the SPY (S&P 500 ETF) in early 2007, and you kept it there until today. Your lowest balance would have been about $51k, and at this point the possibility of you losing your job was probably at a peak. Today you would be left with $170k assuming no withdrawal. Option 2: Risk Parity BUT if you balanced your investments with a risk parity approach, using negatively correlated asset classes you avoid this dilemma. If you had invested 50% in XLP (Consumer Staples Sector ETF) and 50% in TLT ( Long Term Treasury ETF) your investments low point would have been $88k, and your lowest annual return would be +0.69%. Today you would be left with $214k assuming no withdrawals. I chose option #2 and it hasn't failed me yet, even in 2016 so far the results are steady and reliably given the reward. My general opinion is simple: when you have money always grow it. Just be sure to cover your ass and prepare for rain. Backtesting for this was done at portfoliovisualizer.com, the one caveat to this approach is that inflation and a lack of international exposure are a risk here.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ac22618341c07a2678f24e43e1aad47a",
"text": "Personally I'm not a huge fan of rebalancing within an asset class. I would vote for leaving the HD shares alone and buying other assets until you get to the portfolio you want. Frequent buying and selling incurs costs and possible tax consequences that can really hurt your returns.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3219e296cb1067d1fcae387db9bd14c5",
"text": "\"To calculate a sector (or index) P/E ratio you need to sum the market caps of the constituent stocks and divide it by the sum of the total earnings of the constituent stocks (including stocks that have negative earnings). There are no \"\"per share\"\" figures used in the calculation. Beware when you include an individual stock that there may be multiple issues associated with the company that are not in the index.... eg. Berkshire Hathaway BRK.B is in the S&P 500 but BRK.A is not. In contrast, Google has both GOOGL and GOOG included in the S&P 500 index but not its unlisted Class B shares. All such shares need to be included in the market cap and figuring out the different share class ratios can be tricky.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ab3fa3b48b665dad5943843d32607325",
"text": "You better buy an ETF that does the same, because it would be much cheaper than mutual fund (and probably much cheaper than doing it yourself and rebalancing to keep up with the index). Look at DIA for example. Neither buying the same amount of stocks nor buying for the same amount of money would be tracking the DJIE. The proportions are based on the market valuation of each of the companies in the index.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "15f79601c8bf5c9e69c36745719e3ce7",
"text": "\"So it's not always what degree of risk you want be exposed to, but what *type* of risk. So let's say you were happy with the S&P 500 ETF but you wanted to avoid oil stocks, so you combine that ETF with some derivatives that profit if oil goes down and you will outperform the S&P 500 on a net basis. Hedge funds can be very crafty with what exposure they want. They include a LOT of different strategies, so it's kind of incorrect to group them into one \"\"asset class\"\" per se. As for the question if hedge funds are worth it? Well if the market tanks, you might find your hedge fund's performance to be very positive (ex: Kyle Bass made big money with the crisis).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1d94322f86b8c4d4aeab0163ac063d5a",
"text": "Fund rebalancing typically refers to changing the investment mix to stay within the guidelines of the mutual fund objective. For example, lets say a fund is supposed to have at least 20% in bonds. Because of a dramatic increase in stock price and decrease in bond values it finds itself with only 19.9% in bonds at the end of the trading day. The fund manager would sell sufficient equities to reduce its equity holdings and buy more bonds. Rebalancing is not always preferential because it could cause capital gain distribution, typically once per year, without selling the fund. And really any trading within the fun could do the same. In the case you cite the verbiage is confusing. Often times I wonder if the author knows less then the reader. It might also be a bit of a rush to get the article out, and the author did not write correctly. I agree that the ETFs cited are suitable for short term traders. However, that is because, traditionaly, the market has increased in value over the long term. If you bet it will go down over the long term, you are almost certain to lose money. Like you, I cannot figure out how rebalancing makes this suitable only for short term traders. If the ETFs distribute capital gains events much more frequently then once per year, that is worth mentioning, but does not provide a case for short versus long term traders. Secondly, I don't think these funds are doing true rebalancing. They might change investments daily for the most likely profitable outcome, but that really isn't rebalancing. It seems the author is confused.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "96347bc9f864460e64c7d4b3f9adb866",
"text": "My understanding is that all ETF options are American style, meaning they can be exercised before expiration, and so you could do the staggered exercises as you described.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f50607ffadab1c7bacb18fce2adec8de",
"text": "\"The way I've implemented essentially \"\"value averaging\"\", is to keep a constant ratio between different investment types in my portfolio. Lets say (in a simple example), 25% cash, 25% REIT (real estate), 25% US Stock, 25% Foreign stock. Lets say I deposit a set $1000 per month into this account. If the stock portion goes up, it will look like I need more cash & REIT, so all of that $1000 goes into cash & the REIT portion to get them towards their 25%. I may spend months investing only in cash & the REIT while the stock goes up. Of course if the stock goes down, that $1000 per month goes into the stock accounts. Now you can also balance your account if you'd like, regularly selling stock (or the REIT), and making the account balanced. So if the stock goes down, you'd use the cash & REIT to purchase more stock. If the stock went up, you'd sell the stock, and buy REIT & leave more in cash.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5a9de080444de75c710b8e60527623c7",
"text": "\"I'm trying to understand how an ETF manager optimized it's own revenue. Here's an example that I'm trying to figure out. ETF firm has an agreement with GS for blocks of IBM. They have agreed on daily VWAP + 1% for execution price. Further, there is a commission schedule for 5 mils with GS. Come month end, ETF firm has to do a monthly rebalance. As such must buy 100,000 shares at IBM which goes for about $100 The commission for the trade is 100,000 * 5 mils = $500 in commission for that trade. I assume all of this is covered in the expense ratio. Such that if VWAP for the day was 100, then each share got executed to the ETF at 101 (VWAP+ %1) + .0005 (5 mils per share) = for a resultant 101.0005 cost basis The ETF then turns around and takes out (let's say) 1% as the expense ratio ($1.01005 per share) I think everything so far is pretty straight forward. Let me know if I missed something to this point. Now, this is what I'm trying to get my head around. ETF firm has a revenue sharing agreement as well as other \"\"relations\"\" with GS. One of which is 50% back on commissions as soft dollars. On top of that GS has a program where if you do a set amount of \"\"VWAP +\"\" trades you are eligible for their corporate well-being programs and other \"\"sponsorship\"\" of ETF's interests including helping to pay for marketing, rent, computers, etc. Does that happen? Do these disclosures exist somewhere?\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
4ac289427ae37fdf723a3ebb241fcb35
|
Are option contracts subject to mark to market rules
|
[
{
"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": "21aefc5868fa6f7f893faf0d7c957cf3",
"text": "\"The change is generally known as the Options Symbology Initiative (or \"\"OSI\"\") and there is a highly comprehensive guide to what occurred here. The basic gist of what occurred was a shift FROM: A coded system in which a shorter (3 to 5 letter symbol) could be used, but the symbols required a data source to determine what they meant. MSQ AD used to be a MSFT Jan 20 option, but you had to look up MSQ in a table to know that. TO: A system in which much longer symbols are needed, but they contain all the information required to identify a unique option: DELL 4.000 C 5/16/2010 isn't easy to type, but once you know how to read it, it's easy to see that it's an option on DELL, expiring on May 16th 2010, is a call (rather than a put,) and has a strike price of 4. As to why they did it, there are a number of benefits, but most important reason is this one: they were running out of symbols. The number of permutations of 3-5 letter symbols had been exceeded by the number of options that had been listed, resulting in the need to \"\"recycle\"\" symbols. This meant that a current option symbol would be the same as an old one, in some cases on a different stock, which was wreaking havoc on historical data.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8ac3f7737b4923500e318bf9888f039a",
"text": "Your assets are marked to market. If you buy at X, and the market is bidding at 99.9% * X then you've already lost 0.1%. This is a market value oriented way of looking at costs. You could always value your assets with mark to model, and maybe you do, but no one else will. Just because you think the stock is worth 2*X doesn't mean the rest of the world agrees, evidenced by the bid. You surely won't get any margin loans based upon mark to model. Your bankers won't be convinced of the valuation of your assets based upon mark to model. By strictly a market value oriented way of valuing assets, there is a bid/ask cost. more clarification Relative to littleadv, this is actually a good exposition between the differences between cash and accrual accounting. littleadv is focusing completely on the cash cost of the asset at the time of transaction and saying that there is no bid/ask cost. Through the lens of cash accounting, that is 100% correct. However, if one uses accrual accounting marking assets to market (as we all do with marketable assets like stocks, bonds, options, etc), there may be a bid/ask cost. At the time of transaction, the bids used to trade (one's own) are exhausted. According to exchange rules that are now practically uniform: the highest bid is given priority, and if two bids are bidding the exact same highest price then the oldest bid is given priority; therefore the oldest highest bid has been exhausted and removed at trade. At the time of transaction, the value of the asset cannot be one's own bid but the highest oldest bid leftover. If that highest oldest bid is lower than the price paid (even with liquid stocks this is usually the case) then one has accrued a bid/ask cost.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8f5a0c7900330a7e68a346097022cf31",
"text": "\"I have a Roth IRA with Scottrade, and they allow me to write cash secured puts, as well as covered calls. I can also purchase calls or puts, if I choose. When I write a cash secured put, it automatically deducts the amount required to purchase the shares at the strike price from my \"\"cash available for transactions\"\".\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7f1e8c5ba2bbd1302597d9a89ab0c762",
"text": "In the question you cited, I assumed immediate exercise, that is why you understood that I was talking about 30 days after grant. I actually mentioned that assumption in the answer. Sec. 83(b) doesn't apply to options, because options are not assets per se. It only applies to restricted stocks. So the 30 days start counting from the time you get the restricted stock, which is when you early-exercise. As to the AMT, the ISO spread will be considered AMT income in the year of the exercise, if you file the 83(b). For NQSO it is ordinary income. That's the whole point of the election. You can find more detailed explanation on this website.",
"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": "617a7517cb417ed7ce90bb074959be08",
"text": "On the US markets, most index options are European style. Most stock and ETF options are, as you noted, American style.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5be66c09f25b275e7671d63c53758148",
"text": "What you have to remember is that Options are derivatives of another asset like stocks for example. The price of the Option is derived from the price of the underlying. If the underlying is a stock for example, as the price of the stock moves up and down during the trading day, so will the Market Maker's fair value for the Option. As Options are usually less liquid than the underlying stock, Market Makers are usually more active in 'Providing a Market' with Options. Thus if you place a limit order half way between the current Bid and Ask and the underlying stock price moves towards your limit order, the Market Maker will do their job and 'Provide a Market' at that price, thus executing your order.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fcd9990896be0b5c627ec5da25a4af72",
"text": "I think George's answer explains fairly well why the brokerages don't allow this - it's not an exchange rule, it's just that the brokerage has to have the shares to lend, and normally those shares come from people's margin, which is impossible on a non-marginable stock. To address the question of what the alternatives are, on popular stocks like SIRI, a deep In-The-Money put is a fairly accurate emulation of an actual short interest. If you look at the options on SIRI you will see that a $3 (or higher) put has a delta of -$1, which is the same delta as an actual short share. You also don't have to worry about problems like margin calls when buying options. The only thing you have to worry about is the expiration date, which isn't generally a major issue if you're buying in-the-money options... unless you're very wrong about the direction of the stock, in which case you could lose everything, but that's always a risk with penny stocks no matter how you trade them. At least with a put option, the maximum amount you can lose is whatever you spent on the contract. With a short sale, a bull rush on the stock could potentially wipe out your entire margin. That's why, when betting on downward motion in a microcap or penny stock, I actually prefer to use options. Just be aware that option contracts can generally only move in increments of $0.05, and that your brokerage will probably impose a bid-ask spread of up to $0.10, so the share price has to move down at least 10 cents (or 10% on a roughly $1 stock like SIRI) for you to just break even; definitely don't attempt to use this as a day-trading tool and go for longer expirations if you can.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2591b8960a7aec0e1f980a946309cc61",
"text": "Oh it is ok. I was a little confused, because I tried to read up on future options and options as much as possible, and to still get question marks worried me. I mean to my knowledge, options can be traded as is without margin, while futures do need margin. If you are a starving artist, you can see the draw of not having to have margin to keep track of, but be able at the same time to learn about another market to trade in (commodities).",
"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": "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": ""
},
{
"docid": "28f13758cf91f1e70e60d49db4f80a9b",
"text": "\"According to page 56 of the 2015 IRS Publication 550 on Investment Income and Expenses: Wash sales. Your holding period for substantially identical stock or securities you acquire in a wash sale includes the period you held the old stock or securities. It looks like the rule applies to stocks and other securities, including options. It seems like the key is \"\"substantially identical\"\". For your brokerage / trading platform to handle these periods correctly for reporting to IRS, it seems best to trade the same security instead of trying to use something substantially identical.\"",
"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": "5647ff51faca34bb74459ad4f3d56779",
"text": "\"fennec has a very good answer but i feel it provides too much information. So i'll just try to explain what that sentence says. Put option is the right to sell a stock. \"\"16 puts on Cisco at 71 cents\"\", means John comes to Jim and says, i'll give you 71 cent now, if you allow me to sell one share of Cisco to you at $16 at some point in the future ( on expiration date). NYT quote says 1000 puts that means 1000 contracts - he bought a right to sell 100,000 shares of Cisco on some day at $16/share. Call option - same idea: right to buy a stock.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "40852ef7911c90119ac660d171e27ff5",
"text": "\"I found the answer after some searching online. It turns out that when talking options, rarely is the current P/L line considered when talking about making adjustments/taking trades off. From Investopedia: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/breakevenpoint.asp \"\"... For options trading, the breakeven point is the market price that a stock must reach for an option buyer to avoid a loss if they exercise the option. For a call buyer, the breakeven point is the strike price plus the premium paid, while breakeven for a put position is the strike price minus the premium paid.\"\" The first sentence sounds more like the current P/L line, but the bold section clearly states the rule I was looking for. In the example posted in my question above, the breakpoints labeled with \"\"1\"\" would be the break points I should consider.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
eda7914c450e3319f1763a07be33c93c
|
How to deal with intraday prices conflicting with EOD highs and lows
|
[
{
"docid": "244082b525c3e0b52022e26c339e7810",
"text": "\"In the US, stocks are listed on one exchange but can be traded on multiple venues. You need to confirm exactly what your data is showing: a) trades on the primary-listed exchange; or b) trades made at any venue. Also, the trade condition codes are important. Only certain trade condition codes contribute towards the day's open/high/low/close and some others only contribute towards the volume data. The Consolidated Tape Association is very clear on which trades should contribute towards each value - but some vendors have their own interpretation (or just simply an erroneous interpretation of the specifications). It may surprise you to find that the majority of trading volume for many stocks is not on their primary-listed exchange. For example, on 2 Mar 2015, NASDAQ:AAPL traded a total volume across all venues was 48096663 shares but trading on NASDAQ itself was 12050277 shares. Trades can be cancelled. Some data vendors do not modify their data to reflect these busted trades. Some data vendors also \"\"snapshot\"\" their feed at a particular point in time of the data. Some exchanges can provide data (mainly corrections) 4-5 hours after the closing bell. By snapshotting the data too early and throwing away any subsequent data is a typical cause of data discrepancies. Some data vendors also round prices/volumes - but stocks don't just trade to two decimal places. So you may well be comparing two different sets of trades (with their own specific inclusion rules) against the same stock. You need to confirm with your data sources exactly how they do things. Disclosure: Premium Data is an end-of-day daily data vendor.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "6346bf2359cb8a27f603da4b4436f171",
"text": "You said the decision will be made by EOD. If you've made the decision prior to the market close, I'd execute on the closing price. If you are trading stocks with any decent volume, I'd not worry about the liquidity. If your strategy's profits are so small that your gains are significantly impacted by say, the bid/ask spread (a penny or less for liquid stocks) I'd rethink the approach. You'll find the difference between the market open and prior night close is far greater than the normal bid/ask.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0664599fabdb6883ccada3e18d42cf24",
"text": "If you are in it for the long run and are not worried about intra day fluctuations and buying within + or - 1% you would be better off going for a market order as this will make sure you buy it on the day. If you use limit orders you risk missing out on the order if prices gap and start rising in the morning. Another option is to employ stop buy trigger orders (if offered by your broker). So you would have to sum up and decide which type of order would suit your strategy the best. Are you looking to buy the security because you are looking for long term growth and gains, or are you after getting the best price possible to help your short term gains?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1c0c5e7650ac2b723b638a50e5bc0f53",
"text": "There are lots of reasons for the differences in price. Can you go to (a) bank, (b) forex bureau and (c) central bank and post back both bid and offer prices at a given time so we can consider the spread? What you've said above for (a) and (b) are presumably USDGHS offer prices, because they are higher than the (c) central bank price. If a bank or bureau bid price was higher than the central bank offer price then you could buy GHS from the central bank and then sell them to a bureau for a higher price, an almost no risk arbitrage, other than the armoured car to deliver the funds from central bank to bureau. What you've posted is: (a) a bank will sell you 1 USD for 3.4 GHS (b) a bureau will sell you 1 USD for 3.7 GHS (c) we can see the bid/offer for central bank is 3.1949/3.1975 which means the central bank, if you have an account, will sell you 1 USD for 3.1975 GHS. You clearly want to buy USD from the central bank, then the bank, then the bureau. Anyway, the reason for these differences is all to do with liquidity conditions in the local areas, the customer types, and the frequency of orders versus inventory... Think about it. The central bank has the most frequency of orders and the biggest customers so it offers the lower price, then the bank, and then the bureau. I think the bureau is the worst price there... You have to explain further :)",
"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": "89940e315a6cc1493916b85e348e62eb",
"text": "In my experience thanks to algorithmic trading the variation of the spread and the range of trading straight after a major data release will be as random as possible, since we live in an age that if some pattern existed at these times HFT firms would take out any opportunity within nanoseconds. Remember that some firms write algorithms to predict other algorithms, and it is at times like those that this strategy would be most effective. With regards to my own trading experience I have seen orders fill almost €400 per contract outside of the quoted range, but this is only in the most volatile market conditions. Generally speaking, event investing around numbers like these are only for top wall street firms that can use co-location servers and get a ping time to the exchange of less than 5ms. Also, after a data release the market can surge/plummet in either direction, only to recover almost instantly and take out any stops that were in its path. So generally, I would say that slippage is extremely unpredictable in these cases( because it is an advantage to HFT firms to make it so ) and stop-loss orders will only provide limited protection. There is stop-limit orders( which allow you to specify a price limit that is acceptable ) on some markets and as far as I know InteractiveBrokers provide a guaranteed stop-loss fill( For a price of course ) that could be worth looking at, personally I dont use IB. I hope this answer provides some helpful information, and generally speaking, super-short term investing is for algorithms.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bcadeea3c20862c49481272928faa326",
"text": "\"If the stock is below its purchase price, there is no way to exit the position immediately without taking losses. Since presumably you had Good Reasons for buying that stock that haven't changed overnight, what you should probably do is just hold it and wait for the stock to come back up. Otherwise you're putting yourself into an ongoing pattern of \"\"buy high, sell low\"\", which is precisely what you don't want to do. If you actually agree with the market that you made a mistake and believe that the stock will not recover any part of the loss quickly (and indeed will continue going down), you could sell immediately and take your losses rather than waiting and possibly taking more losses. Of course if the stock DOES recover you've made the wrong bet. There are conditions under which the pros will use futures to buffer a swing. But that's essentially a side bet, and what it saves you has to be balanced against what it costs you and how certain you are that you NOW can predict the stock's motion. This whole thing is one of many reasons individuals are encouraged to work with index funds, and to buy-and-hold, rather than playing with individual stocks. It is essentially impossible to reliably \"\"time the market\"\", so all you can do is research a stock to death before making a bet on it. Much easier, and safer, to have your money riding on the market as a whole so the behavior of any one stock doesn't throw you into a panic. If you can't deal with the fact that stocks go down as well as up, you probably shouldn't be in the market.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d842df2edcb6060ea67ec2da23855a0c",
"text": "The best thing to do is not worry about what time is best to buy but put in a conditional order before the market opens. If your conditions are met during the trading day your order will go through and you will buy the shares. This keeps your emotions out of your trading and will stop you from either chasing the market or buying when you consider the wrong time. As you have already done your analysis and made your decision before market open, thus you should place your conditional orders and stop losses before market opens as well.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9a52969d6de27e78057142e53b34db9c",
"text": "You're realizing the perils of using a DCF analysis. At best, you can use them to get a range of possible values and use them as a heuristic, but you'll probably find it difficult to generate a realistic estimate that is significantly different than where the price is already.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "661a82ae2d2703de1f52515e29710b2d",
"text": "Stop orders and stop limit orders typically do not execute during extended hours after the general market session has closed. Stop orders are market orders and market orders especially are not executed during extended hours. Although there are exceptions because a broker can say one thing and do another thing with the way order types are presented to customers vs what their programming actually does. The regulatory burden is a slap on the wrist, so you need to ask the broker what their practices are. Orders created during normal market hours do not execute in extended sessions, different orders would have to be made during the extended session. Your stop order should execute if the normal market hour price stays below your stop price. So a stop limit would actually be worse here, because a stop limit will create a limit order which may never get hit (since it is above the best bid best ask)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ee39ed06924306cf76f2b97018a28957",
"text": "If you are looking to go long (buy) you would use bid prices as this is what you will be matched against for your order to be executed and a trade to go through. If you are looking to go short (sell) you would use the ask prices as this is what you will be matched against for your order to be executed and a trade go through. In your analysis you could use either this convention or the midpoint of the two prices. As FX is very liquid the bid and ask prices would be quite close to each other, so the easiest way to do your analysis is to use the convention I listed above.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "405c2b89f7064ee65103e2e10f5b8c33",
"text": "The situation you're proposing is an over-simplification that wouldn't occur in practice. Orders occur in a sequence over time. Time is an important part of the order matching process. Orders are not processed in parallel; otherwise, the problem of fairness, already heavily regulated, would become even more complex. First, crossed and locked markets are forbidden by regulators. Crossed orders are where one exchange has a higher bid than another's ask, or a lower ask than another's bid. A locked market is where a bid on one exchange is equal to the ask on another. HFTs would be able to make these markets because of the gap between exchange fees. Since these are forbidden, and handling orders in parallel would ensure that a crossed or locked market would occur, orders are serialized (queued up), processed in order of price-time priority. So, the first to cross the market will be filled with the best oldest opposing order. Regulators believe crossed or locked markets are unfair. They would however eliminate the bid ask spread for many large securities thus the bid-ask cost to the holder.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "02ecc79bbe98859380636df1e95a5c82",
"text": "Yes, the ADR will trade on a separate exchange from the underlying one, and can (and does) see fluctuations in price that do not match the (exchange corrected) fluctuations that occur in the original market. You are probably exposing yourself to additional risk that is related to:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "efd0097229164057ef16b3e11f442cf7",
"text": "The closest I can think of from the back of my head is http://finviz.com/map.ashx, which display a nice map and allows for different intervals. It has different scopes (S&P500, ETFs, World), but does not allow for specific date ranges, though.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
e8494454f9c4a3015b1379da08ea651a
|
Find out the difference between two stocks of the same company (how to identify ADRs, etc)
|
[
{
"docid": "297f5c1fde7a5eb34c626fd519b68de3",
"text": "Generally, when I run across this kind of situation, I look for the Investor Relations section of the corporate website for a 'Stock Information' (or similar) tab or link. This usually contains information explaining the different shares classes, how they relate (if at all), voting and/or dividend rights, and taxation differences for the different classes. However, I have trouble finding such a page on a central BYD corporate investor relations page. I did find this page detailing the HK1211 shares: http://www.byd.com/investor/base_information.html. I don't know what or why, but something tells me this is an older page. Searching on, I also found this page which looks newer and clarifies that the difference you are seeing is between 'A' and 'H' shares. http://www.byd.cn/BYDEnglish/basic/article.jsp?articleId=1524676. (I'm guessing but I'd think somewhere in the announcements on this byd.cn site, you may find more details of any structural differences between share classes -- I just didn't want to page through them all.)",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "244082b525c3e0b52022e26c339e7810",
"text": "\"In the US, stocks are listed on one exchange but can be traded on multiple venues. You need to confirm exactly what your data is showing: a) trades on the primary-listed exchange; or b) trades made at any venue. Also, the trade condition codes are important. Only certain trade condition codes contribute towards the day's open/high/low/close and some others only contribute towards the volume data. The Consolidated Tape Association is very clear on which trades should contribute towards each value - but some vendors have their own interpretation (or just simply an erroneous interpretation of the specifications). It may surprise you to find that the majority of trading volume for many stocks is not on their primary-listed exchange. For example, on 2 Mar 2015, NASDAQ:AAPL traded a total volume across all venues was 48096663 shares but trading on NASDAQ itself was 12050277 shares. Trades can be cancelled. Some data vendors do not modify their data to reflect these busted trades. Some data vendors also \"\"snapshot\"\" their feed at a particular point in time of the data. Some exchanges can provide data (mainly corrections) 4-5 hours after the closing bell. By snapshotting the data too early and throwing away any subsequent data is a typical cause of data discrepancies. Some data vendors also round prices/volumes - but stocks don't just trade to two decimal places. So you may well be comparing two different sets of trades (with their own specific inclusion rules) against the same stock. You need to confirm with your data sources exactly how they do things. Disclosure: Premium Data is an end-of-day daily data vendor.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "71ec30d3609296f94f979a175af9cd19",
"text": "The quotes on JSE are for 100 share lots. The quotes on NYSE are for single shares. That still leaves some price difference, but much less than you calculated. (EDIT: Equivalently, the price is quoted in 1/100th of a Rand. The Reuter's listing makes this explicit since the price is listed as ZAc rather than ZAR. http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/overview?symbol=HARJ.J) As noted in the other answer currently up, NYSE is quoting American Depositary Receipts (ADRs) for this company, which is not directly its stock. The ADR in this case, if you check the prospectus, is currently 1 share of the ADR = 1 share of the stock on its home market. A US institution (in this case it looks like BNY Mellon) is holding shares of stock to back each ADR. Arbitrage is possible and does happen. It's not perfect though, because there are a variety of other cost and risk factors that need to be considered. There's a good review here: Report by JP Morgan Some summary points:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c5b9cdda35458e564640c9744d900e20",
"text": "Some ADRs have standardized options that trade on US exchanges. If your stock/ADR is one of those, then you find the put option through most brokerages that deal with stock options and trade the option like you would on a regular stock. If your ADR does not have standardized options, then your options will depend on where the ADR trades. If it's OTC, you might not even be able to short it. If it trades on a major exchange, the shorting the ADR may be a viable choice.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6b0fa8c314404e4ce8dd329fb6961701",
"text": "Assuming the data you're referring to is this line: the difference might be related to the different exchanges on which the stock trades. FINRA could be listing the reported volume from one exchange, while the NASDAQ data might be listing the volume on all exchanges. This is an important distinction because AAV is a Canadian company that is listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange and the NYSE. The Q at the end of the line stands for NASDAQ, according to FINRA's codebook for those data. My guess is that the FINRA data is only reporting the volume for the NASDAQ exchange and not the total volume for all exchanges (Toronto, NASDAQ, NYSE, etc.) while the data straight from NASDAQ, oddly enough, is reporting the total volume. However, FINRA could also face reporting discrepancies, since it's a regulatory body and therefore might not have the most up-to-date volume data that the various exchanges can access. I don't know if it's related or not, but looking at the NASDAQ historical data, it looks like the volume on March 6, the day you're asking about, was much lower than the volume in most of the days immediately before or after it. For all I know, something might have happened that day concerning that particular stock or the market as a whole. I don't remember anything in particular, but you never know.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "415fd28ed28d8a9133db8d9f3e29968c",
"text": "Liquidity on dual listed equities is rarely the same on both exchanges. More liquidity means you would typically get a better price assuming you execute the trades using the same order types. It's recommended to trade where the liquidity is greater unless your trading method benefits somehow from it being lower. It's important to remember that some ADRs (some European companies listed in US) have ADR fees which vary. USD/EUR transaction fees are low when using a decent broker but you're obviously participating in the currency risk.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5d354ffcba653ace3f0d5f2d49614d2d",
"text": "First and foremost you need to be aware of what you are comparing. In this case, HSBC as traded on the NYSE exchange is not common shares, but an ADR (American Depository Receipt) with a 5:1 ratio from the actual shares. So for most intents and purposes owning one ADR is like owning five common shares. But for special events like dividends, there may be other considerations, such as the depository bank (the institution that created the ADR) may take a percentage. Further, given that some people, accounts or institutions may be required to invest in a given country or not, there may be some permanent price dislocation between the shares and the ADR, which can further lead to discrepancies which are then highlighted by the seeming difference in dividends.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ccd605b3bc6a3e996150716450fc9cee",
"text": "\"(Note: out of my depth here, but in case this helps...) While not a direct answer to your question, I'll point out that in the inverse situation - a U.S. investor who wants to buy individual stocks of companies headquartered outside US - you would buy ADRs, which are $-denominated \"\"wrapper\"\" stocks. They can be listed with one or multiple brokerages. One alternative I'd offer the person in my example would be, \"\"Are you really sure you want to directly buy individual stocks?\"\" One less targeted approach available in the US is to buy ETFs targeted for a given country (or region). Maybe there's something similar there in Asia that would eliminate the (somewhat) higher fees associated with trading foreign stocks.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ddfeea5f67f033d68493547c64961b03",
"text": "I have not looked in details but apparently the company has (at least) a dual listing in Hong Kong (its main listing, ticker 700) and in the US (ticker TCTZF). It also has an ADR (TCEHY), the underlying of which is the HK line. The two US listings essentially trade at the same price and will provide very similar returns but a major difference is that TCTZF pays dividends in HKD whereas TCEHY pays its dividends in USD. The latter may be more convenient depending on the account you use to trade the stock. The ADR line is also more liquid.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e54c4372e2aa2d8e207a2711cf44c3e6",
"text": "I stumbled on the same discrepancy, and was puzzled by a significant difference between the two prices on ETR and FRA. For example, today is Sunday, and google shows the following closing prices for DAI. FRA:DAI: ETR:DAI: So it looks like there are indeed two different exchanges trading at different prices. Now, the important value here, is the last column (Volume). According to Wikipedia, the trading on Frankfort Stock Exchange is done today exclusively via Xetra platform, thus the volume on ETR:DAI is much more important than on FRA:DAI. Obviously, they Wikipedia is not 100% accurate, i.e. not all trading is done electronically via Xetra. According to their web-page, Frankfort exchange has a Specialist Trading on Frankfurt Floor service which has slightly different trading hours. I suspect what Google and Yahoo show as Frankfort exchange is this manual trading via a Specialist (opposed to Xetra electronic trading). To answer your question, the stock you're having is exactly the same, meaning if you bought an ETR:BMW you can still sell it on FRA (by calling a FRA Trading Floor Specialist which will probably cost you a fee). On the other hand, for the portfolio valuation and performance assessments you should only use ETR:BMW prices, because it is way more liquid, and thus better reflect the current market valuation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1fec42beb84e2821dd90cd035446ea8d",
"text": "Something like cost = a × avg_spreadb + c × volatilityd × (order_size/avg_volume)e. Different brokers have different formulas, and different trading patterns will have different coefficients.",
"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": "b5b49a3a8fa4b6fa8cd2bfec13bd22e7",
"text": "\"There are basically two different markets for ADRs and ordinary shares. 1) The American market, 2) the \"\"local\"\" market. The following is not true for most stocks in \"\"developed\"\" markets. But it is often true that the American market (for ADRs) is far more liquid than the local market for ordinary shares of a developing country. For instance, there was a time when the ADRs of Telmex (Telefonos of Mexico) was the fifth most traded stock in the world, after Exxon (before its merger with Mobil), IBM, Microsoft, and A T&T, meaning that it was easy to trade with low fees on the NYSE. It was much harder and slower to buy the local shares of Telmex in Mexico, on the Mexican exchange. Also, the accompanying currency transactions were harder to execute with the ord, because you have to settle in local currency and pay an FX commission. With the ADR, the exchange rate is \"\"built\"\" into the (dollar) price, and you settle in dollars.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "abf23d001d2d137b8fb1603b8748935e",
"text": "I'm a bit out of my element here, but my guess is the right way to think about this is: knowing what you do now about the underlying company (NZT), pretend they had never offered ADR shares. Would you buy their foreign listed shares today? Another way of looking at it would be: would you know how to sell the foreign-listed shares today if you had to do so in an emergency? If not, I'd also push gently in the direction of selling sooner than later.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6fbcaaa231a65f94f3d123c19f7591cb",
"text": "\"It's easy to own many of the larger UK stocks. Companies like British Petroleum, Glaxo, and Royal Dutch Shell, list what they call ADRs (American Depositary Receipts) on the U.S. stock exchanges. That is, they will deposit local shares with Bank of NY Mellon, JP Morgan Chase, or Citicorp (the three banks that do this type of business), and the banks will turn around and issue ADRs equivalent to the number of shares on deposit. This is not true with \"\"small cap\"\" companies. In those cases, a broker like Schwab may occasionally help you, usually not. But you might have difficulty trading U.S. small cap companies as well.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "16ee6a0072309fede7b941a7feb66c44",
"text": "how does the trading company know which one I want to sell? It doesn't need to know. You just sell one. From taxation point of view depending on the country / tax jurisdiction, it can be only be FIFO or specific stock.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
1c72d441d397ff0588ae90cb0d668dd6
|
When would one actually want to use a market order instead of a limit order?
|
[
{
"docid": "0572d6c64b6fb716f3f5bc637d43c6c4",
"text": "If you have $10000 and wish to buy 1000 shares of a $10 stock, you risk borrowing on margin if you go over a bit. For some people, that's a non-issue. Some folk with an account worth say, $250K don't mind going over now and then or even let the margin account run $100K on a regular basis. But your question is about market orders. A limit order above the market price will fast-fill at the market anyway. When I buy a stock, it's longer term usually. A dime on a $30 share price won't affect my buy decision, so market is ok for me.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "157b2b7c2386e865cf9fffc54a09e93b",
"text": "You put in a market order when you want to sell to whomever raises their hand first. It results in the fastest possible liquidation of your stock. It's appropriate when you need to sell now, regardless of price. An example of when to use it: It's 3:55 PM, the market's going to close in 5 minutes and you need to sell some stocks to make some kind of urgent payment elsewhere. If instead you have a limit order in place, you might not reach the limit price before the market closes, and you'll still own the stock, which might not be what you want.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f8b10a424bd74580716765f8f603b278",
"text": "Firstly what are you trading that you could lose more than you put in? If you are simply trading stocks you will not lose more than you put in, unless you are trading on margin. A limit order is basically that, a limit on the maximum price you want your buy order bought at or the minimum price you want your sell order sold at. If you can't be glued to the screen all day when you place a limit order, and the market moves the opposite way, you may miss out on your order being executed. Even if you can be in front of the screen all day, you then have to decide if you want to chase the market of miss out on your purchase or sale. For example, if a stock is trading at $10.10 and you put a limit buy order to buy 1000 shares at or below $10.00 and the price keeps moving up to $10.20, then $10.30 and then $10.50, until it closes the day at $11.00. You then have the choice during the day to miss out on buying the shares or to increase your limit order in order to buy at a higher price. Sometime if the stock is not very liquid, i.e. it does not trade very often and has low volume, the price may hit $10.00 and you may only have part of your order executed, say 500 out of your 1000 shares were bought. This may mean that you may have to increase the price of your remaining order or be happy with only buying 500 shares instead of 1000. The same can happen when you are selling (but in reverse obviously). With market order, however, you are placing a buy order to buy at the next bid price in the depth or a sell order to sell at the next offer price in the depth. See the market depth table below: Note that this price depth table is taken before market open so it seems that the stock is somewhat illiquid with a large gap between the first and second prices in the buyers (bid) prices. When the market opened this gap is closed, as WBC is a major Australian bank and is quite liquid. (the table is for demonstration purposes only). If we pretend that the market was currently open and saw the current market depth for WBC as above, you could decide to place a limit sell order to sell 1000 shares at say $29.91. You would sell 100 shares straight away but your remaining 900 sell order will remain at the top of the Sellers list. If other Buyers come in at $29.91 you may get your whole sale completed, however, if no other Buyers place orders above $29.80 and other Sellers come into the market with sell orders below $29.91, your remaining order may never be executed. If instead you placed a market sell order you would immediately sell 100 shares at $29.91 and the remaining 900 shares at $29.80. (so you would be $99 or just over 0.3% worse off than if you were able to sell the full 1000 shares at $29.91). The question is how low would you have had to lower your limit order price if the price for WBC kept on falling and you had to sell that day? There are risks with whichever type of order you use. You need to determine what the purpose of your order is. Is it to get in or out of the market as soon as possible with the possibility of giving a little bit back to the market? Or is it to get the price you want no matter how long it takes you? That is you are willing to miss out on buying the shares (can miss out on a good buy if the price keeps rising for weeks or months or even years) or you are willing to miss out on selling them right now and can wait for the price to come back up to the price you were willing to sell at (where you may miss out on selling the shares at a good price and they keep on falling and you give back all your profits and more). Just before the onset of the GFC I sold some shares (which I had bought a few years earlier at $3.40) through a market order for $5.96. It had traded just above $6 a few days earlier, but if instead of a market order I had placed a limit order to sell at $6.00 or more I would have missed out on the sale. The price never went back up to $6 or above, and the following week it started dropping very quickly. It is now trading at about $1.30 and has never gone back above $2.00 (5.5 years later). So to me placing a limit order in this case was very risky.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9dd61f4b88dc34661b578a4696c6a5b5",
"text": "\"After learning about things that happened in the \"\"flash crash\"\" I always use limit orders. In an extremely rare instance if you place a market order when there is a some glitch, for example some large trader adds a zero at the end of their volume, you could get an awful price. If I want to buy at the market price, I just set the limit about 1% above the market price. If I want to sell, I set the limit 1% below the market price. I should point out that your trade is not executed at the limit price. If your limit price on a buy order is higher than the lowest offer, you still get filled at the lowest offer. If before your order is submitted someone fills all offers up to your limit price, you will get your limit price. If someone, perhaps by accident, fills all orders up to twice your limit price, you won't end up making the purchase. I have executed many purchases this way and never been filled at my limit price.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "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": "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": "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": "0ccc33cc95c4c84ce39970bc9473c998",
"text": "The price is moving higher so by the time you enter your order and press buy, a new buyer has already come in at that time and taken out the lowest ask price. So you end up chasing the market as the prices keep moving higher. The solution: if you really want to be sure that you buy it and don't want to keep chasing the market higher and higher, you should put in a market order instead of a limit order. With a market order you may pay a few cents higher than the last traded price but you will be sure to have your order filled. If you keep placing limit orders you may miss out altogether, especially if the price keeps moving higher and higher. In a fast moving market a market order is always best if your aim is to be certain to buy the stock.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e9ff81339f4419ca37158c942331a99e",
"text": "\"A market sell order will be filled at the highest current \"\"bid\"\" price. For a reasonably liquid stock, there will be several buy orders in line, and the highest bid must be filled first, so there should a very short time between when you place the order and when it is filled. What could happen is what's called front running. That's when the broker places their own order in front of yours to fulfill the current bid, selling their own stock at the slightly higher price, causing your sale to be filled at a lower price. This is not only unethical but illegal as well. It is not something you should be concerned about with a large broker. You should only place a market order when you don't care about minute differences between the current ask and your execution price, but want to guarantee order execution. If you absolutely have to sell at a minimum price, then a limit order is more appropriate, but you run the risk that your limit will not be reached and your order will not be filled. So the risk is a tradeoff between a guaranteed price and a guaranteed execution.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6b4b297233e4a9ae8bad770474442913",
"text": "Limit orders are generally safer than market orders. Market orders take whatever most-favorable price is being offered. This can be especially dangerous in highly volatile stocks which have a significant spread between the bid and ask. That being said, you want to be very careful that you enter the price you intend into a limit order. It is better to be a bit slower at entering your orders than it is to make a terrible mistake like the one you mention in your question.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2a2c27db18a6aa6c1335142a0fb1f2f3",
"text": "If you can afford the cost and risk of 100 shares of stock, then just sell a put option. If you can only afford a few shares, you can still use the information the options market is trying to give you -- see below. A standing limit order to buy a stock is essentially a synthetic short put option position. [1] So deciding on a stock limit order price is the same as valuing an option on that stock. Options (and standing limit orders) are hard to value, and the generally accepted math for doing so -- the Black-Scholes-Merton framework -- is also generally accepted to be wrong, because of black swans. So rather than calculate a stock buy limit price yourself, it's simpler to just sell a put at the put's own midpoint price, accepting the market's best estimate. Options market makers' whole job (and the purpose of the open market) is price discovery, so it's easier to let them fight it out over what price options should really be trading at. The result of that fight is valuable information -- use it. Sell a 1-month ATM put option every month until you get exercised, after which time you'll own 100 shares of stock, purchased at: This will typically give you a much better cost basis (several dollars better) versus buying the stock at spot, and it offloads the valuation math onto the options market. Meanwhile you get to keep the cash from the options premiums as well. Disclaimer: Markets do make mistakes. You will lose money when the stock drops more than the option market's own estimate. If you can't afford 100 shares, or for some reason still want to be in the business of creating synthetic options from pure stock limit orders, then you could maybe play around with setting your stock purchase bid price to (approximately): See your statistics book for how to set ndev -- 1 standard deviation gives you a 30% chance of a fill, 2 gives you a 5% chance, etc. Disclaimer: The above math probably has mistakes; do your own work. It's somewhat invalid anyway, because stock prices don't follow a normal curve, so standard deviations don't really mean a whole lot. This is where market makers earn their keep (or not). If you still want to create synthetic options using stock limit orders, you might be able to get the options market to do more of the math for you. Try setting your stock limit order bid equal to something like this: Where put_strike is the strike price of a put option for the equity you're trading. Which option expiration and strike you use for put_strike depends on your desired time horizon and desired fill probability. To get probability, you can look at the delta for a given option. The relationship between option delta and equity limit order probability of fill is approximately: Disclaimer: There may be math errors here. Again, do your own work. Also, while this method assumes option markets provide good estimates, see above disclaimer about the markets making mistakes.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ccc59d257311b512fe3377b472a7bb2f",
"text": "In simple terms, this is how the shares are traded, however most of the times market orders are placed. Consider below scenario( hypothetical scenario, there are just 2 traders) Buyer is ready to buy 10 shares @ 5$ and seller is ready to sell 10 shares @ 5.10$, both the orders will remain in open state, unless one wish to change his price, this is an example of limit order. Market orders If seller is ready to sell 10 shares @ 5$ and another 10 shares @5.05$, if buyer wants to buy 20 shares @ market price, then the trade will be executed for 10 shares @ 5$ and another 10 shares @ 5.05$",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0107650b5b3111aac34a28d5ddc94c73",
"text": "The Limit Order are matched based on amount and time. The orders are listed Highest to Lowest on the Buy Side. The orders are listed Lowest to Highest on the Sell Side. If there are 2 Sell orders for same amount the order which is first in time [fractions of milliseconds] is first. The about is the example as to how the orders would look like on any exchange. Now the highest price the buyer is ready to pay is 20.21 and the lowest price a seller is ready to sell for is 20.25. Hence there is no trade. Now if a new Buy order comes in at 20.25, it matches with the sell and the deal is made. If a new Buy order comes in at 20.30, it still matches at 20.25. Similarly if a Sell order come in at 20.21, it matches and a deal is made. If a Sell order come in at 20.11, it still matches 20.21. Incase of market order, with the above example if there is a Buy order, it would match with the lowest sell order at 20.25, if there is not enough quantity , it would match the remaining quantity to the next highest at 20.31 and continue down. Similarly if there is a Sell market order, the it would match to the maximum a seller is ready to buy, ie 20.21, if there is not sufficient buy quantity at 20.21, it will match with next for 20.19 If say there are new buy order at 20.22 and sell orders at 20.24, these will sit first the the above queue to be matched. In your above example the Lowest Sell order was at 20.10 at time t1 and hence any buy order after time t1 for amount 20.10 or greater would match to this and the price would be 20.10. However if the Buy order was first ie at t1 there was a buy order for 20.21 and then at time later than t1, there is a sell order for say 20.10 [amount less than or equal to 20.21] it would match for 20.21. Essentially the market looks at who was the first to sell at lower price or who was the first to buy at higher price and then decide the trade. Edit [To Clarify xyz]: Say if there is an Sell order at $10 Qty 100. There is a buyer who is willing to pay Max $20 and is looking for Qty 500. Your key assumption that the Buyer does not know the current SELL price of $10 is incorrect. Now there are multiple things, the Buyer knows the lowest Sell order is at $10, he can put a matching Buy order at $10 Qty 100, and say $11 Qty 100 etc. This is painful. Second, lets say he puts a Buy order at $10 Qty 100, by the time the order hits the system someone else has put the trade at $10 and his order is fulfilled. So this buyer has to keep looking at booking and keep making adjustments, if its a large order, it would be extremely difficult and frustrating for this Buyer. Hence the logic of giving preference. The later Buy order says ... The Max I can pay is $20, match eveything at the current price and get the required shares.",
"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": "d789e42d59c3ecd9aa81709d72c53a26",
"text": "Buy and sell orders always include the price at which you buy/sell. That's how the market prices for stocks are determines. So if you want to place a buy order at 106, you can do that. When that order was fulfilled and you have the stock, you can place a sell order at 107. It will be processed as soon as someone places a buy order at 107. Theoretically you can even place sell orders for stocks you haven't even bought yet. That's called short selling. You do that when you expect a stock to go down in the future. But this is a very risky operation, because when you mispredict the market you might end up owing more money than you invested. No responsible banker will even discuss this with you when you can not prove you know what you are doing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "df41c539018f1fb6adcf160c270d71fe",
"text": "Many of the Bitcoin exchanges mimic stock exchanges, though they're much more rudimentary offering only simple buy/sell/cancel orders. It's fairly normal for retail stock brokerage accounts to allow other sorts of more complex orders, where once a certain criteria is met, (the price falls below some $ threshold, or has a movement greater than some %) then your order is executed. The space between the current buy order and the current sell order is the bid/ask spread, it's not really about timing. Person X will buy at $100, person Y will sell at $102. If both had a price set at $101, they would just transact. Both parties think they can do a little bit better than the current offer. The width of the bid/ask spread is not universal by any means. The current highest buy order and the current lowest sell order, are both the current price. The current quoted market price is generally the price of the last transaction, whether it's buy or sell.",
"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": "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": "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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
019106bea46c5e5f3ebb20f1de7ca81f
|
Post tax versus pretax (ESPP versus straight investment)
|
[
{
"docid": "84a6a79e8f9aaa670c4444b4d30c6234",
"text": "This answer assumes that your purpose for using the ESPP is to generate a relatively safe 15% return on that portion of your income. Frequently before there were Roth 401K options the advice was: This advice was especially good for the younger workers because they wanted to have a Roth account but didn't want to miss the 401K match. As Roth 401K accounts were introduced that advice changed somewhat because it was possible to get the benefit of the Roth and still get the maximum match. for your situation what I would propose is: contribute to the 401K enough to get the maximum match. Contribute as much as you want or are allowed into the ESPP. Take the proceeds and contribute to an IRA or Roth IRA. If you reach the IRA max you have to decide if you will scale back the ESPP to contribute more to the 401K.",
"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": "aac20c8d1f2573a5249dc783f1d5124e",
"text": "\"I wrote the whimsically titled \"\"The Density of Your IRA\"\" to discuss this exact issue. In the 25% bracket, your pretax 401(k) would have $18,000, with a future tax due. But the Roth effectively took $24,000 in pretax dollars, and put the $18K in post tax money in the account. Since the limits are the same, the Roth is a denser account.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3b128ed843074e19dbc02445a0e8c091",
"text": "Though I did answer the linked question, I thought to quote parts of this article. Source: The RRSP advantage, by David Hodges, February 6th 2015 [John] Storjohann ['the 58-year-old Calgary project manager'] is keenly aware of the two main advantages of RRSPs: the tax refund when you make a contribution, and the tax-deferred growth until you make withdrawals in retirement. These make RRSPs ideal for those who expect to be in a lower tax bracket when they stop working—which will be the case for most Canadians. For those in the highest tax bracket today, the RRSP is a no-brainer. That’s why Storjohann’s always surprised when he meets people pulling in good incomes who think TFSAs stack up better than RRSPs. “People just don’t understand how these accounts work.” This is the most common objection to RRSPs: people simply hate the idea of paying taxes on the withdrawals. Money taken out of a TFSA, by contrast, is tax-free, which sounds far more appealing. But that logic ignores the fact that you receive a tax refund when you put money in an RRSP, while TFSA contributions are made with after-tax dollars. So for the Fosters and other Canadians weighing this decision, it comes down to whether it’s better to pay tax now or later. And that’s not an easy question to answer. Both Hamilton and Kirzner say that anyone earning more than $50,000 is usually better off prioritizing RRSPs over TFSAs. While both accounts allow your investments to grow tax-free, the tax refund makes the RRSP more attractive for high-income earners. ... That, in a nutshell, is what makes RRSPs better than TFSAs for higher earners: Not only are you taxed on your money years later, but because you’re in a lower bracket when you retire, you’ll pay less tax too. When your income is between $35,000 and $50,000, the long-term tax differences between RRSPs and TFSAs become negligible, says Malcolm Hamilton. In that salary range, “just being able to put money aside in either an RRSP or a TFSA is great.” But RRSPs can still be a better choice for reasons that don’t involve tax deferral or refunds. In his new book, Wealthing Like Rabbits, author Robert Brown makes the case for favouring RRSPs over TFSAs most of the time because the former usually means less temptation to access your retirement savings early. Footnote: This 2012 CBC.ca article intelligibly explains RRSPs, free of jargon.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2fa131deaee27f084379bc8c971da17f",
"text": "I respectfully disagree with Eric. If you invest from day one in a Roth, where, exactly will taxable income come from to put you in a higher bracket at retirement? I agree, maybe for other reasons than you list, that early on, post-tax is the way to go, because I'll assume that one starts work in a lower bracket. There's probably a majority who start work in the 15% bracket, but over time work their way to 25%. As they grow to 25%, using the pretax 401(k) and IRA can keep them at 15% for some number of years. In any year of low income, for whatever reason, they can convert the pretax money to Roth to top off the 15% bracket. To bring the point home, if you went post tax the whole way, imagine retiring with $2M in the Roth, but no pretax money. You now have a standard deduction, exemption, and the full 10% bracket each and every year gone to waste. Money you paid 25% tax when you could be paying zero on some of it. The deduction and exemption add to $9750 in 2012, and the 10% rate applies to the first $8700 of taxable income. If you do the math, this is $17,500, and if you plan a 4% withdrawal rate, you'd need 437,500 pretax money to give you the 17500 each year. Last, all three factors (standard deduction, exemption, and bracket limits) all rise a bit each year. An increase of $200 is another $5000 to save pretax. Edit - 2013 brought the ability to convert within one's 401(k) from the traditional pretax side to the Roth side. This makes possible turning 100% of one's 401(k) money to Roth, and retiring without the benefite of the standard deduction, exemptions, etc.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "67f33de28ea5fcfa179dcf7a350779dc",
"text": "Is this an employee stock purchase plan (ESPP)? If so, and there is no required holding period, selling right away is essentially a guaranteed bonus with minimal risk. One caveat is that sometimes it takes a while to actually receive the shares at your brokerage, and in the meantime your company may have an earnings report that could cause the share price to drop. If your discount is only 5%, for example, a bad earnings report could easily wipe that out. The only other cons I can think of is ESPP contributions being withheld from you for months (albeit for a virtually guaranteed return), and it complicates your taxes a bit. On the flip side, another pro is that after you sell the shares, you are more likely to invest that money rather than spend it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "36b7e320140cb160edf6285aa29e5afc",
"text": "I don't think it has to be either-or. You can profitably invest inside the SIMPLE. (Though I wouldn't put in any more than the 1% it takes to get the match.) Let's look at some scenarios. These assume salary of $50k/year so the numbers are easy. You can fill in your own numbers to see the outcome, but the percentages will be the same. Let it sit in cash in the SIMPLE. You put in 1%, your employer matches with 1%. Your account balance is $1,000 (at the end of the year), plus a small amount of interest. Cost to you is $500 from your gross pay. 100% return on your contributions, yay! Likely 0-1% real returns going forward; you'll be lucky to keep up with inflation over the long term. Short term not so bad. Buy shares of index ETFs in the SIMPLE; let's assume the fee works out to 10%. You put in 1%, employer matches 1%. Your contributions are $500, fees are $100, your balance is $900 in ETFs. 80% instant return, and possible 6-7% real long term returns going forward. Buy funds in the SIMPLE; assume the load is 5%, management fee is 1% and you can find something that behaves like an index fund (so it is theoretically comparable to above). 1% from you, 1% from employer. Your contributions are $500, load fees are $50, your balance is $950. 90% instant return, and possible 5-6% real long term returns going forward (assuming the 6-7% real returns of equities are reduced by the 1% management fee). (You didn't list out the fees, and they're probably different for the different fund choices, so fill in your own details and do the math.) Invest outside the SIMPLE in the same ETFs or equivalent no load index funds; let's assume you can do this with no fees. You put in the same 1% of your gross (ignoring any difference that might come from paying FICA) into a self directed traditional IRA. At the end of the year the balance is $500. So deciding whether or not to take the match is a no brainer: take it. Deciding whether you should hold cash, ETFs, or (one of two types of) funds in your SIMPLE is a little trickier.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d87a2b16c8b9a3e20c78e655d806c20e",
"text": "Both types of plans offer a tax benefit. A traditional IRA allows you to invest pre-tax money into the account and it grows tax free. Once you withdraw the money it then gets taxed as though it were income based on the amount you withdraw for that calendar year. A Roth IRA has you invest post-tax money and also grows tax free. However, when you make withdraws in retirement that money is then tax free. Neither plan is right for everybody. If you have a very high income now and plan on being in a smaller tax bracket later when you'll be making withdraws then the traditional IRA is better. If you will be in a higher bracket later, then the Roth IRA will serve you more. Depending on the way you manage your retirement investing you can likely invest in both if you are unsure as to which would be better. The same type of investments should be able to be nested within each type.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ce98800ddfa4c44fe836bcef62c53ab0",
"text": "\"The primary tax-sheltered investing vehicles in Canada include: The RRSP. You can contribute up to 18% of your prior year's earned income, up to a limit ($24,930 in 2015, plus past unused contribution allowance) and receive an income tax deduction for your contributions. In an RRSP, investments grow on a tax-deferred basis. No tax is due until you begin withdrawals. When you withdraw funds, the withdrawn amount will be taxed at marginal income tax rates in effect at that time. The RRSP is similar to the U.S. \"\"traditional\"\" IRA, being an individual account with pre-tax contributions, tax-deferred growth, and ordinary tax rates applied to withdrawals. Yet, RRSPs have contribution limits higher than IRAs; higher, even, than U.S. 401(k) employee contribution limits. But, the RRSP is dissimilar to the IRA and 401(k) since an individual's annual contribution allowance isn't use-it-or-lose-it—unused allowance accumulates. The TFSA. Once you turn 18, you can put in up to $5,500 each year, irrespective of earned income. Like the RRSP, contribution room accumulates. If you were 18 in 2009 (when TFSAs were introduced) you'd be able to contribute $36,500 if you'd never contributed to one before. Unlike the RRSP, contributions to a TFSA are made on an after-tax basis and you pay no tax when you withdraw money. The post-tax nature of the TFSA and completely tax-free withdrawals makes them comparable to Roth-type accounts in the U.S.; i.e. while you won't get a tax deduction for contributing, you won't pay tax on earnings when withdrawn. Yet, unlike U.S. Roth-type accounts, you are not required to use the TFSA strictly for retirement savings—there is no penalty for pre-retirement withdrawal of TFSA funds. There are also employer-sponsored defined benefit (DB) and defined contribution (DC) retirement pension plans. Generally, employees who participate in these kinds of plans have their annual RRSP contribution limits reduced. I won't comment on these kinds of plans other than to say they exist and if your employer has one, check it out—many employees lose out on free money by not participating. The under-appreciated RESP. Typically used for education savings. A lifetime $50,000 contribution limit per beneficiary, and you can put that all in at once if you're not concerned about maximizing grants (see below). No tax deduction for contributions, but investments grow on a tax-deferred basis. Original contributions can be withdrawn tax-free. Qualified educational withdrawals of earnings are taxed as regular income in the hands of the beneficiary. An RESP beneficiary is typically a child, and in a child's case the Canadian federal government provides matching grant money (called CESG) of 20% on the first $2500 contributed each year, up to age 18, to a lifetime maximum of $7200 per beneficiary. Grant money is subject to additional conditions for withdrawal. While RESPs are typically used to save for a child's future education, there's nothing stopping an adult from opening an RESP for himself. If you've never had one, you can deposit $50,000 of after-tax money to grow on a tax-deferred basis for up to 36 years ... as far as I understand. An adult RESP will not qualify for CESG. Moreover, if you use the RESP strictly as a tax shelter and don't make qualified educational withdrawals when the time comes, your original contributions still come out free of tax but you'll pay ordinary income tax plus 20% additional tax on the earnings portion. That's the \"\"catch\"\"*. *However, if at that time you have accumulated sufficient RRSP contribution room, you may move up to $50,000 of your RESP earnings into your RRSP without any tax consequences (i.e. also avoiding the 20% additional tax) at time of transfer. Perhaps there's something above you haven't considered. Still, be sure to do your own due diligence and to consult a qualified, experienced, and conflict-free financial advisor for advice particular to your own situation.\"",
"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": "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": "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": "57e727fb40b21bd2c80d0ec6311b1577",
"text": "If the $882 is reported on W2 as your income then it is added to your taxable income on W2 and is taxed as salary. Your basis then becomes $5882. If it is not reported on your W2 - you need to add it yourself. Its salary income. If its not properly reported on W2 it may have some issues with FICA, so I suggest talking to your salary department to verify it is. In any case, this is not short term capital gain. Your broker may or may not be aware of the reporting on W2, and if they report the basis as $5000 on your 1099, when you fill your tax form you can add a statement that it is ESPP reported on W2 and change the basis to correct one. H&R Block and TurboTax both support that (you need to chose the correct type of investment there).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "088fc89a500d498fc4ea9e5fb306a759",
"text": "Whether an investment is pre-tax is determined by the type of account (i.e., tax-advantaged vs ordinary taxable account), but whether you can invest in individual stocks is determined by the provider (i.e., the particular bank where you have the account). These are orthogonal choices. If you want to invest in individual stocks, you need to look for a bank that offers an IRA/401k/other tax-advantaged account and allows you to invest in individual stocks with it. For example, this page suggests that Fidelity would let you do that. Obviously you should look into various providers yourself to find one that offers the mix of features you want.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f7248e5f1cf5574fcfe75e702e39347a",
"text": "\"1) Usually, the choice between Traditional vs. Roth is whether you believe that your tax rate will be higher or lower in the future than it is now. Your income is probably in the 25% bracket now. It's hard to say whether that should be considered \"\"high\"\" or \"\"low\"\". Some people advocate Roth only for 15% bracket; but your income would probably go into higher brackets in the future, so Roth may be preferable from this point of view. Roth IRA also has another advantage that the principal of contributions can be taken out at any time without tax or penalty, so it can serve as an emergency fund just as well as money in taxable accounts. Given that you may not have a lot of money saved up right now, this is useful. 2) In a sense, it's nice to have a mix of Traditional and Roth when you withdraw to hedge against uncertainty in future tax rates and have the option of choosing whichever one is advantageous to withdraw when you need to withdraw. That said, you will likely have many years of access to a 401k and high income in your future working years, in which you can contribute to a Traditional 401k (or if no access to 401k, then Traditional IRA), so a mix will almost certainly happen even if you go all Roth IRA now. 3) I think that depends on you, whether you are a hands-on or hands-off kind of investor.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "686c79bee148b44dfd8d5893636b200c",
"text": "Does this make sense? I'm concerned that by buying shares with post tax income, I'll have ended up being taxed twice or have increased my taxable income. ... The company will then re-reimburse me for the difference in stock price between the vesting and the purchase share price. Sure. Assuming you received a 100-share RSU for shares worth $10, and your marginal tax rate is 30% (all made up numbers), either: or So you're in the same spot either way. You paid $300 to get $1,000 worth of stock. Taxes are the same as well. The full value of the RSU will count as income either way, and you'll either pay tax on the gains of the 100 shares in your RSU our you'll pay tax on gains on the 70 shares in your RSU and the 30 shares you bought. Since they're reimbursing you for any difference the cost basis will be the same (although you might get taxed on the reimbursement, but that should be a relatively small amount). This first year I wanted to keep all of the shares, due to tax reasons and because believe the share price will go up. I don't see how this would make a difference from a tax standpoint. You're going to pay tax on the RSU either way - either in shares or in cash. how does the value of the shares going up make a difference in tax? Additionally I'm concerned that by doing this I'm going to be hit by my bank for GBP->USD exchange fees, foreign money transfer charges, broker purchase fees etc. That might be true - if that's the case then you need to decide whether to keep fighting or decide if it's worth the transaction costs.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
58c7a801126b3da728e6e5ed1d2b3baa
|
which types of investments should be choosen for 401k at early 20's?
|
[
{
"docid": "b34aa7326520b675b329ec563884becd",
"text": "\"I can't find a decent duplicate, so here are some general guidelines: First of all by \"\"stocks\"\" the answers generally mean \"\"equities\"\" which could be either single stocks or mutual funds that consist of stocks. Unless you have lots of experience that can help you discern good stocks from bad, investing in mutual funds reduces the risk considerably. If you want to fine-tune the plan, you can weigh certain categories higher to change your risk/return profile (e.g. equity funds will have higher returns and risk than fixed income (bond) funds, so if you want to take a little more risk you can put more in equity funds and less in fixed income funds). Lastly, don't stress too much over the individual investments. The most important thing is that you get as much company match as you can. You cannot beat the 100% return that comes from a company match. The allocation is mostly insignificant compared to that. Plus you can probably change your allocation later easily and cheaply if you don't like it. Disclaimer: these are _general_ guidelines for 401(k) investing in general and not personal advice.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1cbcf770e60f79eaa8769eba124b4658",
"text": "\"Split your contributions evenly across the funds on that list with the word \"\"core\"\" or \"\"S&P\"\" in the name. Maybe add \"\"International Large Cap Index\"\". Leave it & rebalance occasionally. Read a book on Modern Portfolio Theory sometime in the next 5 years.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fad7054e06978d4c629e47a9e0907d3f",
"text": "If you don't want to pay much attention to your investments, target date funds -- assuming you find one (like Vanguard's) with no management fees beyond those acquired from the underlying funds -- are usually a great choice: when the target date is far off, they invest almost entirely (usually 90% or so) in (mutual funds that in turn consist of many) stocks, with the remainder in bonds; as the date gets closer, the mix is automatically shifted to more bonds and less stocks (i.e. less risk, but less potential return too).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a70ddb5bf96ad9b69ec5802f346d0bb6",
"text": "\"The question you should be asking yourself is this: \"\"Why am I putting money into a 401(k)?\"\" For many people, the answer is to grow a (large) nest egg and save for future retirement expenses. Investors are balancing risk and potential reward, so the asset categories you're putting your 401(k) contribution towards will be a reflection on how much risk you're willing to take. Per a US News & World Report article: Ultimately, investors would do well to remember one of the key tenants of investing: diversify. The narrower you are with your investments, the greater your risk, says Vanguard's Bruno: \"\"[Diversification] doesn't ensure against a loss, but it does help lessen a significant loss.\"\" Generally, investing in your employer's stock in your 401(k) is considered very risk. In fact, one Forbes columnist recommends not putting any money into company stock. FINRA notes: Simply stated, if you put too many eggs in one basket, you can expose yourself to significant risk. In financial terms, you are under-diversified: you have too much of your holdings tied to a single investment—your company's stock. Investing heavily in company stock may seem like a good thing when your company and its stock are doing well. But many companies experience fluctuations in both operational performance and stock price. Not only do you expose yourself to the risk that the stock market as a whole could flounder, but you take on a lot of company risk, the risk that an individual firm—your company—will falter or fail. In simpler terms, if you invest a large portion of your 401(k) funds into company stock, if your company runs into trouble, you could lose both your job AND your retirement investments. For the other investment assets/vehicles, you should review a few things: Personally, I prefer to keep my portfolio simple and just pick just a few options based on my own risk tolerance. From your fund examples, without knowing specifics about your financial situation and risk tolerance, I would have created a portfolio that looks like this when I was in my 20's: I avoided the bond and income/money market funds because the growth potential is too low for my investing horizon. Like some of the other answers have noted, the Target Date funds invest in other funds and add some additional fee overhead, which I'm trying to avoid by investing primarily in index funds. Again, your risk tolerance and personal preference might result in a completely different portfolio mix.\"",
"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": "f1a77888aa6785b6bfac3feea734ffa8",
"text": "A 401(k) is just a container. Like real-world containers (those that are usually made out of metal), you can put (almost) anything you want in it. Signing up for your employer's match is a great thing to do. Getting into the habit of saving a significant portion of your take-home pay early in your career is even better; doing so will put you lightyears ahead of lots of people by the time you approach retirement age. Even if you love your job, that will give you options you otherwise wouldn't have. There is no real reason why you can't start out by putting your retirement money in a short-term money-market fund within that 401(k). By doing so you will only earn a pittance, probably not even enough to keep up with inflation in today's economic environment, but at this point in your (savings and investment) career, that doesn't really matter much. What really matters is getting into the habit of setting that money aside every single time you get paid and not thinking much of it. And that's a lot easier if you start out early, especially at a time when you likely have received a significant net pay increase (salaried job vs college student). I know, everyone says to get the best return you can. But if you are just starting out, and feel the need to be conservative, then don't be afraid to at least start out that way. You can always rebalance into investment classes that have the potential for higher return -- and correspondingly higher volatility -- in a few years. In the meantime, you will have built a pretty nice capital that you can move into the stock market eventually. The exact rate of return you get in the first decade matters a lot less than how much money you set aside regularly and that you keep contributing. See for example Your Investment Plan Means Nothing If You Don’t Do This by Matt Becker (no affiliation), which illustrates how it takes 14 years for saving 5% at a consistent 10% return to beat saving 10% at a consistent 0% return. So look through what's being offered in terms of low-risk investments within that 401(k). Go ahead and pick a money-market fund or a bond fund if you want to start out easy. If it gets you into the habit of saving and sticking with it, then the overall return will beat the daylights out of the return you would get from a good stock market fund if you stop contributing after a year or two. Especially (but not only) if you do pick an interest-bearing investment, do make sure to pick one that has as low fees as you can possibly find for what you want, because otherwise the fees are going to eat a lot into your potential returns, benefiting the bank or investment house rather than yourself. Just keep an open mind, and very strongly consider shifting at least some of your investments into the stock market as you grow more comfortable over the next several years. You can always keep a portion of your money in various interest-bearing investments to act as a cushion in case the market slumps.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e3db16ddd9e9c744cfb2b1bd6fbec542",
"text": "To be clear, a 401K is a vehicle, you make investments WITHIN it, if you choose poorly such as say putting all your money into company stock when working for the next Enron, you can still get hurt badly. So it is important to have diversity and an appropriate risk level based on your age, tolerance for risk, etc. That said, as vehicles go it is outstanding, and the 'always max your 401K' is very very common advice for a large number of investing professionals, CFA's, pundits, etc. That said there are a few priorities to consider here. First priority, if there is some level of company matching, grab that, it's hard to beat that kind of 'return' in almost any other case. Second, since you never want to tap into a 401K (if you can at all avoid it) before you are ready to retire, you should first be sure you have a good 'emergency fund' set aside in the event you lose your job, or some other major catastrophy happens. Many recommend setting aside at least 6 months of basic living expenses. Third, if you have any high interest debt (like credit card debt) pay that stuff down as fast as you can. You'll save a ton of interest (it's pretty much the same as investing the money you use to pay it down, and getting a return equal to the interest rate you are paying, with zero risk.. can't be beat. You'll also end up with a lot better cash flow, and the ability to start saving first and spending out of savings, so you earn interest instead of paying it. Once you have those things out of the way, then it is time to think about fully funding the 401K. and keep in mind, since you don't pay taxes on it, the 'felt effect' to you pocket is about 80% or even less, of what goes into the account, so it's not as painful as you might think, and the hit to your take home may be less than you'd expect. Contributing as much as you can, as early as you can also lets you benefit from the effect of compounding, and has a far larger affect on the balance than money put into the account closer to retirement. So if you can afford to max it out, I surely would advise you to do so.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "41b29537cc484b71a7997be7f381d15d",
"text": "\"See if they offer a \"\"Target Date\"\" plan that automatically adjusts throughout your career to balance gains against preserving what you've already built up. You can adjust for more or less aggressive by selecting a plan with a later or sooner target date, respectively. (But check the administrative fees; higher fees can eat up a surprisingly large part of your growth since they're essentially subtracted from rate of return and thus get compounded.) If they don't have that option, or charge too much for it, then yes, you may want to adjust which plan your money is in over time; you can usually \"\"exchange\"\" between these plans at no cost and with no tax penalty. NOTE: The tax-advantaged 401(k) investments should be considered in the context of all your investments. This is one of the things an independent financial planner can help you with. As with other investment decisions, the best answer for you depends on your risk tolerance and your time horizon.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "70423b1c3d64f05ea5ae171e3c0ca8da",
"text": "At your age, I don't think its a bad idea to invest entirely in stocks. The concern with stocks is their volatility, and at 40+ years from retirement, volatility does not concern you. Just remember that if you ever want to call upon your 401(k) for anything other than retirement, such as a down payment on a home (which is a qualified distribution that is not subject to early distribution penalties), then you should reconsider your retirement allocations. I would not invest 100% into stocks if I knew I were going to buy a house in five years and needed that money for a down payment. If your truly saving strictly for a retirement that could occur forty years in the future, first good for you, and second, put it all in an index fund. An S&P index has a ridiculously low expense ratio, and with so many years away from retirement, it gives you an immense amount of flexibility to choose what to do with those funds as your retirement date approaches closer every year.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b37971b421af08c8675b6b64c044e31f",
"text": "One thing to be aware of when choosing mutual funds and index ETFs is the total fees and costs. The TD Ameritrade site almost certainly had links that would let you see the total fees (as an annual percentage) for each of the funds. Within a category, the lowest fees percentage is best, since that is directly subtracted from your performance. As an aside, your allocation seems overly conservative to me for someone that is 25 years old. You will likely work for 40 or so years and the average stock market cycle is about 7 years. So you will likely see 5 or so complete cycles. Worrying about stability of principal too young will really cut into your returns. My daughter is your age and I have advised her to be 100% in equities and then to start dialing that back in about 25 years or so.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a6d30c4e2ec0ff2272db0f800414b25d",
"text": "\"It is not an either/or decision. If you \"\"want to retire decades early\"\", then you will need to have a taxable account anyway, as you won't be able to stuff enough money into the tax-advantaged accounts to meet that goal. And if you are \"\"making a huge sum\"\", then you will be in a high tax bracket and so the tax advantages of saving into a 401K or IRA will be substantial. So, max out your 401K/IRA, and then save the rest into the taxable brokerage account. When you retire at 39, live off your taxable account until you are old enough to tap the other ones without penalty. Unless you plan to die decades early, as well as retire decades early. In that case, you can bypass the 401K/IRA.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ff00d276dc2faab32131924447924ce4",
"text": "There are lots of sub-parts to your question. Let's takle them one at a time. Should I worry about an IRA at this age? Absolutely! Or at least some form of retirement account. When you are young is the BEST time to start putting money into a retirement account because you have so much time for it to grow. Compounding interest is a magical thing. Even if you can only afford to put a very small amount in the account, do it! You will have to put a heck of a lot less money into the account over your working career if you start now. Is there a certain amount you need for the IRA deduction? No. Essentially with a traditional IRA you can just subtract the amount you deposited (up to the contribution limit) from your income when calculating your taxes. What kind of IRA should I get? I suggest a ROTH IRA, but be warned that with that kind you get the tax breaks when you retire, not now. If you think taxes will be higher in 40 years or so, then the Roth is a clear winner. Traditional IRA: Tax deduction this year for contribution; investment plus gains are taxed as income when you take the money out at retirement. Roth IRA: Investment amount is taxed in the year you put it in; no taxes on investment amount or gains when you take it out at retirement. Given the long horizon that you will be investing, the money is likely going to at least double. So the total amount you are taxed on over your lifetime would probably be less with the ROTH even if tax rates remain the same. Is the 401K a better option? If they offer a match (most do) then it is a no-brainer, the employer 401K always comes out on top because they are basically paying you extra to put money into savings. If there is no match, I suggest a Roth because company 401K plans usually have hidden fees that are much higher than you are going to pay for setting up your own IRA or Roth IRA with a broker.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cb9aa2dc9ef070f4af12702db6c0d4ac",
"text": "I'll be happy to edit when you provide answers to the question I posed in the comments. Given the choice (and I assume there is no other) I'd take a loan from the 401(k) vs a withdrawal. You withdraw $40K. I'll assume 25% bracket as you're planning at least a $200K house. Hopefully, your taxable income is above $38K, the 25% line for singles. The tax and penalty is 35% total, federal. You net $26K. And you have $40K less in the retirement account. In 40 years, at 10% average growth, that's $1.8M you won't have in your 401(k). And as littleadv stated, no deposits for 6 months, meaning no matching. There's a few more thousand you'll lose. You borrow $20K. Your 401(k) will see a return on the $20k that's better than the short bond account, 4-5% vs less than 1%. You are short $6K, but in return have paid no tax, no penalty, etc. I respect those who are strongly anti-loan, but even they would agree, this is the far lesser of 2 evils. The above is pretty generic, there are better choices. But your CPA friend's advice is nearly as bad as it gets. By the way, the tax you'll save once you have the mortgage has nothing to do with that 10% penalty. Say you bought the house with cash (as many would be happy to do). You'd pay the penalty for the 401(k) withdrawal, but have no mortgage deduction. If you had the 20%, you still have a loan and the deduction, but no penalty for taking his bad advice. My advice is to take that refund and use it to pay the loan faster.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1b53879e7b20f0f8145042b709438017",
"text": "A 401K (pre-tax or Roth) account or an IRA (Deductible or Roth) account is a retirement account. Which means you delay paying taxes now on your deposits, or you avoid paying taxes on your earnings later. But a retirement account doesn't perform any different than any other account year-to-year. Being a retirement account doesn't dictate a type of investment. You can invest in a certificate of deposit that is guaranteed to make x% this year; or you can invest in stocks, bonds, mutual funds that infest in stocks or bonds. Those stocks and bonds can be growth focused, or income focused; they can be from large companies or small companies; US companies or international companies. Or whatever mix you want. The graph in your question shows that if you invest early in your adulthood, and keep investing, and you make the average return you should make more money than starting later. But a couple of notes: So to your exact questions: An S&P 500 investment should perform exactly the same this year if it is in a 401K, IRA, or taxable account With a few exceptions: Yes any investment can lose money. The last 6 months have been volatile and the last month and a half especially so. A retirement account isn't any different. An investment in mutual fund X in a retirement account is just as depressed a one in the same fund but from a taxable account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bfddda9422024219f006578082293267",
"text": "\"the most important information that you provided was \"\"I'm 25 years old\"\". You have a few years to save for a rental property. Taking a loan against your 401k only invites a lot of paperwork and a good deal of risk. Not only the \"\"if I lose my job I have to pay it back (in 60 days)\"\", but it effectively locks you into your current job because changing jobs also causes the same repayment consequences. Do you really love your job that much that you would stick with it for the loan you have? (rhetorical) One could argue that real estate is a good way to diversify away from the stock market (assuming you have your 401k invested in stocks). Another way to get the same diversification is to invest in REITs through your 401k. Owning rental property isn't something to rush into. You really have to like it.The returns and headaches that accompany it can be a drag and it's harder to get out of then stocks.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b2c9d55800920d12987fec8518dbba0a",
"text": "\"That depends, really. Generally speaking, though - Roth IRAs are THE PLACE for Stock-Market/Mutual-Fund investing. All the off the wall (or, not so off the wall) things like Real Estate investments, or buying up gold, or whatever other ideas you hear from people - they may be good or bad or whatnot. But your Roth IRA is maybe not the best place for that sort of thing. The whole philosophy behind IRAs is to deliberately set aside money for the future. Anything reasonable will work for this. Explore interesting investment ideas with today's money, not tomorrow's money. That being said - at your age I would go for the riskier options within what's available. If I were in your situation (and I have been, recently), I would lean toward low-fee mutual funds classified as \"\"Growth\"\" funds. My own personal opinion (THIS IS NOT ADVICE) is that Small Cap International funds are the place to be for young folks. That's a generalized opinion based on my feel for the world, but I don't think I'm personally competent to start making specific stock picks. So, mutual funds makes sense to me in that I can select the fund that generally aligns with my sense of things, and assume that their managers will make reasonably sound decisions within that framework. Of course that assumption has to be backed up with reputation of the specific MF company and the comparative performance of the fund relative to other funds in the same sector. As to the generalized question (how else can you work toward financial stability and independence), outside of your Roth IRA: find ways to boost your earning potential over time, and buy a house before the next bubble (within the next 18 months, I'm GUESSING).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f7ca42754f8dbcf566f746c495e6325d",
"text": "Take The 20k and transfer it to the new employer 401k. You then can take a loan and accomplish the same thing. By the time you pay the tax and 10% penalty, that withdrawal will be worth just over half. The same half you can borrow out, pay yourself the interest and not lose out on 50 years of growth.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4c00e188521bb82ead41c19c72e51825",
"text": "\"Aggressiveness in a retirement portfolio is usually a function of your age and your risk tolerance. Your portfolio is usually a mix of the following asset classes: You can break down these asset classes further, but each one is a topic unto itself. If you are young, you want to invest in things that have a higher return, but are more volatile, because market fluctuations (like the current financial meltdown) will be long gone before you reach retirement age. This means that at a younger age, you should be investing more in stocks and foreign/developing countries. If you are older, you need to be into more conservative investments (bonds, money market, etc). If you were in your 50s-60s and still heavily invested in stock, something like the current financial crisis could have ruined your retirement plans. (A lot of baby boomers learned this the hard way.) For most of your life, you will probably be somewhere in between these two. Start aggressive, and gradually get more conservative as you get older. You will probably need to re-check your asset allocation once every 5 years or so. As for how much of each investment class, there are no hard and fast rules. The idea is to maximize return while accepting a certain amount of risk. There are two big unknowns in there: (1) how much return do you expect from the various investments, and (2) how much risk are you willing to accept. #1 is a big guess, and #2 is personal opinion. A general portfolio guideline is \"\"100 minus your age\"\". This means if you are 20, you should have 80% of your retirement portfolio in stocks. If you are 60, your retirement portfolio should be 40% stock. Over the years, the \"\"100\"\" number has varied. Some financial advisor types have suggested \"\"150\"\" or \"\"200\"\". Unfortunately, that's why a lot of baby boomers can't retire now. Above all, re-balance your portfolio regularly. At least once a year, perhaps quarterly if the market is going wild. Make sure you are still in-line with your desired asset allocation. If the stock market tanks and you are under-invested in stocks, buy more stock, selling off other funds if necessary. (I've read interviews with fund managers who say failure to rebalance in a down stock market is one of the big mistakes people make when managing a retirement portfolio.) As for specific mutual fund suggestions, I'm not going to do that, because it depends on what your 401k or IRA has available as investment options. I do suggest that your focus on selecting a \"\"passive\"\" index fund, not an actively managed fund with a high expense ratio. Personally, I like \"\"total market\"\" funds to give you the broadest allocation of small and big companies. (This makes your question about large/small cap stocks moot.) The next best choice would be an S&P 500 index fund. You should also be able to find a low-cost Bond Index Fund that will give you a healthy mix of different bond types. However, you need to look at expense ratios to make an informed decision. A better-performing fund is pointless if you lose it all to fees! Also, watch out for overlap between your fund choices. Investing in both a Total Market fund, and an S&P 500 fund undermines the idea of a diversified portfolio. An aggressive portfolio usually includes some Foreign/Developing Nation investments. There aren't many index fund options here, so you may have to go with an actively-managed fund (with a much higher expense ratio). However, this kind of investment can be worth it to take advantage of the economic growth in places like China. http://www.getrichslowly.org/blog/2009/04/27/how-to-create-your-own-target-date-mutual-fund/\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0231a1ed438596a093df5865378641ef",
"text": "To expand on mhoran's answer - Once you mention the 401(k), we're compelled to ask (a) what is the match, if any, and (b) what are the expenses within the funds offered. Depositing to get the full match is going to get you the biggest return on your money. It's common to get a dollar for dollar match on the first 5 or 6% of your income. If the fees are high, you stop at the match, and move to an IRA for the next money you wish to save. At 22, I'd probably focus on the Roth. If you have access to a Roth 401(k), that's great, the match will be pre tax dollars and you'll get started with a decent tax status mix. These accounts can form the core of your investing. Most people have little left over once their retirement accounts are fully funded. And yes, reading to understand stocks is great, but also to understand why stock indexing is the best choice for most investors.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
4b452a206e66ad6bd2e9b6181233e1c8
|
US tax returns for a resident - No US income and indian shares
|
[
{
"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": "242976e10f1c91effed1986a9c75b8b6",
"text": "\"All the other answers posted thus far discuss matters from the perspective of US tax laws and are unanimous in declaring that what the OP wants to do is indeed a very bad idea. I fully agree: it is a bad idea from the perspective of US tax laws, and is likely a bad idea from the perspective of Indian tax laws too, but what the OP wants to do is (or used to be) common practice in India. In more recent times, India has created a Permanent Account Number (\"\"PAN number\"\") for each taxpayer for income tax purposes, and each bank account or investment must have the owner's (or first-named owner's, in case of a joint account) PAN number associated with it. This most likely has decreased the popularity of such arrangements, or has led to new twists being used. The OP has not indicated the residence and citizenship of his family (or his own status for that matter), but if they are all Indian citizens resident in India and are Hindus, then there might be one mechanism for doing what the OP wants to do: apply for a PAN number in the name of the Hindu Undivided Family and use this number to carry out the investments in the name of the Hindu Undivided Family. (There presumably are similar statuses for undivided families for other religions, but I am not familiar with them). There are lots of matters here which are more legal questions than personal finance questions: e.g. if the OP is a US tax resident, then the family presumably will not be able to claim Hindu Undivided Family status since the OP has been divided from the family for tax purposes (or so I think). Even if HUF status is available, the OP might not be able to act as the pater familias while his father is alive, and so on. Consultation with tax lawyers, not just chartered accountants, in India is certainly advisable.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8de35a507e65ca679887497e347f9d74",
"text": "I keep visiting Dubai Not sure what kind of work it is, assuming it regular job. For the period mentioned above I was out of India for more than 182 days, If you were out of India for more than 182 days in a given financial year then you would NRI for tax purposes. till date I have not transferred any money from Dubai to my India account. Whether you have transferred the money or not is not relevant for tax purposes. Your status [NRI / Resident] is relevant. Do I need to declare the income I have earned in Dubai? No you are not required to as your status is NRI. You are required to file a return on the income [Salary/Interest/gains/etc] accruing in India. Do I need to change my residential status ? Not sure where you are wanting to change this. Will the income I have earned in Dubai is taxable ? As you are NRI, the income earned outside of India is not taxable in India. From a tax point of view, it does not matter whether you keep the funds in Dubai or transfer it back to India. Edit: The Income Tax rules are not very clear if your wife can claim for her father-in-law. Best consult a CA. For quite a few regulations, Wife's father-in-law are treated at par with father.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "19248cdc1d94e3e6ce721efcdf3161b9",
"text": "Assuming that your friend is residing in India, any money that he returns to you cannot be deposited into your NRE (NonResident External) account; it must go into your NRO (NonResident Ordinary) account. You don't have an NRO account, only ordinary savings accounts in India that you established before leaving the country and becoming an NRI (NonResident Indian) ? Well, you are in violation of FEMA regulations and need to convert all those ordinary savings accounts into NRO accounts as soon as possible. Your bank will help you in doing this (by letting you hold ordinary accounts while you have NRI status, the bank too is in violation of FEMA regulations). With regard to taxation, unless you have created a paper trail by documenting the money sent to the builder as a loan to your friend, the entire amount (less INR 50,000 exemption) that your friend will return to you will be considered a gift from your friend to you, and it will be taxable income to you in India, and possibly taxable income to you in your country of residence, though there may be tax treaties that will let you pay taxes in one country only. If you do have a paper trail, then only the excess of what your friend returns to you is interest income to you; the bulk is just repayment of the loan principal, and is nontaxable. If you are residing in the US, I do hope that you have reported the fact that you had foreign bank account(s) totaling more than US$10K in value to the IRS and the US Treasury as per FBAR regulations; because if not, you have many more tax issues to worry about. The fines for not filing these reports are onerous.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e8426dce951f35375138937670093510",
"text": "In any case you need a CA. Please consult one. I am selling a plot of land that I own in India. This would be treated as capital gains event and you would owe taxes on the gains. I would like to purchase an apartment in India for my parents use. Yes you can. You maybe able to offset some gains on land sale against the apartment. Would like to gift part the money (about INR 20 lakhs) towards my US born son's college education in the US. As you are NRI; Under FEMA, you can transfer funds from your NRO account to US. A form 15CAB and 15CB need to be submitted to the bank to enable transer.",
"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": "819197acdc0e88afc44350dcccd999eb",
"text": "\"I believe you have to file a tax return, because state tax refund is considered income effectively connected with US trade or business, and the 1040NR instructions section \"\"Who Must File\"\" includes people who were engaged in trade or business in the US and had a gross income. You won't end up having to pay any taxes as the income is less than your personal exemption of $4050.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a37ba433298a25962301a4c5df8a2d03",
"text": "You haven't indicated where the funds are held. They should ideally be held in NRO account. If you haven't, have this done ASAP. Once the funds are in NRO account, you can repatriate this outside of India subject to a limit of 1 million USD. A CA certificate is required. Please contact your Indian Bank and they should be able to guide you. There are no tax implications of this in US as much as I know, someone else may post the US tax aspect.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "69215acbca7cb211aa3819f52979f193",
"text": "Yes. You may be subjected to the US gift tax (if you transfer to anyone other than your legally married spouse or yourself). The receivers will have to deal with the Indian tax laws, which I'm not familiar with.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "26d40b0256f72a945d5e165e43070be5",
"text": "Is this possible and will it have the intended effect? From the US tax perspective, it most definitely is and will. Is my plan not very similar to Wash Sale? Yes, except that wash sale rules apply for losses, not gains. In any case, since you're not a US tax resident, the US wash sale rules won't apply to you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "23b0dfdbfbf5dd51940969b729167d69",
"text": "non-resident aliens to the US do not pay capital gains on US products. You pay tax in your home country if you have done a taxable event in your country. http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/06/nonusresidenttax.asp#axzz1mQDut9Ru but if you hold dividends, you are subject to US dividend tax. The UK-US treaty should touch on that though.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b2fe749117d26a925f975f93acdcd93a",
"text": "\"For the financial year 1 April 2014 to 31 March 2015, as you have [or will be] spent more than 182 days outside India, you would be treated as \"\"Non-Resident\"\" [NRI] for tax purposes. If you are NRI Show my Kuwaiti Income in my Income Tax Return? Pay any tax on the money that I am sending to savings bank accounts in India You need not Pay Tax on your income outside India. i.e. there is no tax obligation created. It cannot be declared in Tax Returns. However any interest you earn on the money deposited in India would be subject to taxes. Will my wife have to show the income and/or pay the income tax on the money that I am sending to her savings bank accounts? There is no Income to you wife [Income is something you earn] and hence its out of scope from Income Tax act. It would fall under gift tax rules. As per Gift Tax one can transfer unlimited funds between close relatives. Hence there is No tax. It would be better if you open an NRO/NRE account and transfer funds into that account\"",
"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": "96bc0eef187f7667d4a4cc35a1798d67",
"text": "As per Indian tax laws; income, expense, gain and loss constitute the basic pillars of every individual’s economic life. There are very few cases under which this new 'income' is non taxable. Based on the circumstances, you might have to pay capital gains tax.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3952f02414674a677415876312af53fe",
"text": "First, yes, your LLC has to file annual taxes to the US government. All US companies do, regardless of where their owners live. Second, you will also probably be liable to personally file a return in the US and unless the US has a tax treaty with India (which I don't believe it does) you may end up paying taxes on your same income to both countries. Finally, opening a US bank account as a foreign citizen can be very tricky. You need to talk to a US accountant who is familiar with Indian & US laws.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ca8e1d390f305f11925283dd73345691",
"text": "\"Can I claim a 20% of the interest paid over the period of Oct/2015 through Mar/2017 (18 months) when I file for IT returns this year in Mar/2017? Yes you can. Does my name not being the first name affect my eligibility of claiming the relief? No you can claim relief. Joint owners need to file a declaration on the quantum of relief claimed. Both can't claim 100%. Does that mean I my claiming the 20% relief on interest (and the remaining 80% over subsequent years) is in effect moot as my \"\"taxable\"\" income cannot go negative (meaning the govt cannot/will not return some money I have paid as IT in prior years)? If you have no other income on which tax is payable; then Yes it is irrelevant. Does that mean as long as I continue to work in the US (already having become a NRI), have little or no income in India, I cannot claim any future relief regarding the principal or interest? Yes that is right.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
4760afc5b6a9273a35ed0e75118e65bb
|
What is a call spread and how does it work?
|
[
{
"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": "123f0272358ed7eadb08eeecede863eb",
"text": "Yes, it can buy back the call, but much before stock hits the $30 mark. Let us say you got 1$ from selling the call. So the total money in your account is 4$ + 1 $ = 5 $. When stock hits 10$ (your strike), the maintenance margin is 5$. As soon as stock goes past 10, your maintenance margin is violated. So broker will buy back your call (at least IB does that, it does not wait for a margin call). Now if the stock gapped up from 8 to 30,then yes, broker will buy it back at 30, so your account will have a negative balance. Assume the call cost 20$ when stock hit 30, your balance is: 5 - (30-10) = -15. Depending on broker, I suppose they will ask you to bring your account balance back up to positive. If they don't do that, they risk going out of business.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1e7a36e86be911f447e69350463b2591",
"text": "\"As an aside, on most securities with a spread of the minimum tick, there would be no bid ask spread if so-called \"\"locked markets\"\", where the price of the best bid on one exchange is equal to the price of the best ask on another, were permitted. It is currently forbidden for a security to have posted orders having the same price for both bid and ask even though they're on different exchanges. Option spreads would narrow as well as a result.\"",
"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": "18aa96f3262074f80fbd3733e132a152",
"text": "I think you're over complicating it! There is the market maker in the pure sense as what chilldontkill said - a bookie, a middleman. They are just the brokers in between the buyers and sellers, and they simply make profit off of the spread differential. But market maker is also used to refer to large, high volume buyers and sellers that can influence the price because they control a larger % of volume. These only really exist on low volume products, and they slowly ween out the larger the volume. On higher volume products, I like to refer to them as institutions - that is, well informed, large pockets - whether is be central banks, clearing houses, hedge funds, boutique firms. These are the people who are generally in the know and they often bet against eachother.hope this helps ...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d09646352a168947c195ba562092402d",
"text": "Successful covered calls are short term capital gains. The amount of time you have owned the underlying security is irrelevant. The gain occurred in the option period which will be an amount of days less than needed for a long term capital gain classification. Failed Covered calls can be either as the date you acquired the stock you are forced to sell determines their classification.",
"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": "f824112e5846e465882fb442b9ec6dd2",
"text": "\"As an exercise, I want to give this a shot. I'm not involved in a firm that cares about liquidity so all this stuff is outside my purview. As I understand it, it goes something like this: buy side fund puts an order to the market as a whole (all or most possibly exchanges). HFTs see that order hit the first exchange but have connectivity to exchanges further down the pipe that is faster than the buy side fund. They immediately send their own order in, which reaches exchanges and executes before the buy side fund's order can. They immediately put up an ask, and buy side fund's order hits that ask and is filled (I guess I'm assuming the order was a market order from the beginning). This is in effect the HFT front running the buy side fund. Is this accurate? Even if true, whether I have a genuine issue with this... I'm not sure. Has anyone on the \"\"pro-HFT\"\" side written a solid rebuttal to Lewis and Katsuyama that has solid research behind it?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cb9ec3e7263d11cce8f040b530f81245",
"text": "You don't necessarily have to use a LEAP to do a spread. Since you are doing a covered call, I'm assuming that you would be comfortable with having that call exercised and you are bullish on the stock. So doing a spread trade with the short call option would essentially be capping your maximum profit without risking the obligation to sell the stock below market value. An example for the payoff from a bull call spread: long lower strike call, short higher (covered) strike call can be found here",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "596ccc6f83cb1004dfffd242654aa1da",
"text": "\"Investopedia explains how a stock split impacts the stock's options: Each option contract is typically in control of 100 shares of an underlying security at a predetermined strike price. To find the new coverage of the option, take the split ratio and multiply by the old coverage (normally 100 shares). To find the new strike price, take the old strike price and divide by the split ratio. Say, for example, you own a call for 100 shares of XYZ with a strike price of $75. Now, if XYZ had a stock split of 2 for 1, then the option would now be for 200 shares with a strike price of $37.50. If, on the other hand, the stock split was 3 for 2, then the option would be for 150 shares with a strike price of $50. So, yes, a 2 for 1 stock split would halve the option strike prices. Also, in case the Investopedia article isn't clear, after a split the options still control 100 shares per contract. Regarding how a dividend affects option prices, I found an article with a good explanation: As mentioned above, dividends payment could reduce the price of a stock due to reduction of the company's assets. It becomes intuitive to know that if a stock is expected to go down, its call options will drop in extrinsic value while its put options will gain in extrinsic value before it happens. Indeed, dividends deflate the extrinsic value of call options and inflate the extrinsic value of put options weeks or even months before an expected dividend payment. Extrinsic value of Call Options are deflated due to dividends not only because of an expected reduction in the price of the stock but also due to the fact that call options buyers do not get paid the dividends that the stock buyers do. This makes call options of dividend paying stocks less attractive to own than the stocks itself, thereby depressing its extrinsic value. How much the value of call options drop due to dividends is really a function of its moneyness. In the money call options with high delta would be expected to drop the most on ex-date while out of the money call options with lower delta would be least affected. If a stock is expected to drop by a certain amount, that drop would already have been priced into the extrinsic value of its put options way beforehand. This is what happens to put options of dividend paying stocks. This effect is again a function of options moneyness but this time, in the money put options raise in extrinsic value more than out of the money put options. This is because in the money put options with delta of close to -1 would gain almost dollar or dollar on the drop of a stock. As such, in the money put options would rise in extrinsic value almost as much as the dividend rate itself while out of the money put options may not experience any changes since the dividend effect may not be strong enough to bring the stock down to take those out of the money put options in the money. So, no, a dividend of $1 will not necessarily decrease an option's price by $1 on the ex-dividend date. It depends on whether it's a call or put option, and whether the option is \"\"in the money\"\" or \"\"out of the money\"\" and by how much.\"",
"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": "e2ea639c0b2bce363e108ba3e85ebb80",
"text": "Question: are you saying that buying a call is better than buying a vertical spread regardless of fees, or only because of fees? If the former, you are saying that buying a call and selling a vertical spread will always be profitable, which effectively means you're going short an out-of-the-money call. While that's a good strategy, it doesn't guarantee profit, and will lose money exactly when the vertical spread is a better strategy than buying the call outright. The most direct answer to your question in comments: if the stock goes down, you lose less money with the vertical spread than you do with a simple call. In return for this lower risk, you give up gains if the stock goes above the higher calls strike price.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aba856be4280e28f88d44a0ed5966ced",
"text": "A bid is an offer to buy something on an order book, so for example you may post an offer to buy one share, at $5. An ask is an offer to sell something on an order book, at a set price. For example you may post an offer to sell shares at $6. A trade happens when there are bids/asks that overlap each other, or are at the same price, so there is always a spread of at least one of the smallest currency unit the exchange allows. Betting that the price of an asset will go down, traditionally by borrowing some of that asset and then selling it, hoping to buy it back at a lower price and pocket the difference (minus interest). So, let's say as per your example you borrow 100 shares of company 'X', expecting the price of them to go down. You take your shares to the market and sell them - you make a market sell order (a market 'ask'). This matches against a bid and you receive a price of $5 per share. Now, let's pretend that you change your mind and you think the price is going to go up, you instantly regret your decision. In order to pay back the shares, you now need to buy back your shares as $6 - which is the price off the ask offers on the order book. Because of this spread, you have lost money. You sold at a low price and bought at a high price, meaning it costs you more money to repay your borrowed shares. So, when you are shorting you need the spread to be as tight as possible.",
"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": "8f6a2d8f37ad4c69c8c36929aae9fde0",
"text": "Yes. It seems to me you got it right. On my site, Stock Options Cafe, my last post was an illustration of a bullish call spread. In this case, I bought a 50 call, and sold the 60 call. This is a debit order as I was paying money, not collecting a new premium.",
"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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
1bdd6708a806b307276c42bac4939c3b
|
Tracking down stocks I own
|
[
{
"docid": "623fc9816fe75720905b43c90aeb8b96",
"text": "There's two possibilities. One is that the broker declared your account abandoned and turned over your account to the state. If that happened, it should turn up here: http://missingmoney.com The second is that the broker is still holding your stock. I'd start by contacting the company's transfer agent.",
"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": "39537f525254e9cde5d5705482fd42e4",
"text": "It's true that most states have limits on what finders can charge if the listing is in state possession. If it is in the pre-escheat phase (that period of time before it goes to the state) then even if the money will eventually go to the state, the limits don't apply. Keane does a lot of work with transfer agents that handle the administrative work of stocks. Other options that have a time limit include I have a friend that was contacted by Keane. It turned out to be stock that her mother had when she worked for AMEX. She got busy with other things and got another letter from Keane. The stock increased in value and they wanted more money to help her even though they had already done the work of finding her. The money eventually went to the state and she was able to claim the full amount for FREE. If the suggestions I gave you don't get results, contact me through my web site and I'll try to help. Good luck!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9cbb60a19abbe812b21f4293f43bc94b",
"text": "Something you might want to consider, instead of going out bargain hunting in hopes of picking something up on the cheap is to start doing you research now for a stock you would like to have in your portfolio and watch it for news that might cause it to go down before picking it up when it is down for a bit. As you pointed out with the BP stock, prior to the incident it was a solid stock that was being held in a number of funds. By identifying solid stocks now you can also make the decision on the basis of the news to if the fundamentals under the stock are severely impacted or if it just a temporary dip in prices. Also, you might want to index funds such as VTI that are tied to the overall market and also pay dividends. When the market tends down for awhile you can buy some shares that you can either hold for dollar-cost averaging or sell off again once the market picks up.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f83e907fd4c969acb36a4db865744b4d",
"text": "I've read over these responses like a dozen times. It's really cool hearing from a business owner who has experienced things first-hand. Nobody in my family has ever been or known anything about business/stocks/Anything. I'm learning everything from the internet, friends, and now reddit. I'll certainly seek true legal advice but you have no idea how helpful you and every other person on this thread has been. Thank you! I'm all ears to anything else",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5685b1ded2c93079cd5e6b11fdc85535",
"text": "I found that an application already exists which does virtually everything I want to do with a reasonable interface. Its called My Personal Index. It has allowed me to look at my asset allocation all in one place. I'll have to enter: The features which solve my problems above include: Note - This is related to an earlier post I made regarding dollar cost averaging and determining rate of returns. (I finally got off my duff and did something about it)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8207cf44a5c260c72f91ffd0e294b3a7",
"text": "Simple Schwaab does not have actually your securities they have leased them out and have to borrow them back. all assets are linked with derivatives now. They show on the balance sheet but have to be untangled. Thats why the market drops disproportionally fast to the actual number of shares sold.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4aed3075c497077d08f6a1db8c7a9b20",
"text": "\"Edgar Online has this information for companies under SEC regulations and they are reported in \"\"Form 4\"\" so that should help guide your search\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4cf75cc35ece65ec6ebd8065d546b909",
"text": "This is going to be a bit of a shameless plug, but I've build a portfolio tracking website to track your portfolio and be able to share it (in read-only mode) as well. It is at http://frano.carelessmusings.com and currently in beta. Most portfolio trackers are behind a login wall and thus will lack the sharing function you are looking for. Examples of these are: Yahoo Finance, Google Finance, Reuters Portfolios, MorningStart Portfolios, and many others. Another very quick and easy solution (if you are not trading too often) is a shared google docs spreadsheet. Gdocs has integration with google finance and can retrieve prices for stocks by symbol. A spreadsheet can contain the following: Symbol, Quantity, Avg. Buy Price, Price, P/L, P/L% and so on. The current price and P/L data can be functions that use the google finance API. Hope this helps, and if you check out my site please let me know what you think and what I could change.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e8050a204949864b98ceb2a99091d727",
"text": "Hey Sheehan, I believe Schwab provides this info. None of the online free portfolio managers I know of gives you this info. The now defunct MS Money used to have this. The best thing to do is to use a spreadsheet. Or you could use the one I use. http://www.moneycone.com/did-you-beat-the-market-mr-investor/ . (disclaimer: that's my blog)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c1b97df8f72eb9db4c987059358d87ac",
"text": "\"Because you've sold something you've received cash (or at least an entry on your brokerage statement to say you've got cash) so you should record that as a credit in your brokerage account in GnuCash. The other side of the entry should go into another account that you create called something like \"\"Open Positions\"\" and is usually marked as a Liability account type (if you need to mark it as such). If you want to keep an accurate daily tally of your net worth you can add a new entry to your Open Positions account and offset that against Income which will be either negative or positive depending on how the position has moved for/against you. You can also do this at a lower frequency or not at all and just put an entry in when your position closes out because you bought it back or it expired or it was exercised. My preferred method is to have a single entry in the Open Positions account with an arbitrary date near when I expect it to be closed and each time I edit that value (daily or weekly) so I only have the initial entry and the current adjust to look at which reduces the number of entries and confusion if there are too many.\"",
"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": "7c3ce52de9c86c161b7c8be72e8139b4",
"text": "Yes, http://shares.telegraph.co.uk/stockscreener/ has what you're looking for.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6fbcaaa231a65f94f3d123c19f7591cb",
"text": "\"It's easy to own many of the larger UK stocks. Companies like British Petroleum, Glaxo, and Royal Dutch Shell, list what they call ADRs (American Depositary Receipts) on the U.S. stock exchanges. That is, they will deposit local shares with Bank of NY Mellon, JP Morgan Chase, or Citicorp (the three banks that do this type of business), and the banks will turn around and issue ADRs equivalent to the number of shares on deposit. This is not true with \"\"small cap\"\" companies. In those cases, a broker like Schwab may occasionally help you, usually not. But you might have difficulty trading U.S. small cap companies as well.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "250e59e43c4663a659e26028f92aa583",
"text": "I would track it using a regular asset account. The same way I would track the value of a house, a car, or any other personal asset. ETA: If you want automatic tracking, you could set it up as a stock portfolio holding shares of the GLD ETF. One share of GLD represents 1/10 ounce of gold. So, if you have 5 ounces of gold, you would set that up in Quicken as 50 shares of GLD.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ab3fa3b48b665dad5943843d32607325",
"text": "You better buy an ETF that does the same, because it would be much cheaper than mutual fund (and probably much cheaper than doing it yourself and rebalancing to keep up with the index). Look at DIA for example. Neither buying the same amount of stocks nor buying for the same amount of money would be tracking the DJIE. The proportions are based on the market valuation of each of the companies in the index.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "079146be252b00916828b6842bbca0da",
"text": "A public company should have a link for investor relations, which should help provide a trail of basis if this is a matter of company buyout, takeover, etc. This gets you close, but if you don't have an exact date, it will just be close, not exact. One clean way out of this, assuming the goal is to get rid of the stock and move on, is to donate the shares to charity. You will take the present value as a deduction, and be done. You can use a charitable gift fund such as those offered by Schwab or Fidelity, so if say, the shares are worth $20K, and you typically donate $5K per year, the fund lets you do this transaction at once, then send to the charities you wish over the next few years.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
fc2f5c34a4ff0ef9eb46a61745809f20
|
What Happens To Stocks During Hyperinflation
|
[
{
"docid": "9670c10dc409419af2d730357da438bb",
"text": "Stocks in the Weimar hyperinflation are discussed in When Money Dies. I don't own a copy of the book but here is a link to a blog post about it. Speculation on the stock exchange has spread to all ranks of the population and shares rise like air balloons to limitless heights Basically, the stock market did very well (i.e. the US dollar value of stocks increased quite a lot. Of course, the price of everything increased if measured in marks.) Quote from the article: Bottom line: In marks, stocks had an amazing run. Even in USD they had a nice runup. It makes sense that the stock market would skyrocket because (a) if money has no value, then people will want to replace money with tangible things like goods, and since a stock represents a share in the factories and things which a company owns, it makes sense that you would want them and (b) if money has no value anyway, why not gamble with it? I would be interested to hear what happened in other hyperinflations.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "eb5a410b9e36929b6216d4dcf618dd7e",
"text": "\"Disregarding the particular example and focusing on the actual questions: YES, definitely, the whole concept of \"\"pump and dump scheme\"\" refers to the many cases when this was intentionally done; Everything has a limit, but the limit can be quite high, especially if starting from a low value (a penny stock) and if the stock is low volume, then inflating ten or hundred times over a real value may be possible; and any value might be infinitely times overvalued for a company that turns out to have a value of zero. Yes, unless it's done very blatantly, you should expect that the \"\"inflator\"\" has much more experience in hiding the signs of inflation than the skill of average investor to notice them.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9a0db602af711368a0219b1c7845726c",
"text": "\"Stock price is set to the price with the highest transaction volume at any given time. The stock price you cited was only valid in the last transaction on a specific stock exchange. As such it is more of an \"\"historic\"\" value. Next trade will be done with the next biggest volume. Depending on the incoming bids and asks this could be higher or lower, but you can assume it will not be too far off if there is no crash underway. Simple example stock exchange:\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "51efd4c92fe5580c043a1793767c9e62",
"text": "No, there is no linkage to the value of real estate and inflation. In most of the United States if you bought at the peak of the market in 2006, you still haven't recovered 7+ years later. Also real estate has a strong local component to the price. Pick the wrong location or the wrong type of real estate and the value of your real estate will be dropping while everybody else sees their values rising. Three properties I have owned near Washington DC, have had three different price patterns since the late 80's. Each had a different starting and ending point for the peak price rise. You can get lucky and make a lot, but there is no way to guarantee that prices will rise at all during the period you will own it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c5da3dbbbf01c01fc8c409241323433b",
"text": "\"If you own a stake large enough to do that, you became regulated - under Section 13(d) of the 1934 Act and Regulation (in case of US stock) and you became regulated. Restricting you from \"\"shocking\"\" market. Another thing is that your broker will probably not allow you to execute order like that - directed MKT order for such volume. And market is deeper than anyone could measure - darkpools and HFTs passively waiting for opportunities like that.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d3018fd0bd74a8511d779d2d89662bff",
"text": "You would generally have to pay interest for everyday you hold the position overnight. If you never close the position and the stock price goes to zero, you will be closed out and credited with your profit. If you never close the position and the stock price keeps going up and up, your potential loss is an unlimited amount of money. Of course your broker may close you out early for a number of reasons, particularly if your loss goes above the amount of capital you have in your trading account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "29051a1f78e6280e783af10934bd5ac1",
"text": "Purchases and sales from the same trade date will both settle on the same settlement date. They don't have to pay for their purchases until later either. Because HFT typically make many offsetting trades -- buying, selling, buying, selling, buying, selling, etc -- when the purchases and sales settle, the amount they pay for their purchases will roughly cancel with the amount they receive for their sales (the difference being their profit or loss). Margin accounts and just having extra cash around can increase their ability to have trades that do not perfectly offset. In practice, the HFT's broker will take a smaller amount of cash (e.g. $1 million) as a deposit of capital, and will then allow the HFT to trade a larger amount of stock value long or short (e.g. $10 million, for 10:1 leverage). That $1 million needs to be enough to cover the net profit/loss when the trades settle, and the broker will monitor this to ensure that deposit will be enough.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e80cc5163e18d81954a1a7decbd86e89",
"text": "\"In addition to the other answers it's also noteworthy that the stock exchanges themselves adjust the price quotes via their ex-div mechanism. All limit orders present in the book when the stock goes ex-div will be adjusted by the dividend. Which means you can't even get \"\"accidentally\"\" filled in the very unlikely case that everyone forgot to adjust their quotes.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "93c0dd8ea161a1275c9113b1fd75a006",
"text": "2 things may happen. Either your positions are closed by the broker and the loss or profit is credited to your account. Else it is carried over to the next day and you pay interest on the stocks lent to you. What happens will be decided by the agreement signed between you and your broker.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e0057b7487fe621d293ba838505a1975",
"text": "Two kinds of lending going on. The first occurs when the Federal Reserve purchases government securities. This creates reserves at the Federal Reserve in another bank. The second kind of lending comes when this bank lends out the money. This is the multiplier effect. The reason for the excess reserves now is that banks are gun-shy and afraid to lend. Their money is safer at the Fed than with commercial and personal borrowers. When this changes (either by a recovery, or by the Fed penalizing banks for excess reserves, which it can do but hasn't) then we'll see inflation, and a consequential rise in prices.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b61eb81f67a953cfb6e04afe443616a9",
"text": "Huh? I don't see how this effects inflation in practice.... (only in theory) Basically, I sell short end bonds and buy longer end bonds pocketing the difference in yield and increasing my duration. GLD and mining are hedges against inflation, markets are stupidly short term looking and care only about current expectations, if the current macro situation deteoriates we see prices fall.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7bd114ba8024fb450b6316413d117d97",
"text": "who issued stock typically support it when the stock price go down. No, not many company do that as it is uneconomical for them to do so. Money used up in buying back equity is a wasteful use of a firm's capital, unless it is doing a buyback to return money to shareholders. Does the same thing happen with government bonds? Not necessarily again here. Bond trading is very different from equities trading. There are conditions specified in the offer document on when an issuer can recall bonds(to jack up the price of an oversold bond), even government bonds have them. The actions of the government has a bigger ripple effect as compared to a firm. The government can start buying back bonds to increase it's price, but it will stoke inflation because of the increase in the supply of money in the market, which may or mayn't be desirable. Then again people holding the bond would have to incentivized to sell the bond. Even during the Greek fiasco, the Greek government wasn't buying Greek bonds as it had no capital to buy. Printing more euros wasn't an option as no assets to back the newly printed money and the ECB would have stopped them from being accepted. And generally buying back isn't useful, because they have to return the principal(which might run into billions, invested in long term projects by the government and cannot be liquidated immediately) while servicing a bond is cheaper and investing the proceeds from the bond sale is more useful while being invested in long term projects. The government can just roll over the bonds with a new issue and refrain from returning the capital till it is in a position to do so.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5ef80baa00ad4194f13288a4834b2cd5",
"text": "If you look at a trade grid you can see how this happens. If there are enough bids to cover all shares currently on the sell side at a certain price, those shares will be bought and increased price quotes will be shown for the bids and ask. If there are enough bids to cover this price, those will get bought and higher prices will be shown and this process will repeat until the sell side has more power than the buy side. It seems like this process is going on all day long with momentum either on the upside or downside. But I think that much of this bidding and selling is automatic and is being done by large trading firms and high tech computers. I also feel that many of these bids and asks are already programmed to appear once there is a price change. So once one price gets bought, computers will put in higher bids to take over asks. It's like a virtual war between trading firms and their computers. When more money is on the buy side the stock will go up, and vice versa. I sort of feel like this high-frequency trading is detrimental to the markets and doesn't really give everyone a fair shot. Retail investors do not have the resources and knowledge in order to do this sort of high frequency trading. It also seems to go against certain free market principles in my opinion.",
"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": "4c020f3c37abccf66e1d71bf9f09dc55",
"text": "what will happen to the valuation of Tom's bond holdings after the equity crash? This is primarily opinion based. What will happen is generally hard to predict. Bond Price Bump due to Demand: Is a possible outcome; this depends on the assumption that the bonds in the said country are still deemed safe. Recent Greece example, this may not be true. So if the investors don't believe that Bonds are safe, the money may move into Real Estate, into Bullion [Gold etc], or to other markets. In such a scenario; the price may not bump up. Bond Price Decline due to Rising Interest Rates: On a rising interest rates, the long-term bonds may loose in value while the short term bonds may hold their value. Related question How would bonds fare if interest rates rose?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d8db041479ed865d53a72254769d9b90",
"text": "As the fed liquidates their fiat, the stock market will go down to zero and bonds will evaporate as their denominated in worthless paper. [The government is going to come for people's gold and seize assets](http://www.zerohedge.com/news/mark-faber-i-am-convinced-whole-derivatives-market-will-cease-exist-and-will-go-zero) Guns and canned goods are the only safe investments from here forward.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
64463c83dfd1438de93a29e134b4be18
|
What will happen to my restricted units?
|
[
{
"docid": "2bdde0d4794fe9988782373b8a264726",
"text": "This should all be covered in your stock grant documentation, or the employee stock program of which your grant is a part. Find those docs and it should specify how or when you can sale your shares, and how the money is paid to you. Generally, vested shares are yours until you take action. If instead you have options, then be aware these need to be exercised before they become shares. There is generally a limited time period on how long you can wait to exercise. In the US, 10 years is common. Unvested shares will almost certainly expire upon your departure of the company. Whether your Merrill Lynch account will show this, or show them as never existing, I can't say. But either way, there is nothing you can or should do.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "7f95ffa5ef623fc6dfde5700e0585964",
"text": "The most likely explanation is, as you say, that the letter was automatically generated a day or two before you met with your advisor. Assuming that your advisor is competent, they will probably execute the instructions you gave them at the meeting. The letter said you had ten days to change the investment, and your advisor should be able to do it in that time. To be on the safe side, since people have been known to forget things, I would call your advisor and tell them you got the letter, and check they are going to do what you decided. I would then follow it with a polite email, just saying that you both decided at your meeting on such-and-such a date to go with the three month plan. If that doesn't happen you can point to the email as evidence. Don't panic about this. Even though the bank says you are 'locked in' to the decision, if an advisor makes a mistakes these decisions are in fact reversible, with the advisor paying any penalty.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "23dcb346982a8bdcf2ec460e8c272c4c",
"text": "There are many different things that can happen, all or some. Taking Russia and Argentina as precedence - you may not be able to withdraw funds from your bank for some period of time. Not because your accounts will be drained, but because the cash supply will be restricted. Similar thing has also happened recently in Cyprus. However, the fact that the governments of Russia and Argentina limited the use of cash for a period of time doesn't mean that the US government will have to do the same, it my choose some other means of restraint. What's for sure is that nothing good will happen. Nothing will probably happen to your balance in the bank (Although Cyprus has shown that that is not a given either). But I'm not so sure about FDIC maintaining it's insurance if the bank fails (meaning if the bank defaults as a result of the chain effect - you may lose your money). If the government is defaulting, it might not have enough cash to take over the bank deposits. After the default the currency value will probably drop sharply (devaluation) which will lead to inflation. Meaning your same balance will be worth much less than it is now. So there's something to worry about for everyone.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1bc404d0479a8aec225296611759d54f",
"text": "During mergers they try to create efficiencies. Typically these efficiencies happen in the office, one HR person instead of two, less secretaries, less middle managers. The number of maintenance people is normally based off of the number of properties. You likely will be safe in your position, but no one knows for sure.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2c9ea2846d6b9e4f29d65da4a67122b1",
"text": "Were your classes at a community college? If they were, community colleges in california offer a program called Academic Renewal. It generally requires you to do well (above a certain gpa) for x amount of units (24 at my community college). That way you don't have to worry about that difficult year of your life affecting your ability to transfer. Best of luck!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "93c0dd8ea161a1275c9113b1fd75a006",
"text": "2 things may happen. Either your positions are closed by the broker and the loss or profit is credited to your account. Else it is carried over to the next day and you pay interest on the stocks lent to you. What happens will be decided by the agreement signed between you and your broker.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cfdd30822408ce6a64caca92a58fd09d",
"text": "I assume I can/will need to file an 83(b) election, in order to avoid tax repercussions? What exactly will this save me from? 83(b) election is for restricted stock grants, not for stock purchases. For restricted stocks, you generally pay income tax when they vest. For startups the price difference between the time of the grant and the time of the vesting can be astronomical and by choosing 83(b) you effectively pay income tax on the value of the grant instead of the value of the vest. Then, you only pay capital gains tax on the difference between the sale price and the grant value when you sell. In your case you're exercising an option, i.e.: you're buying a stock, so 83(b) is irrelevant. What you will pay though is the tax on the difference between the strike price and the stock FMV (unless the stocks you end up buying are restricted - which would have been the case if you exercised your options early, but I don't think is going to be the case now). What steps should I take to (in the eyes of the law) guarantee that the board has received my execution notice? The secretary of the board is a notorious procrastinator and can be very unorganized. You should read what the grant contract/company policy says on that. Ask the HR/manager. Usually, a certified letter with return receipt should be enough, but you should verify the format, the address, and the timeframe.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7d5505b6c56edc9dc1592bdd431592f7",
"text": "You can keep your Mutual Funds. You have to communicate your new status to fund house. The SIP can continue. Please note you have to convert the savings account to NRO account. Most banks would keep the account number same, else you have to revise SIP debit to new NRO account. From a tax point of view, it would be similar to resident status. Right now short term gains are taxed. There are quite a few other things you may need to do. Although dated, this is a good article. PS: Once you become resident alien in US for tax purposes, you are liable for taxes on global income.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "542e54fdfbba57b040255579d834efb7",
"text": "The question is for your HR department, or administrator of the plan. How long must you hold the employee shares before you are permitted to sell? Loyalty to your company is one thing, but after a time, you will be too heavily invested in one company, and you need to diversify out. One can cite any number they wish, 5%, 10%. All I know is that when Enron blew up, it only added insult to injury that not only did these people lose their job, they lost a huge chunk of their savings as well.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "33605c894c6520ec288ce3cfc68ac6f0",
"text": "Does allowing family to stay at the rental jeopardize my depreciation? No, accumulated depreciation that hasn't been deducted reduces your basis in the event of sale. That doesn't go anywhere. Accumulating more may not be allowed though. If the property is no longer rental (i.e.: personal use, your family member lives there for free), you cannot claim expenses or depreciation on it. If you still rent it out to your family member, but not at the fair market value, then you can only claim expenses up to the rental income. I.e.: you can only depreciate up to the extent the depreciation (after all the expenses) not being over the income generated. You cannot generate losses in such case, even if disallowed. If you rent to your family member at the market rate (make sure it is properly documented), then the family relationship really doesn't matter. You continue accumulating expenses as usual.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b8f0d645ba2c6b1ef9a62e5b425032fa",
"text": "I know what you are talking about and this is what students at UC I know usually do in such cases: Talk with the cashier's/registar's office and see if you have been reported to collections. If you had plans to pay via financial aid, this can be a non-issue, but be sure. It's critical to remove your record from collections, if any. Take a loan and find out how the loan will be paid. Most lenders pay the school directly based on what the school bills for the quarter. If you signed up for X units in Fall '10 and plan to take Y units in Winter '12, add X+Y units in your list of courses. Those X units could be anything in your course catalog. Once the school sends out the bill and the lender pays it, drop the X units. This will give you a check and use that to pay out the outstanding amounts. Most schools will include all outstanding amounts in the bill for your current quarter, but I am not sure if your lenders has agreements otherwise. Also, some lenders have agreements in place to send refunds directly to them, but remember, the cashier is king and she can make refunds happen the way she likes, and she is likely to help a student unless you have a bad payment history (collections, bounced checks..)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ac46dcc33f60672082a44fa0a9ae358d",
"text": "Question: I live in half of a duplex together with other college students. I put my rent (roughly $750 in cash) in the landlord's mailbox while he was out of town for three weeks. I told him ahead that I would do this, but he claims I never did, and he would have asked me not to. Anyway, now he claims the money was not there when he returned and I still owe $750. Answer: Well, that's tough. It could be that the money was stolen from the mailbox. It could be that the landlord pocketed the money and is trying to scam you. Your problem is that you have no receipt, and no evidence at all that you paid the money. There's little you can do other than paying up (again) and learning from this expensive lesson.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3fd948cde00191d690fa4f9864f8eb30",
"text": "All sorts of conditions, yes. Most commonly is a limitation on the exercise date. The two more common would be American which is exercisable any time, and European which are only exercisable on their expiry date. Sometimes they may be linked to the original asset, and might only be convertible to stock if that original asset is given/sold back to the company. (Effectively perhaps making the bond convertible to stock). Lots more details on the Pedia, but in short, basically you need to read the warrant contract individually, as each will differ.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0535f4b09f6aa7e67feb4ec676bbf52c",
"text": "Would anything happen if you bring this issue to the attention of the HR department? Everyone in the company who participates in the 401(k) is affected, so you'd think they'd all be interested in switching to a another 401k provider that will make them more money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2f0d259305893efee065306911adb1f5",
"text": "\"A quick online search for \"\"disadvantages of defence housing australia investment properties\"\" turns up a several articles that list a few possible disadvantages. I can't vouch for these personally because I'm not familiar with the Australian rental market, but they may all be things to keep in mind. I quote verbatim where indicated.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "165abb09aa0fe2cb6a6e68dd5a3391a1",
"text": "\"they are entirely free to do whatever they want with the shares. In particular, they can sell them to whomever they choose No. Restrictions on who can sell when and to whom are a common thing with startups. \"\"Publicly traded\"\" companies are regulated in a much stricter way than private companies, so until the IPO the sales are limited to the OTC markets. But even that can be restricted by bylaws - for example ownership can only be limited to a group of investors approved by the board. As an employee - your grant was approved by the board, but when you come to sell, the buyer was not and the company may not agree to vet them. Bottom line is that it is not illegal to impose all kinds of restrictions on what the employees can do with their shares, as long as the shares are not listed on a public stock exchange (even after the company goes IPO with one class, other classes may remain restricted).\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
ea88ecde3fc6753db02e57b461b02fa8
|
Investing in income stocks for dividends - worth it?
|
[
{
"docid": "4753e96b4f548f22698fc5e14c9b76d5",
"text": "After looking at your profile, I see your age...28. Still a baby. At your age, and given your profession, there really is no need to build investment income. You are still working and should be working for many years. If I was you, I'd be looking to do a few different things: Eliminating debt reduces risk, and also reduces the need for future income. Saving for, and purchasing a home essentially freezes rent increases. If home prices double in your area, in theory, so should rent prices. If you own a home you might see some increases in taxes and insurance rates, but they are minor in comparison. This also reduces the need for future income. Owning real estate is a great way to build residual income, however, there is a lot of risk and even if you employ a management company there is a lot more hands on work and risk. Easier then that you can build an after tax investment portfolio. You can start off with mutual funds for diversification purposes and only after you have built a sizable portfolio should (if ever) make the transition to individual stocks. Some people might suggest DRIPs, but given the rate at which you are investing I would suggest the pain of such accounts is more hassle then it is worth.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7358436c7f3b7ea5eed8f7ad5169317d",
"text": "\"To answer your question: yes, it's often \"\"worth it\"\" to have investments that produce income. Do a Google search for \"\"income vs growth investing\"\" and you'll get a sense for two different approaches to investing in equities. In a nutshell: \"\"growth\"\" stocks (think Netflix, etc) don't pay dividends but are poised to appreciate in price more than \"\"income\"\" stocks (think banks, utilities, etc) that tend to have less volatile prices but pay a consistent dividend. In the long run (decades), growth stocks tend to outperform income stocks. That's why younger investors tend to pick growth stocks while those closer to retirement tend to stick with more stable income-producing portfolio. But there's nothing wrong with a mixed approach, either. I agree with Pete's answer, too.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "21e155150e3ba5ad7e9cb5751b147ff3",
"text": "As a general rule of thumb, age and resiliency of your profession (in terms of high and stable wages) in most cases imply that you have the ABILITY to accept higher than average level of risk by investing in stocks (rather than bonds) in search for capital appreciation (rather than income), simply because you have more time to offset any losses, should you have any, and make capital gains. Dividend yield is mostly sough after by people at or near retirement who need to have some cash inflows but cannot accept high risk of equity investments (hence low risk dividend stocks and greater allocation to bonds). Since you accept passive investment approach, you could consider investing in Target Date Funds (TDFs), which re-allocate assets (roughly, from higher- to lower-risk) gradually as the fund approaches it target, which for you could be your retirement age, or even beyond. Also, why are you so hesitant to consider taking professional advice from a financial adviser?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a13a5183fa18ad97d0487ffeb6827fd9",
"text": "\"is it worth it? You state the average yield on a stock as 2-3%, but seem to have come up with this by looking at the yield of an S&P500 index. Not every stock in that index is paying a dividend and many of them that are paying have such a low yield that a dividend investor would not even consider them. Unless you plan to buy the index itself, you are distorting the possible income by averaging in all these \"\"duds\"\". You are also assuming your income is directly proportional to the amount of yield you could buy right now. But that's a false measure because you are talking about building up your investment by contributing $2k-$3k/month. No matter what asset you choose to invest in, it's going to take some time to build up to asset(s) producing $20k/year income at that rate. Investments today will have time in market to grow in multiple ways. Given you have some time, immediate yield is not what you should be measuring dividends, or other investments, on in my opinion. Income investors usually focus on YOC (Yield On Cost), a measure of income to be received this year based on the purchase price of the asset producing that income. If you do go with dividend investing AND your investments grow the dividends themselves on a regular basis, it's not unheard of for YOC to be north of 6% in 10 years. The same can be true of rental property given that rents can rise. Achieving that with dividends has alot to do with picking the right companies, but you've said you are not opposed to working hard to invest correctly, so I assume researching and teaching yourself how to lower the risk of picking the wrong companies isn't something you'd be opposed to. I know more about dividend growth investing than I do property investing, so I can only provide an example of a dividend growth entry strategy: Many dividend growth investors have goals of not entering a new position unless the current yield is over 3%, and only then when the company has a long, consistent, track record of growing EPS and dividends at a good rate, a low debt/cashflow ratio to reduce risk of dividend cuts, and a good moat to preserve competitiveness of the company relative to its peers. (Amongst many other possible measures.) They then buy only on dips, or downtrends, where the price causes a higher yield and lower than normal P/E at the same time that they have faith that they've valued the company correctly for a 3+ year, or longer, hold time. There are those who self-report that they've managed to build up a $20k+ dividend payment portfolio in less than 10 years. Check out Dividend Growth Investor's blog for an example. There's a whole world of Dividend Growth Investing strategies and writings out there and the commenters on his blog will lead to links for many of them. I want to point out that income is not just for those who are old. Some people planned, and have achieved, the ability to retire young purely because they've built up an income portfolio that covers their expenses. Assuming you want that, the question is whether stock assets that pay dividends is the type of investment process that resonates with you, or if something else fits you better. I believe the OP says they'd prefer long hold times, with few activities once the investment decisions are made, and isn't dissuaded by significant work to identify his investments. Both real estate and stocks fit the latter, but the subtypes of dividend growth stocks and hands-off property investing (which I assume means paying for a property manager) are a better fit for the former. In my opinion, the biggest additional factor differentiating these two is liquidity concerns. Post-tax stock accounts are going to be much easier to turn into emergency cash than a real estate portfolio. Whether that's an important factor depends on personal situation though.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "7b02b98626fee0603c28741c38a3d1b7",
"text": "I wouldn't recommend leveraged dividend fishing. Dividend stocks with such high dividends are highly volatile, you will run out of collateral to cover your trades very quickly",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3f55bb3f3499c894a67cb3c1ac0d20ce",
"text": "If you assume the market is always 100% rational and accurate and liquid, then it doesn't matter very much if a company pays dividends, other than how dividends are taxed vs. capital gains. (If the market is 100% accurate and liquid, it also doesn't really matter what stock you buy, since they are all fairly priced, other than that you want the stock to match your risk tolerance). However, if you manage to find an undervalued company (which, as an investor, is what you are trying to do), your investment skill won't pay off much until enough other people notice the company's value, which might take a long time, and you might end up wanting to sell before it happens. But if the company pays dividends, you can, slowly, get value from your investment no matter what the market thinks. (Of course, if it's really undervalued then you would often, but not always, want to buy more of it anyway). Also, companies must constantly decide whether to reinvest the money in themselves or pay out dividends to owners. As an owner, there are some cases in which you would prefer the company invest in itself, because you think they can do better with it then you can. However, there is a decided tendency for C level employees to be more optimistic in this regard than their owners (perhaps because even sub-market quality investments expand the empires of the executives, even when they hurt the owners). Paying dividends is thus sometimes a sign that a company no longer has capital requirements intense enough that it makes sense to re-invest all of its profits (though having that much opportunity can be a good thing, sometimes), and/or a sign that it is willing, to some degree, to favor paying its owners over expanding the business. As a current or prospective owner, that can be desirable. It's also worth mentioning that, since stocks paying dividends are likely not in the middle of a fast growth phase and are producing profit in excess of their capital needs, they are likely slower growth and lower risk as a class than companies without dividends. This puts them in a particular place on the risk/reward spectrum, so some investors may prefer dividend paying stocks because they match their risk profile.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "492db3c18446fccb7a5f0bfc2ba81784",
"text": "The dividend yield can be used to compare a stock to other forms of investments that generate income to the investor - such as bonds. I could purchase a stock that pays out a certain dividend yield or purchase a bond that pays out a certain interest. Of course, there are many other variables to consider in addition to yield when making this type of investment decision. The dividend yield can be an important consideration if you are looking to invest in stocks for an income stream in addition to investing in stocks for gain by a rising stock price. The reason to use Dividend/market price is that it changes the dividend from a flat number such as $1 to a percentage of the stock price, which thus allows it to be more directly compared with bonds and such which return a percentage yeild.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "07840ca3531beffb6cc1cd5266218a0c",
"text": "\"In the US, dividends are presently taxed at the same rates as capital gains, however selling stock could lead to less tax owed for the same amount of cash raised, because you are getting a return of basis or can elect to engage in a \"\"loss harvesting\"\" strategy. So to reply to the title question specifically, there are more tax \"\"benefits\"\" to selling stock to raise income versus receiving dividends. You have precise control of the realization of gains. However, the reason dividends (or dividend funds) are used for retirement income is for matching cash flow to expenses and preventing a liquidity crunch. One feature of retirement is that you're not working to earn a salary, yet you still have daily living expenses. Dividends are stable and more predictable than capital gains, and generate cash generally quarterly. While companies can reduce or suspend their dividend, you can generally budget for your portfolio to put a reliable amount of cash in your pocket on schedule. If you rely on selling shares quarterly for retirement living expenses, what would you have done (or how much of the total position would you have needed to sell) in order to eat during a decline in the market such as in 2007-2008?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1204c1c74efccffe5263f5a5928bbdca",
"text": "Buying individual/small basket of high dividend shares is exposing you to 50%+ and very fast potential downswings in capital/margin calls. There is no free lunch in returns in this respect: nothing that pays enough to help you pay your mortgage at a high rate won’t expose you to a lot of potential volatility. Main issue here looks like you have very poorly performing rental investments you should consider selling or switching up rental usage/how you rent them (moving to shorter term, higher yield lets, ditching any agents/handymen that are taking up capital/try and refinance to lower mortgage rates etc etc). Trying to use leveraged stock returns to pay for poorly performing housing investments is like spraying gasoline all over a fire. Fixing the actual issue in hand first is virtually always the best course of action in these scenarios.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "283abe2bf7ba643264d43d27a0f39044",
"text": "A lot of people use dividend stocks as a regular income, which is why dividend stocks are often associated with retirement. If your goal is growth and you're reinvesting capital gains and dividends then investing growth stocks or dividend stocks should have the same effect. The only difference would be if you are manually reinvesting dividends, which could incur extra trading fees.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "26a4d0031412f542afe68d776bb71061",
"text": "Although the market discussion by other answers is correct, the tax structure of many developed nations (I am familiar with Canada in particular) offers a preferred tax rate for dividend income compared to taxable gains. Consequently, if your portfolio is large enough to make transaction fees a very small percentage rate, this is a viable investment strategy. However, as the preferred tax rate for dividends typically will catch up to that for capital gains at some cut-off point, there is a natural limit on how much income can be favourably obtained in this way. If you believe your portfolio might be large enough to benefit from this investment strategy, talk to a qualified investment advisor, broker, or tax consultant for the specifics for your tax jurisdiction.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "25bba446bab6025f3ba5a43c75c5eea3",
"text": "In general, investors with a long period of time until they would need to withdraw the cash are best off holding mostly equities. While the dividends that equities would return are less than the interest you would get in peer-to-peer lending, over long periods of time not only do you get the dividends from equity investment but the value of the stock will grow faster than interest on loans. The higher returns from stocks, however, comes with more risk of big downturns. Many people pull their investments out of stocks right after crashes which really hurts their long term returns. So, in order to get the benefit of investing in stocks you need to be strong enough to continue to hold the stocks through the crash and into the recovery. As for which stocks to invest in, generally it is best to invest in low-fee index funds/etfs where you own a broad collection of stocks so that if (when) any one stock goes bust that your portfolio does not take much damage. Try to own both international and domestic stocks to get good diversification. The consensus recommends adding just a little bit of REITs and bonds to your investments, but for someone at 25 it might not be worth it yet. Warren Buffett had some good thoughts on index investing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "6d508d155637deec50c60a2ca1ee444b",
"text": "\"Dividend paying stocks are not \"\"better\"\" In particular shareholders will get taxed on the distribution while the company can most likely invest the money tax free in their operations. The shareholder then has the opportunity to decide when to pay the taxes when they sell their shares. Companies pay dividends for a couple of reasons.... 1.) To signal the strength of the company. 2.) To reward the shareholders (oftentimes the executives of the firm get rather large rewards without having to sell shares they control.) 3.) If they don't have suitable investment opportunities in their field. IE they don't have anything useful to do with the money.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bcb9c673102c9c0c5a082e93216e0cb7",
"text": "\"Of course CDs are worth it compared to the stock market. In fact, most institutional investors are envious of the CDs you have access to as an individual investor that are unavailable to them. You just need to be competent enough to shop around for the best rates and understand your time horizon. There are several concepts to understand here: Banks give out CDs with competitive rates projecting future interest rates. So while the Federal funds rate is currently extremely low, banks know that in order to get any takers on their CDs they have to factor in the public expectation that rates will rise, so if you lock in a longer term CD you get a competitive rate. Institutional investors do not have access to FDIC insured CDs and the closest analog they participate in are the auctions and secondary markets of US Treasuries. These two types of assets have equivalent default (non-)risk if held to maturity: backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Here are the current rates (as of question's date) taken from Vanguard that I can get on CDs versus Treasuries (as an individual investor). Notice that CDs outperform Treasuries across any maturity timescale! For fixed-income and bond allocations, institutional investors are lining up for buying treasuries. And yet here you are saying \"\"CDs are not worth it.\"\" Might want to rethink that. Now going into the stock market as an investor with expectations of those high returns you quote, means you're willing to stay there for the long-term (at least a decade) and stay the course during volatility to actually have any hope of coming up with the average rate of return. Even then, there's the potential downside of risk that you still lose principal after that duration. So given that assumption, it's only fair to compare against >= 10 year CDs which are currently rated at 2 percent APY. In addition, CDs can be laddered -- allowing you to lock-in newer (and potentially higher) rates as they become available. You essentially stagger your buyin into these investments, and either reinvest upon the stilted maturity dates or use as income. Also keep in mind that while personal emergencies requiring quick access to cash can happen at any time, the most common scenario is during the sudden change from a bull market into a recession -- the time when stocks plummet. If you need money right away, selling your stocks at these times would lock in severe losses, whereas with CDs you still won't lose principal with an early exit and the only penalty is usually a sacrifice of a few months of potential interest. It's easy to think of the high yields during a protracted bull market (such as now), but personal finance has a huge behavioral component to it that is largely ignored until it's too late. One risk that isn't taken care of by either CDs or Treasuries is inflation risk. All the rates here and in the original question are nominal rates, and the real return will depend on inflation (or deflation). There are other options here besides CDs, Treasuries, and the stock market to outpace inflation if you'd like to hedge that risk with inflation protection: Series I Savings Bonds and TIPS.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f4f5c8faf1f2bb382235a1985e1d8eef",
"text": "In the US, dividends have special tax treatment similar to, but not the same as Capital Gains. No easy way to transform one to the other, the very fact that you invested your money in a company that has returned part of your capital as income means it is just that, income. Also in the US, you could invest in Master Limited Partnerships. These are companies that make distributions that are treated as a return of capital, instead of dividends. Throughout the life of the investment you receive tax forms that assign part of the operating expense/loss of the company to you as a tax payer. Then at the end of the investment life you are required to recapture those losses as Capital Gains on sale of the stock. In some ways, these investments do exactly what you are asking about. They transform periodic income into later capital gains, basically deferring tax on the income until the sale of the security. Here is an article I found about MLPs coming to the UK through an ETF: Master Limited Partnerships in the UK",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7553ec5eb20542eb4373ca7b51a490fa",
"text": "Edit: I a in the United States, seek advice from someone who is also in Australia. I am getting about 5.5% per year by investing in a fund (ticker:PGF) that, in turn, buys preferred stock in banks. Preferred stock acts a bit like a bond and a bit like a stock. The price is very stable. However, a bank account is FDIC insured (in the USA) and an investment is not. I use the Reinvestment program at Scottrade so that the monthly dividends are automatically reinvested with no commission. However I do not know if this is available outside of the United States. Investing yealds greater returns but exposes you to greater risk. You have to know your risk tolerance.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "77020278c293530c661735f289a355d6",
"text": "In a money market fund, one share is worth $1. For your fund, you'll earn $0.0010 a year per share, or 0.10%. That is all that you will earn. The APY is just another number to represent this interest rate, not a separate income stream. If you were expecting extra money from a separately credited dividend, you were mistaken. (Usually the APY is a slightly different number than the interest rate, to reflect the way that the interest is compounded over the course of the year. In this case the compounding is too slight to notice with just 2 decimal places.) If you were investing in a regular savings account, you would see the rate you are paid expressed as an APY also, but not as a dividend (as no shares are involved) and use that number to compare the two. If you were buying a bond fund or stock fund that did not have a fixed price, you could calculate the dividend yield based on the current stock price, but you would not probably see an APY listed. Money market funds are kind of an odd hybrid of 'fund' and 'savings', so they list both.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "64bdb577952e5867a7f193b63a2a2477",
"text": "Tesla has been pushing for mass market EV adoption since the beginning and they have clearly communicated their strategy as such. Being a niche company in an ICE dominated automotive market is not a desirable position for Tesla. They want the market to move towards EVs as having even a small chunk of a market like that is worth a ton of revenue.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
ef8eea287023c707cd37bed68b69dba9
|
Is SIPC coverage on cash as strong as FDIC?
|
[
{
"docid": "ca440ee1e73227aa5ca1ba0c59bff1fa",
"text": "For cash, SIPC insurance is similar to FDIC insurance. Your losses are not covered, but you're covered in case of fraud. Since your cash is supposed to be in a trust account and not commingled with brokerage's funds, in case of bankruptcy you would still have your cash unless there was fraud.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "f2be2bbdb0a7ff1bfde794353ad8c0e0",
"text": "\"You can store millions of dollars in deposit accounts, you just lose the explicit FDIC guarantee. So you look for rock-solid banks. Bankrate.com has \"\"Safe and Sound Ratings\"\" that show the relative strength of various banks. You put your excess deposits in those banks, and you are pretty safe. Note that in addition to the explicit FDIC guarantee, there is now an implicit guarantee that certain institutions have been deemed too \"\"big to fail\"\", and will be backed by the full faith and credit of the US Government, without regard to the capitalization of the bank. Bank of America, for example, is not well capitalized and is carrying billions of dollars of \"\"assets\"\" that have little or no value. Yet government policy keeps the bank afloat and your deposits secure. Another strategy is to use municipal money market accounts, which provide secure (but not guaranteed) deposit-like accounts as well as a tax benefit. If you have > $1M in liquid assets, you probably need a financial professional and attorney advising you to make sure that you are aware of and are controlling for risk in a way consistent with your longer-term goals.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "af8d1a231445e40ec2269437e4e6821e",
"text": "http://www.fdic.gov/deposit/deposits/index.html FDIC currently insures up to $250,000. (I would have put that as a comment to Jeffery but it says it was locked.) You don't want to put all your eggs in one basket. If you shop around, and keep shopping all the time you can keep your accounts in a single place so long as that single place provides the best deal. Don't have any loyalty to your banking institutions because they don't have any loyalty to you. Also, having lots of accounts means you are familiar with lots of institutions, so you are likely better at shopping around. Things I consider. For fewer institutions: For more institutions:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "282c4838e580e0be743822cbeeb88683",
"text": "\"Liquid cash (emergency, rainy day fund) should be safe from a loss in value. Mutual funds don't give you this, especially stock funds. You can find \"\"high yield\"\" savings accounts that are now at around .8% to .9% APY which is much better than .05% and will hopefully go up. Barclays US and American Express are two big banks that normally have the highest rates. Most/all Savings and Money Market accounts should be FDIC insured. Mutual funds are not, though the investment IRA, etc. holding them may be.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ab63ebccd465e91061835ecbb7464e7b",
"text": "First, what's the reason? Why do you have that much in cash at all - are you concerned about market volatility, are you planning to buy a house, do you have tens of millions of dollars and this is your slush fund? Are you a house flipper and this is part of business for you? If you need the money for short term use - ie, you're buying a house in cash next month - then as long as you're in a sound bank (one of the big national ones, for example) it seems reasonable. You can never predict a crash like 2008, but it seems unlikely that Chase or Citibank will go under in the next few weeks. If you like to have a cash position, then split the money among multiple banks. Buy a CD at one major bank with some of the amount. My in-laws have a trust which is partially invested in CDs, and they use multiple banks for this purpose to keep their accounts fully insured. Each separate bank you're covered up to 250k, so if you have $150k at Chase and $150k at a local bank, you're covered. (You're also covered in a much larger amount - up to 1MM potentially - if you are married, as you can have a separate account each for $250k and a joint account up to $500k.) Otherwise, why do you have that much in cash? You should invest it in something that will return more than inflation, at a minimum... Edit post-clarifications: $350k is around my level of 'Maybe, maybe not'. You're risking $100k on a pretty low risk (assuming this isn't a small local bank, and even those are pretty low still). In order to remove that risk you have to do something active - ie, take 100k somewhere else, open a new bank account, etc. - which isn't exactly the hardest thing in the world, but it does take effort. Is it worth the 0.001% chance (entirely made up) you lose the 100k? That's $10, if you agree with that risk chance. Up to you. It wouldn't be particularly hard, though, to open an account with an online bank, deposit $100k in there in a 6 month CD, then pay the IRS from your other account and when the 6 month CD expires take the cash back into your active account. Assuming you're not planning on buying a house in the next six months this should be fine, I'd think (and even then you'd still have $150k for the downpayment up front, which is enough to buy a $750k house w/o PMI). Additionally, as several commenters note: if you can reasonably do so, and your money won't be making significant interest, you might choose to pay your taxes now rather than later. This removes the risk entirely; the likely small interest you earn over 3 months may be similar to the amount you'd spend (mostly of your time, plus possibly actual expenses) moving it to another bank. If you're making 2% or 3% this may not be true, but if you're in a 0.25% account like my accounts are, $100k * 0.25% * 0.25 is $62.50, after all.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "65a1dd76ba6df18b646b34eb07b37811",
"text": "Not at all. These CDOs on CMOs are all cash products. But you can have 100% loss in these deals, which would be unheard of in even a subprime CMO. CDSs are derivatives anf have nothing in common with CDOs or CMOs. There aren't that many mortgage backed derivatives.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "98ff0461d1090449bc4625b71f017941",
"text": "\"FDIC does not insure against robbery. From the FDIC website under the heading \"\"What's not insured?\"\": Robberies and Other Thefts Stolen funds may be covered by what's called a banker's blanket bond, which is a multi-purpose insurance policy a bank purchases to protect itself from fire, flood, earthquake, robbery, defalcation, embezzlement and other causes of disappearing funds. In any event, an occurrence such as a fire or bank robbery may result in a loss to the bank but should not result in a loss to the bank's customers. If a third party somehow gains access to your account and transacts business that you would not approve of, you must contact the bank and your local law enforcement authorities, who have jurisdiction over this type of wrongdoing. So either the bank is out the funds and takes the loss, in which case no new money enters circulation, or the bank has insurance that repays the bank, in which case the insurance company incurs a cost and no new money enters circulation. Either way, no new money enters circulation.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1e22e319440af62240c9722695ad34af",
"text": "All transactions involving fraud or theft are void by their nature. Title to your money never changes hands. You are entitled by law to have assets stolen from you returned to you. In cases of negligence or broker malfeasance, lawsuits or SIPC protection are your primary recourse.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7cab7db1ae7dc6254b1b1bceb272e714",
"text": "The SIPC would protect individual investors up to $500K for securities & cash, with a max of $250K for cash. One would receive all securities that are already in your name or in the process. In case client money was diverted to company trades, then SIPC will investigate and try to find out how much money belonged to each customer. It would determine this on various inputs including your transaction records like money to transferred to MF Global, internal records, amongst other things. More information in the SIPC bulletin: http://www.sipc.org/Media/NewsReleases/release31Oct2011.aspx",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bb4d887a729760610520284af03e61a8",
"text": "Most people who have over $250,000 in liquid cash savings would not want to start putting their money into regular savings accounts in different banks, especially with interest rates as ridiculously low as they are now in 2014-15. People with money will want to diversify their investments in ways that will potentially earn them more money, and they can also afford to seek the advice of financial planners who can help them do this wisely. Even if you decide to put $250,000 into various accounts at different banks, I wouldn't necessarily trust that the FDIC will be able to help you recover your money in the event that your banks go under. The amount of money available to the FDIC to cover such losses pales in comparison to the actual amount of money that Americans have in their bank accounts.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "65d0e65fc15b89d957ea8f4aacf84849",
"text": "Brokerages are supposed to keep your money separate from theirs. So, even if they fail as a company, your money and investments are still there, and can be transferred to another brokerage. It doesn't matter if it's an IRA or taxable account. Of course, as is the case with MF Global, if illegally take their client's money (i.e., steal), it may be a different story. In such cases, SIPC covers up to $500K, of which $250K can be cash, as JoeTaxpayer said. You may be interested in the following news item from the SEC. It's about some proposed changes, but to frame the proposal they lay out the way it is now: http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2011/2011-128.htm The most relevant quote: The Customer Protection Rule (Rule 15c3-3). This SEC rule requires a broker-dealer to segregate customer securities and cash from the firm’s proprietary business activities. If the broker-dealer fails, these customer assets should be readily available to be returned to customers.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "31c85c9a1a3ff37a154976266b53107e",
"text": "There is no such animal. If you are looking to give up FDIC protection, investing in a short-term, high quality bond fund or a tax-free bond fund with short durations is a good way to balance safety vs. return. Make sure you buy funds -- buying individual bonds isn't appropriate for folks without a high net worth. Another option is savings bonds, but the yields on these is awful today.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "30d8cfeb8bae5fd75350f26e5852946c",
"text": "the difference is whose money is being invested. when you deposit money in a bank, it is FDIC insured and capital requirements are set to ensure the preservation of your deposits. if the bank wants to make huge derivative bets, with leverage inherent in the instrument or provided by another bank, deposits are involved in the equation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4b40b3cca4d3cf5eb5dcaf67d4a2d82a",
"text": "\"But it's also true that the FDIC (or equivalent) insurance account doesn't have enough to cover all deposits. The FDIC may come in handy if your local FDIC member bank goes belly up and a few hundred depositors need to be made whole. However, in a national crisis, where the government is \"\"legally\"\" stealing funds, that FDIC insurance is a joke. I do agree though, if you have more than the insured amount in a single account, split it up.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "08669eee1815b9a5e012a12507907bb9",
"text": "It depends on your situation. For families with small amounts over the FDIC limit, there's account structures that let you get multiple coverages. Things like holding 100k in an account in joint with your wife, each of you holding 100k in individual accounts etc. For larger sums and institutions, there's CDARS. This system spreads your money out to multiple institutions with an eye to FDIC insurance limits. Some people feel this system is abusing FDIC, so I suppose it's possible it gets outlawed / shut down some day. Alternatively, you can just invest it yourself. Treasury Direct allows small buyers to buy US govt bonds at finished auction rates, or submit a qualified bid at auction. You won't get great rates, but Treasuries are about as good as dollars.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ebdbea206e55f6b98f9c94e92355ff30",
"text": "In the US, I would say the risk is exactly the same. If your accounts are withing the FDIC amount (currently $250,000) your balance is 100% covered in case of a failure. You are giving up a larger network of ATMs in some cases. You are also perhaps giving up the number of branches you can visit, the hours the bank is open and maybe how well the website works. The features might be less, but the protection for your deposits is the same.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
e1a56f9807c361d5a7afacea4574e325
|
What's the connection between P/E ratio and growth?
|
[
{
"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": "6efd96af34e2208a7346fbf219c35645",
"text": "\"Yeah, I saw a similar article back in 1976 (and several times since). But then they used the correct word \"\"exponential\"\" to refer to growth. Ironically the author may end up being correct by using \"\"parabolic\"\" -- which is the type of curve you see with \"\"bubbles\"\", as the slow towards the peak and then begin descending with increased rapidity on the other side. And (alas) solar electric power generation placements are very likely to follow THAT curve -- as the investments fail to pay off, people begin to realize that (despite the claims) it is *not* a viable long-term base of power-generation, and so begin to not only reduce investment, but to abandon and even scrap projects as the long term costs mount.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "131aac61bf5067e8aaeace19aae82435",
"text": "Great question. Surprisingly, stock returns and GDP growth are mostly unrelated. In fact, they are slightly inversely correlated when you look across countries. Consider a firm that earns $100 on average per year with zero growth. If investors apply a 10% discount rate to this firm, the company will have a market value of $100/10% = $1,000. If it continues to earn $100 per year, it will produce 10% returns despite zero growth in earnings. You can see that realized returns are largely a function of the return investors demand for putting their money in risky assets. I say mostly unrelated because an increase in GDP growth may increase our firms earnings (though the relationship to earnings per share is muddied by new share issuances, buybacks, M&A, etc.). But you can see from the above example that returns can vastly exceed growth in perpetuity.",
"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": "f1b00592148bf0982caed0809f6bd007",
"text": "\"**[Corporate taxes suffocate growth](http://mises.org/daily/3024)** Mises Daily: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 by Sterling T. Terrell ........ Lower corporate taxes are associated with economic growth. This can be shown a priori and empirically. A Priori Corporate taxes reduce the profits of business owners. This is true because net income is reduced by the tax rate. For example, Firm X, with a $100 investment, earning a 7% return has an income — before taxes — of $7. With a 10% corporate tax rate, net income — after taxes — is $6.30. Firm X now has earned a 6.3% return. In contrast, a corporate tax rate of 40% reduces net income after taxes by $2.80 to $4.20, or a 4.2% after-tax return. **This rise in taxes, on the margin, reduces the profit-seeking incentive to take business risks. Why risk starting a biotech company when inflation-protected T-bill's will give you the same return? Entrepreneurs and venture capitalists less willing to take risk means less innovation and fewer innovative ideas being economically viable. This results in less economic growth. Conversely, higher returns on invested capital encourage investment and savings. All of this leads to more capital savings, more innovation, better technology, and higher wages.** Further, the above example of Firm X is true if the firm does not have the pricing ability to transfer the tax to its customers. If the ability does exist, an increase in the corporate tax rate is really a tax on customers of the firm. In this case, consumers now have less to spend and save and the end result is the same. Finally, a firm unable to pass on a tax increase or bear the reduced profit will either attempt to cut costs by reducing wages (among other costs) or be forced to go out of business. **The main point is this: by definition, corporations do not pay taxes — people pay taxes. A corporate tax is either a tax on shareholders of the firm, customers of the firm, or employees of the firm. Less corporate tax means more innovation, capital savings, and spending by these groups — also known as economic growth.** **Empirically** After theory and logic tell us what is true, empiricism can confirm our result. Thankfully, Professors Young Lee (Hanyang University) and Rodger Gordon (UC — San Diego) have done the work for us. In a 2005 journal article they concluded, \"\"This paper finds that the corporate tax rate is significantly negatively correlated with economic growth in a cross-section data set of 70 countries during 1970–1997, controlling for many other determinants/covariates of economic growth.\"\" More specifically, they continue, \"\"The estimates suggest that cutting the corporate tax rate by 10 percentage points can increase the annual growth rate by around 1.1%.\"\"[3] Using these figures, Andrew Chamberlain of the Tax Foundation opines, **\"\"by cutting the U.S.'s combined federal and average state corporate tax rate from roughly 40 percent to 30 percent we could boost U.S. economic growth by around 1.1 percent per year — enough to double our nation's wealth every 63 years.[4]\"\"** **Even better, a cut from the actual corporate tax rate of 35% to a rate of 10% would double our nation's wealth every 30 years.** **Life Savers moved production to Canada. Nabor Industries and Tyco International moved to Bermuda. Halliburton has announced a move to Dubai. In a globalizing economy, is it really a puzzle that firms prefer to operate in lower-taxing, less-regulated environments?** These are examples of what can be seen. As Frédéric Bastiat reminds us, however, it is imperative to also account for what cannot be seen. What would the wealth of our nation be today if the corporate tax rate had always been 10% or less? What creature comforts would have been innovated? What new technologies brought to market? What diseases cured? Due to a history of high corporate taxes these answers are not known, and we are worse off because of it. Sterling T. Terrell is a Ph.D. candidate in the department of agricultural and applied economics at Texas Tech University.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3dd3cd0bb253c7094de0c6f953b1e969",
"text": "I find it somewhat doubtful that the US economy will grow by less than 16 billion in the next 33 years. 33 years ago the US had a GDP of just 4 Trillion. Yes i know that growth has slowed down considerably but I just don't see how the US economy will fail to double in such a long period of time. Hell from 2015 to 2016 the US economy grew 530 billion dollars to 18.57 Trillion dollars. Assuming Growth stopped and we simply increased our GDP by that much every year we'd increase by that much in 33 years. But that's unlikely to happen over the long period and since growth is compounding I see us easily staying ahead of India. China only gets past us on PPP seeing as their nominal economy was practically flat last year due to a slump in the renimbi.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8bff0bfea27c0a630d9ff32caf5f2d8d",
"text": "Very difficult to determine. I know the article wasn't meant to be conclusive, so some additional considerations: * Industries: other industries may be affected differently * Population growth: if wage increase caused higher population growth, this would affect employment * Employment demographics: what % of change is attributable to those jobs around the minimum wage level * Sales (not profit): if the 'extra money to spend' theory holds, one would expect sales to have grown at an abnormal rate for affected industries * Rate of technological adoption (proxy: CapEx): did businesses start to implement more/new technologies and within what time frame were/will these implemented",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "348d8bc951c93bbaffbbbcd54436669a",
"text": "GDP = total economic output (i.e. revenue), not income. But for investments, income is what matters. Add in productivity gains of around 2-3%/year due to technology and basic free market dynamics, and you will get closer to that 6% growth. Some mention mergers and acquisitions, but really that's just another form of productivity gains by gaining economy of scale and synergies. Now add in modest selective picking within the S&P index towards those companies which are doing the most in our current economy.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dc38b60a0e383d11c098c69517619c7f",
"text": "In the equity markets, the P/E is usually somewhere around 15. The P/E can be viewed as the inverse of the rate of a perpetuity. Since the average is 15, and the E/P of that would be 6.7%, r should be 6.7% on average. If your business is growing, the growth rate can be incorporated like so: As you can see, a high g would make the price negative, in essence the seller should actually pay someone to take the business, but in reality, r is determined from the p and an estimated g. For a business of any growth rate, it's best to compare the multiple to the market, so for the average business in the market with your business's growth rate and industry, that P/E would be best applied to your company's income.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "00e8698d18a6edb4b5965c3a58a3bfa3",
"text": "GDP growth is one of several components of nominal equity returns; the (probably not comprehensive) list includes: Real GDP/earnings growth Inflation Dividend payouts and share buybacks Multiple expansion (the market willing to pay more per dollar of earnings) Changes in interest rate expectations As other comments mention you could also see larger companies tending to deliver higher returns as for any number of reasons related to M&A, expansion into foreign markets, etc.",
"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": ""
},
{
"docid": "9693a8aeda6d310fd31f8997e1672f4e",
"text": "When fundamentals such as P/E make a stock look overpriced, analysts often point to other metrics. The PEG ratio, for example, can be applied to cast growth companies in a better light. Fundamental analysis is highly subjective. For further discussion on the pitfalls of fundamentals, I suggest A Random Walk Down Wall Street by Burton Malkiel.",
"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": "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": "7260e33a94f0592cc40cc223803db899",
"text": "There are books on the subject of valuing stocks. P/E ratio has nothing directly to do with the value of a company. It may be an indication that the stock is undervalued or overvalued, but does not indicate the value itself. The direct value of company is what it would fetch if it was liquidated. For example, if you bought a dry cleaner and sold all of the equipment and receivables, how much would you get? To value a living company, you can treat it like a bond. For example, assume the company generates $1 million in profit every year and has a liquidation value of $2 million. Given the risk profile of the business, let's say we would like to make 8% on average per year, then the value of the business is approximately $1/0.08 + $2 = $14.5 million to us. To someone who expects to make more or less the value might be different. If the company has growth potential, you can adjust this figure by estimating the estimated income at different percentage chances of growth and decline, a growth curve so to speak. The value is then the net area under this curve. Of course, if you do this for NYSE and most NASDAQ stocks you will find that they have a capitalization way over these amounts. That is because they are being used as a store of wealth. People are buying the stocks just as a way to store money, not necessarily make a profit. It's kind of like buying land. Even though the land may never give you a penny of profit, you know you can always sell it and get your money back. Because of this, it is difficult to value high-profile equities. You are dealing with human psychology, not pennies and dollars.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "49a4e089e1558189fc81624d3f4d8ebc",
"text": "I think the straight productivity curve is supposed to represent the idea that the economy is always growing as opposed to shrinking overall, like you said. I beleive the video leaves out the idea of innovation to keep it simpler and cut down on length(Of an already half hour video). Thanks for the connection between innovation and productivity. Im new to this stuff and it hadn't occured to me.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
eff9ceda3f0b8e78a97223594696edd6
|
Could someone please provide an example of a portfolio similiar to the GFP or Couch potato, but for Australia?
|
[
{
"docid": "7d96ffa27caec8d874570b6eff6a9c68",
"text": "\"The portfolio described in that post has a blend of small slices of Vanguard sector funds, such as Vanguard Pacific Stock Index (VPACX). And the theory is that rebalancing across them will give you a good risk-return tradeoff. (Caveat: I haven't read the book, only the post you link to.) Similar ETFs are available from Vanguard, iShares, and State Street. If you want to replicate the GFP exactly, pick from them. (If you have questions about how to match specific funds in Australia, just ask another question.) So I think you could match it fairly exactly if you wanted to. However, I think trying to exactly replicate the Gone Fishin Portfolio in Australia would not be a good move for most people, for a few reasons: Brokerage and management fees are generally higher in Australia (smaller market), so dividing your investment across ten different securities, and rebalancing, is going to be somewhat more expensive. If you have a \"\"middle-class-sized\"\" portfolio of somewhere in the tens of thousands to low millions of dollars, you're cutting it into fairly small slices to manually allocate 5% to various sectors. To keep brokerage costs low you probably want to buy each ETF only once every one-two years or so. You also need to keep track of the tax consequences of each of them. If you are earning and spending Australian dollars, and looking at the portfolio in Australian dollars, a lot of those assets are going to move together as the Australian dollar moves, regardless of changes in the underlying assets. So there is effectively less diversification than you would have in the US. The post doesn't mention the GFP's approach to tax. I expect they do consider it, but it's not going to be directly applicable to Australia. If you are more interested in implementing the general approach of GFP rather than the specific details, what I would recommend is: The Vanguard and superannuation diversified funds have a very similar internal split to the GFP with a mix of local, first-world and emerging market shares, bonds, and property trusts. This is pretty much fire-and-forget: contribute every month and they will take care of rebalancing, spreading across asset classes, and tax calculations. By my calculations the cost is very similar, the diversification is very similar, and it's much easier. The only thing they don't generally cover is a precious metals allocation, and if you want that, just put 5% of your money into the ASX:GOLD ETF, or something similar.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "64bf1ced68b1175a711e027b04fc30d3",
"text": "For a lot of info on different funds, fees, average returns, etc, see this site. (Not all sections are free - but areas like Best of the Rest are, and they offer good basic starting info.) I think for getting further into the nitty-gritty, for example if a fund is socially responsible, you will need to go to the individual fund sites or read reviews - although sites like Morningstar may help. However, a few funds like this are: HESTA, Cruelty Free Super, and VicSuper (I'm with the latter). It might be useful to check out their sites to orient yourself to the Aussie approach to this issue, and then start searching more broadly from there. And for what it's worth, for a general overview of the Superannuation system, and some nice-to-know info, see this page on the Oz govt website.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4c05a709056f6da4dbcf85676d000157",
"text": "Good job. Assuming that you are also contributing to retirement, you are bound to be a wealthy person. I'm not really sure how Australia works as far as retirement, but I am pretty sure you are taking care of that too. Given your time frame (more than 5 years) I would consider investing at least a portion of the money. If I was you, I would tend to make that amount significant, say 75% in mutual funds, 25% in your high interest savings. The ratio you choose is up to you, but I would be heavier in the investment than savings side. As the time for home purchase approaches, you may want more in savings and less in investments. You may want to look at a mutual fund with a low beta. Beta is a measure of the price volatility. I did a google search on low beta funds, and came up with a number of good articles that explains this further. Having a fund with a low beta insulates you, a bit, from radical swings in the market allowing you to count more on the money being there when needed. One way to get to the proper ratio, is to contribute all new money to the mutual fund until it is in proper balance. This way you don't lower your interest rate for a month. Given your time frame, salary, and sense of responsibility you may be able to do the 100% down plan. Again, good work!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9b7f66d0deb3fe87aea9a853975b835d",
"text": "I'm an Aussie and I purchased 5 of these properties from 2008 to 2010. I was looking for positive cash flow on properties for not too much upfront investment. The USA property market made sense because of the high Aussie $$ at the time, the depressed property market in the US and the expensive market here. I used an investment web-site that allowed me to screen properties by yield and after eliminating outliers, went for the city with the highest consistent yield performance. I settled on Toledo, Ohio as it had the highest yields and was severely impacted by the housing crisis. I bought my first property for $18K US which was a little over $17K AUD. The property was a duplex in great condition in a reasonable location. Monthly rentals $US900 and rents guaranteed and direct deposited into my bank account every month by section 8. Taxes $900 a year and $450 a year for water. Total return around $US8,000. My second property was a short sale in a reasonable area. The asking was $US8K and was a single family in good condition already tenanted. I went through the steps with the bank and after a few months, was the proud owner of another tenanted, positive cash flow property returning $600 a month gross. Taxes of $600 a year and water about the same. $US6K NET a year on a property that cost $AUD8K Third and fourth were two single family dwellings in good areas. These both cost $US14K each and returned $US700 a month each. $US28K for two properties that gross around $US15K a year. My fifth property was a tax foreclosure of a guy with 2 kids whose wife had left him and whose friend had stolen the money to repay the property taxes. He was basically on the bones of his butt and was staring down the barrel of being homeless with two kids. The property was in great condition in a reasonable part of town. The property cost me $4K. I signed up the previous owner in a land contract to buy his house back for $US30K. Payments over 10 years at 7% came out to around $US333 per month. I made him an offer whereby if he acted as my property manager, i would forgo the land contract payments and pay him a percentage of the rents in exchange for his services. I would also pay for any work he did on the properties. He jumped at it. Seven years later, we're still working together and he keeps the properties humming. Right now the AUD is around 80c US and looks like falling to around 65c by June 2015. Rental income in Aussie $$ is around $2750 every month. This month (Jan 2015) I have transferred my property manager's house back to him with a quit claim deed and sold the remaining houses for $US100K After taxes and commission I expect to receive in the vicinity of AUD$120K Which is pretty good for a $AUD53K investment. I've also received around $30K in rent a year. I'm of the belief I should be buying when everybody else is selling and selling when everybody else is buying. I'm on the look-out for my next positive cash flow investment and I'm thinking maybe an emerging market smashed by the oil shock. I wish you all happiness and success in your investment. Take care. VR",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4bb3abcd14a58afbb8f891284510f413",
"text": "We face the same issue here in Switzerland. My background: Institutional investment management, currency risk management. My thoughs are: Home Bias is the core concept of your quesiton. You will find many research papers on this topic. The main problems with a high home bias is that the investment universe in your small local investment market is usually geared toward your coutries large corporations. Lack of diversification: In your case: the ASX top 4 are all financials, actually banks, making up almost 25% of the index. I would expect the bond market to be similarly concentrated but I dont know. In a portfolio context, this is certainly a negative. Liquidity: A smaller economy obviously has less large corporations when compared globally (check wikipedia / List_of_public_corporations_by_market_capitalization) thereby offering lower liquidity and a smaller investment universe. Currency Risk: I like your point on not taking a stance on FX. This simplifies the task to find a hedge ratio that minimises portfolio volatility when investing internationally and dealing with currencies. For equities, you would usually find that a hedge ratio anywhere from 0-30% is effective and for bonds one that ranges from 80-100%. The reason is that in an equity portfolio, currency risk contributes less to overall volatility than in a bond portfolio. Therefore you will need to hedge less to achieve the lowest possible risk. Interestingly, from a global perspective, we find, that the AUD is a special case whereby, if you hedge the AUD you actually increase total portfolio risk. Maybe it has to do with the AUD being used in carry trades a lot, but that is a wild guess. Hedged share classes: You could buy the currency hedged shared classes of investment funds to invest globally without taking currency risks. Be careful to read exactly what and how the share class implements its currency hedging though.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e54ba49905ede9e8b120977cc4d2c35f",
"text": "Slice and Dice would have the approach for dividing things up into 25% of large/small and growth/value that is one way to go. Bogleheads also have more than a few splits ranging from 2 funds to nearly 10 funds on high end.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3c86ef63d24853ad9bb7f969cbe35133",
"text": "“Burt Malkiel is still the high priest of passive investing,” said Jakub Jurek, vice president for research at Wealthfront. “To be absolutely clear, we’re not stock pickers. There are decades of research on active investors, which show they underperform.” So ... not really straying, just promoting a somewhat more sophisticated model based on algos (robo-investors?)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7b9e1b14c98aa0813d39fed38251fb95",
"text": "\"My advice would be to invest that 50k in 25% batches across 4 different money markets. Batch 1: Lend using a peer-to-peer account - 12.5k The interest rates offered by banks aren't that appealing to investors anymore, at least in the UK. Peer to peer lending brokers such as ZOPA provide 5% to 6% annual returns if you're willing to hold on to your investment for a couple of years. Despite your pre-conceptions, these investments are relatively safe (although not guaranteed - I must stress this). Zopa state on their website that they haven't lost any money provided from their investors since the company's inception 10 years ago, and have a Safeguard trust that will be used to pay out investors if a large number of borrowers defaulted. I'm not sure if this service is available in Australia but aim for an interest rate of 5-6% with a trusted peer-to-peer lender that has a strong track record. Batch 2: The stock market - 12.5k An obvious choice. This is by far the most exciting way to grow your money. The next question arising from this will likely be \"\"how do I pick stocks?\"\". This 12.5k needs to be further divided into 5 or so different stocks. My strategy for picking stock at the current time will be to have 20% of your holdings in blue-chip companies with a strong track record of performance, and ideally, a dividend that is paid bi-anually/quarterly. Another type of stock that you should invest in should be companies that are relatively newly listed on the stock market, but have monopolistic qualities - that is - that they are the biggest, best, and only provider of their new and unique service. Examples of this would be Tesla, Worldpay, and Just-eat. Moreover, I'd advise another type of stock you should purchase be a 'sin stock' to hedge against bad economic times (if they arise). A sin stock is one associated with sin, i.e. cigarette manufacturers, alcohol suppliers, providers of gambling products. These often perform good while the economy is doing well, but even better when the economy experiences a 2007-2008, and 2001-dotcom type of meltdown. Finally, another category I'd advise would be large-cap energy provider companies such as Exxon Mobil, BP, Duke Energy - primarily because these are currently cheaper than they were a few months ago - and the demand for energy is likely to grow with the population (which is definitely growing rapidly). Batch 3: Funds - 12.5k Having some of your money in Funds is really a no-brainer. A managed fund is traditionally a collection of stocks that have been selected within a particular market. At this time, I'd advise at least 20% of the 12.5k in Emerging market funds (as the prices are ridiculously low having fallen about 60% - unless China/Brazil/India just self destruct or get nuked they will slowly grow again within the next 5 years - I imagine quite high returns can be had in this type of funds). The rest of your funds should be high dividend payers - but I'll let you do your own research. Batch 4: Property - 12.5k The property market is too good to not get into, but let's be honest you're not going to be able to buy a flat/house/apartment for 12.5k. The idea therefore would be to find a crowd-funding platform that allows you to own a part of a property (alongside other owners). The UK has platforms such as Property Partner that are great for this and I'm sure Australia also has some such platforms. Invest in the capital city in areas as close to the city's center as possible, as that's unlikely to change - barring some kind of economic collapse or an asteroid strike. I think the above methods of investing provide the following: 1) Diversified portfolio of investments 2) Hedging against difficult economic times should they occur And the only way you'll lose out with diversification such as this is if the whole economic system collapses or all-out nuclear war (although I think your investments will be the least of your worries in a nuclear war). Anyway, this is the method of investing I've chosen for myself and you can see my reasoning above. Feel free to ask me if you have any questions.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "296b7a2e96d632ad86e69f69b97d10fe",
"text": "It sounds like you are soliciting opinions a little here, so I'll go ahead and give you mine, recognizing that there's a degree of arbitrariness here. A basic portfolio consists of a few mutual funds that try to span the space of investments. My choices given your pot: I like VLTCX because regular bond index funds have way too much weight in government securities. Government bonds earn way too little. The CAPM would suggest a lot more weight in bonds and international equity. I won't put too much in bonds because...I just don't feel like it. My international allocation is artificially low because it's always a little more costly and I'm not sure how good the diversification gains are. If you are relatively risk averse, you can hold some of your money in a high-interest online bank and only put a portion in these investments. $100K isn't all that much money but the above portfolio is, I think, sufficient for most people. If I had a lot more I'd buy some REIT exposure, developing market equity, and maybe small cap. If I had a ton more (several million) I'd switch to holding individual equities instead of funds and maybe start looking at alternative investments, real estate, startups, etc.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f1182b37a245e09836037c4d1d97fecb",
"text": "First--and I'm only repeating what has been said already--roboadvisors are a great way to avoid paying high MERs and still not have to do much yourself. The Canadian Couch Potato method is great IF you are disciplined and spend the time every few months to regularly re-balance your portfolio. However, any savings you gain in low MERs is going to very likely be lost if you aren't re-balancing or if you aren't patient and disciplined in your investing. For that reason, the Couch Potato way isn't appropriate for 97% of the general population in my opinion. But if you are reading this, you probably already aren't a member of the general population. For myself, life seems always too busy and I've got a kid on the way. I see a huge value in using a robo-advisor (or alternatively Tangerine) and saving time in my day. The next question, which robo-advisor is best? I did a bunch of research here and my conclusion is that they are all fairly similar. My final three came down to Wealthbar/Wealthsimple/NestWeatlh. Price structures vary, but minus a few dollars here or there, there isn't a lot of difference in costs. What made WealthSimple stick out was that they provide some options for US citizens that help me prevent tax headaches. They also got back to me by email with really detailed answers when I had questions, which was really appreciated. Their site and monthly updates are minimalist and intuitive to navigate. Great user experience all around (I do web design myself). My gut feeling is that they have their act together and will stick around as a company for a long while.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2379e2f1e6f178d08404ad68f7796fef",
"text": "http://www.moneysupermarket.com/shares/CompareSharesForm.asp lists many. I found the Interactive Investor website to be excruciatingly bad. I switched to TD Waterhouse and found the website good but the telephone service a bit abrupt. I often use the data presented on SelfTrade but don't have an account there.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1ce16917eb1b24ba0bc42750a62d3cad",
"text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/australian-economy/issuing-new-loans-against-unrealised-capital-gains-has-created-an-australian-house-of-cards/news-story/853e540ce0a8ed95d5881a730b6ed2c9) reduced by 87%. (I'm a bot) ***** > THE Australian mortgage market has &quot;Ballooned&quot; due to banks issuing new loans against unrealised capital gains of existing investment properties, creating a $1.7 trillion &quot;House of cards&quot;, a new report warns. > The report describes the system as a &quot;Classic mortgage Ponzi finance model&quot;, with newly purchased properties often generating net rental income losses, adversely impacting upon cash flows. > Melbourne&#039;s median house price has risen by 12.7 per cent over the past year to $695,500, with Brisbane up 3 per cent to $488,757, Adelaide 5.2 per cent to $430,109, Hobart 13.6 per cent to $383,438 and Canberra 12.9 per cent to $575,173. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6z9ea1/issuing_new_loans_against_unrealised_capital/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~207582 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **property**^#1 **per**^#2 **cent**^#3 **report**^#4 **market**^#5\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0caf31e4f0d675b4f23627cf89227e40",
"text": "\"There are mutual funds oriented toward kids or that are suitable in some way (e.g. they have low minimums). Here are two articles with mention of some of them: Of those only USAA First Start Growth is explicitly for kids: http://quote.morningstar.com/fund/f.aspx?t=UFSGX or https://www.usaa.com/inet/pages/mutual_funds_reports Another fund aimed at kids is Monetta Young Investor http://quote.morningstar.com/fund/f.aspx?t=MYIFX or http://www.younginvestorfund.com/ The diversified funds (with fixed income) like USAA First Start Growth, Vanguard STAR, Pax World Balanced, etc. have the nice property that they won't be as volatile and may spend less time \"\"underwater,\"\" so that might better convey the value of investing (vs. an all-stock fund where it could be kind of depressing for years on end, if you get bad luck). Though, I feel the same principle applies for adults. Kids may appreciate intangible aspects of the funds, e.g. Pax World Balanced invests in sustainable companies, Ariel Appreciation also has some social parameters and I think the guy running it does charity work with kids, that type of thing. There should be quarterly and annual reports on mutual funds (or stocks) that would give kids something to read and think about related to the investment. Disclaimer: none of these funds are recommendations, I have not researched them in any detail, just giving you some leads.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "62c2505b9c73061efe7702f188ad3fbd",
"text": "It's important to realize that any portfolio, if sufficiently diversified should track overall GDP growth, and anything growing via a percentage per annum is going to double eventually. (A good corner-of-napkin estimate is 70/the percentage = years to double). Just looking at your numbers, if you initially put in the full $7000, an increase to $17000 after 10 years represents a return of ~9.3% per annum (to check my math $7000*1.09279^10 ≈ $17000). Since you've been putting in the $7000 over 10 years the return is going to be a bit more than that, but it's not possible to calculate based on the information given. A return of 9.3% is not bad (some rules of thumb: inflation is about 2-4% so if you are making less than that you're losing money, and 6-10% per annum is generally what you should expect if your portfolio is tracking the market)... I wouldn't consider that rate of return to be particularly amazing, but it's not bad either, as you've done better than you would have if you had invested in an ETF tracking the market. The stock market being what it is, you can't rule out the possibility that you got lucky with your stock picks. If your portfolio was low-risk, a return of 9%ish could be considered amazing, but given that it's about 5-6 different stocks what I'd consider amazing would be a return of 15%+ (to give you something to shoot for!) Either way, for your amount of savings you're probably better off going with a mutual fund or an ETF. The return might be slightly lower, but the risk profile is also lower than you picking your stocks, since the fund/ETF will be more diversified. (and it's less work!)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "94c2b0c5d718b73fc598879131d2e8ee",
"text": "\"Mint.com does this quite well. The graph views of your budgets, investments, debts, and other aspects of your financial life can be shown in gestalt, or on a per-account basis (at least, it does for me). See the investment \"\"how it works\"\" page for more information. \"\"Find out whether you're beating the market–or it's beating you. Compare your portfolio to market benchmarks, and instantly see your asset allocation across all your investment accounts: 401k, mutual funds, brokerage accounts, even IRAs.\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "58508326ca40b024e9d896173d8c4094",
"text": "Take a look at this: http://code.google.com/p/stock-portfolio-manager/ It is an open source project aimed to manage your stock portfolio.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
f68e182228bb54a125bdecb15479d218
|
Other ETFs of world bonds and stocks (Alternatives to VT and BND)?
|
[
{
"docid": "7603001dde6e6c0653694e7be8760a85",
"text": "Here is another choice I like, iShares JPMorgan USD Emerging Markets Bond (EMB) Here is the world ETFs",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "046d9cdbbb9b9aa2eb877b718d47e705",
"text": "Try this site for the funds http://www.socialinvest.org/resources/mfpc/ I'm not aware of any etfs. I'm sure some exist though.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "76afaac7c8e1c3c6bf35f3b9e83411a4",
"text": "Half VTI (Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF) and half VEU (Vanguard FTSE All-World ex-US ETF), and stop futzing. The US is roughly half the world market cap so this is like a total world equity index. Very low costs. VTI Expense ratio is 0.04% as of 04/27/2017. I don't know what you mean by RSG, but it could be either a waste processor or a gold miner. Either way it seems kind of speculative to hold even 10% of your wealth.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f719c6cd550aa8750e9b8d06241671cf",
"text": "\"I'm really surprised more people didn't recommend UGA or USO specifically. These have been mentioned in the past on a myriad of sites as ways to hedge against rising prices. I'm sure they would work quite well as an investment opportunity. They are ETF's that invest in nearby futures and constantly roll the position to the next delivery date. This creates a higher than usual expense ratio, I believe, but it could still be a good investment. However, be forewarned that they make you a \"\"partner\"\" by buying the stock so it can mildly complicate your tax return.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b66b61ad11cadb30ca1d30f219290326",
"text": "UNG United States Natural Gas Fund Natural Gas USO United States Oil Fund West Texas Intermediate Crude Oil UGA United States Gasoline Fund Gasoline DBO PowerShares DB Oil Fund West Texas Intermediate Crude Oil UHN United States Heating Oil Fund Heating Oil I believe these are as close as you'd get. I'd avoid the double return flavors as they do not track well at all. Update - I understand James' issue. An unmanaged single commodity ETF (for which it's impractical to take delivery and store) is always going to lag the spot price rise over time. And therefore, the claims of the ETF issuer aside, these products will almost certain fail over time. As shown above, When my underlying asset rises 50%, and I see 24% return, I'm not happy. Gold doesn't have this effect as the ETF GLD just buys gold, you can't really do that with oil.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0614273d91d85965c4ba9eaaef0c1251",
"text": "Adding international bonds to an individual investor's portfolio is a controversial subject. On top of the standard risks of bonds you are adding country specific risk, currency risk and diversifying your individual company risk. In theory many of these risks should be rewarded but the data are noisy at best and adding risk like developed currency risk may not be rewarded at all. Also, most of the risk and diversification mentioned above are already added by international stocks. Depending on your home country adding international or emerging market stock etfs only add a few extra bps of fees while international bond etfs can add 30-100bps of fees over their domestic versions. This is a fairly high bar for adding this type of diversification. US bonds for foreign investors are a possible exception to the high fees though the government's bonds yield little. If your home currency (or currency union) does not have a deep bond market and/or bonds make up most of your portfolio it is probably worth diversifying a chunk of your bond exposure internationally. Otherwise, you can get most of the diversification much more cheaply by just using international stocks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d8e8fd89737f49d2358d435284533ee5",
"text": "\"You have many alternatives to the funds you mentioned. It is actually very unusual for ETFs to have such high denominations. Possible alternative: iShares IVV What would you recommend I do with $1000? A diversified index fund is a great equity investment for the long run but might be considered \"\"boring\"\" by newcomers who think of equity markets as something more exciting. Maybe add a share or two, small ones, just to show the differences to the fund. This wouldn't be called wise investing but it certainly would have an educational effect. Except if this money is all you saved for your daughter, then don't gamble any of it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "90d5a9029baab5def0887297b77d4aa6",
"text": "I wonder in this case if it might be easier to look for an emerging markets fund that excludes china, and just shift into that. In years past I know there were a variety of 'Asian tiger' funds that excluded Japan for much the same reason, so these days it would not surprise me if there were similar emerging markets funds that excluded China. I can find some inverse ETF's that basically short the emerging markets as a whole, but not one that does just china. (then again I only spent a little time looking)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1d061afb0577cd1166e1f687175edde2",
"text": "I let someone else pick and chose which junk bonds to buy and which to sell. So instead of holding individual bonds in my portfolio I hold an ETF that is managed by a man with a PHD and which buys junk bonds. I get a yearly 15.5% ROI, paid monthly. Buy and hold and you can get a good return for the rest of your life. It is only speculation when you sell.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "55b98bac35fca6833f115fb68dd9e9e2",
"text": "The simple answer is technically bonds don't have earnings, hence no P/E. What I think the OP is really asking how do I compare stock and bond ETFs. Some mature stocks exhibit very similar characteristics to bonds, so at the margin if you are considering investing between 2 such investments that provide stable income in the form of dividends, you might want to use the dividend/price ratio (D/P) of the stock and compare it to the dividend yield of the bond. If you go down to the basics, both the bond and the stock can be considered the present value of all future expected cashflows. The cash that accrues to the owner of the stock is future dividends and for the bond is the coupon payments. If a company were to pay out 100% of its earnings, then the dividend yield D/P would be conveniently E/P. For a company with P/E of 20 that paid out it's entire earnings, one would expect D/P = 1/20 = 5% This serves as a decent yard stick in the short term ~ 1 year to compare mature stock etfs with stable prospects vs bond funds since the former will have very little expected price growth (think utilities), hence they both compete on the cashflows they throw off to the investor. This comparison stops being useful for stock ETFs with higher growth prospects since expected future cashflows are much more volatile. This comparison is also not valid in the long term since bond ETFs are highly sensitive to the yield curve (interest rate risk) and they can move substantially from where they are now.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1a9e38527d7e1f9e8e0d36c2cc010dfc",
"text": "\"I'm assuming the question is about how to compare two ETFs that track the same index. I'd look at (for ETFs -- ignoring index funds): So, for example you might compare SPY vs IVV: SPY has about 100x the volume. Sure, IVV has 2M shares trading, so it is liquid \"\"enough\"\". But the bigger volume on SPY might matter to you if you use options: open interest is as much as 1000x more on SPY. Even if you have no interest in options, the spreads on SPY are probably going to be slightly smaller. They both have 0.09% expense ratios. When I looked on 2010-9-6, SPY was trading at a slight discount, IVV was at a slight premium. Looking for any sort of trend is left as an exercise to the reader... Grab the prospectus for each to examine the rules they set for fund makeup. Both come from well-known issuers and have a decent history. (Rather than crazy Uncle Ed's pawn shop, or the Central Bank of Stilumunistan.) So unless you find something in the SPY prospectus that makes you queasy, the higher volume and equal expense ratios would seem to suggest it over IVV. The fact that it is at a (tiny) discount right now is a (tiny) bonus.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "baeda48ad38b88a95a6cbfd626419096",
"text": "I've looked into Thinkorswim; my father uses it. Although better than eTrade, it wasn't quite what I was looking for. Interactive Brokers is a name I had heard a long time ago but forgotten. Thank you for that, it seems to be just what I need.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "21b0a09f26272db9528e08a4a7e3437a",
"text": "\"This has been answered countless times before: One example you may want to look at is DGRO. It is an iShares ETF that many discount brokers trade for free. This ETF: offers \"\"exposure to U.S. stocks focused on dividend growth\"\".\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "21ad8c178fcaf9a290e700ecbcbab79c",
"text": "I have no idea if Wikivest can handle options, but I've been pretty satisfied with it as a portfolio visualization tool. It links automatically with many brokerage accounts, and has breakdowns by both portfolio and individual investment levels.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "59f0fb24483bf24e45448509eb2c3850",
"text": "\"Even though \"\"when the U.S. sneezes Canada catches a cold\"\", I would suggest considering a look at Canadian government bonds as both a currency hedge, and for the safety of principal — of course, in terms of CAD, not USD. We like to boast that Canada fared relatively better (PDF) during the economic crisis than many other advanced economies, and our government debt is often rated higher than U.S. government debt. That being said, as a Canadian, I am biased. For what it's worth, here's the more general strategy: Recognize that you will be accepting some currency risk (in addition to the sovereign risks) in such an approach. Consistent with your ETF approach, there do exist a class of \"\"international treasury bond\"\" ETFs, holding short-term foreign government bonds, but their holdings won't necessarily match the criteria I laid out – although they'll have wider diversification than if you invested in specific countries separately.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3b33e80a1bc5ef0a22b1be95eee44ba0",
"text": "It isn't just ETFs, you have normal mutual funds in India which invest internationally. This could be convenient if you don't already have a depository account and a stockbroker. Here's a list of such funds, along with some performance data: Value Research - Equity: International: Long-term Performance. However, you should also be aware that in India, domestic equity and equity fund investing is tax-free in the long-term (longer than one year), but this exemption doesn't apply to international investments. Ref: Invest Around the World.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
f285ad688457d02fe51f9206bd326ce1
|
Is there a generally accepted term for fractions of Currency Units?
|
[
{
"docid": "7c35140524ccf9b513b1f488b10cb16a",
"text": "\"of course if you asked me to give you $24.4955 I can't. No, but if I asked you to give me $24.4955 and you gave me a piece of paper saying \"\"I O U $24.4955\"\", and then this happened repeatedly until I had collected 100 of these pieces of paper from you, then I could give them back to you in exchange for $2449.55 of currency. There's nothing magical about the fact that there doesn't happen to be a $0.001 coin in current circulation. This question has some further information.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "acea26a0d0bd338543e2afb906e0c7f5",
"text": "I recently bought a stock - which was priced exactly as your question ponders, to the 1/100 cent. I happened to buy 2000 shares, but just a round lot of 100 would be enough to create no need for rounding. It's common for industry to price this way as well, where an electronic component purchased by the thousands, is priced to the tenth or hundredth of a cent. There's nothing magic about this, and you'll have more to ponder when your own lowest unit of currency is no longer minted. (I see you are in UK. Here, in the US, there's talk of dropping our cent. A 5 cent piece to be the smallest value coin. Yet, any non-cash transactions, such as checks, credit card purchases, etc, will still price to the penny.) To specifically answer the question - it's called decimal currency. 1/10, 1/100 of a cent.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e58c482e28c60f0209da366f2826fa55",
"text": "The Coinage Act of 1792 of the Continental Congress established that the lowest money of account for the United States is one-thousandth (1/1000) of a dollar. This sub-unit is the mille (also written mil, mill). Other sub-units given by the act are the disme for one-tenth (1/10) of a dollar (for which, etymologically, is the origin of the word dime), and the cent for one-hundredth (1/100) of a dollar. The ten-thousandth of the dollar value is taken on account by a few financial organizations, but has no official given term. For the monetary value of USD 27.4955, it may be quoted as twenty-seven dollars, forty-nine cents, and five-and-a-half milles.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "4083e21b20bfb2365634eb453171a0f3",
"text": "The 'standard' thing to do, after double checking your numbers to see if you can find or remember the actual reason for the discrepancy is to use an Income account for 'extra' money and an expense account for 'lost' money. The Imbalance account is meant as a temporary placeholder for monies not yet put into their right account. I personally use Income:Other Income for such found money, and Expenses:Adjustment for lost money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "70591461ef9fce7e7b32b7b259bf14f6",
"text": "The quant aspect '''''. This is the kind of math I was wondering if it existed, but now it sounds like it is much more complex in reality then optimizing by evaluating different cost of capital. Thank you for sharing",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "819ebf9d4c042f3f6513c710753e0994",
"text": "\"The key term you're looking for is \"\"purchasing power parity\"\", which considers the local prices of goods and services when making comparisons between countries. For example, you can look up the GDP by PPP per capita to get a sense of much people on average incomes can buy in each country. Of course, average incomes may not be too relevant to your own specific circumstances, but nonetheless you can look at the PPP data itself to figure out how to translate specific numbers between two currencies. However, note that the \"\"basket\"\" of goods used to calculate this measure itself has a significant impact on the results. Comparing prices of food and electronic equipment respectively will often give very different answers.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "47d7e6b46352b8e46c514f9e74f02502",
"text": "There are several local currency initiatives in the US list here. Most are attempts to normalize a value as a living wage, or encourage local consumption networks. If you are in the catchment region of one of these, see if you can get a grant or loan to get started (if you are willing to buy into the philosophy of the group such as a $10 minimum wage) m",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ad8717fc5206507523a432d6860760e5",
"text": "\"Is there a word for that $20k owed? Trade Receivables, Accounts Receivables, or just Receivables Is there a different word for that $30k \"\"hypothetical\"\" total? Current Assets (Includes Inventory and other short term assets)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b0faa9b09d609afbd8ea2deaf040ae91",
"text": "If the account is not dollar-denominated, I would say it does not make sense at all to have dollar-denominated statements. Such a statement would not even be accurate for any reasonable amount of time (since FX rates constantly fluctuate). This would be a nightmare for accounting purposes. If you really need to know the statements in USD, I think the best practice would be to perform the conversion yourself using Excel or some similar software.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d2ee45566bdfe71aa642ed965b2bc49e",
"text": "\"There are some index funds out there like this - generally they are called \"\"equal weight\"\" funds. For example, the Rydex S&P Equal-Weight ETF. Rydex also has several other equal weight sector funds\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b3ff2d91d58df55f959c18195cd1b5d0",
"text": "As BrenBarn stated, tracking fractional transactions beyond 8 decimal places makes no sense in the context of standard stock and mutual fund transactions. This is because even for the most expensive equities, those fractional shares would still not be worth whole cent amounts, even for account balances in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. One important thing to remember is that when dealing with equities the total cost, number of shares, and share price are all 3 components of the same value. Thus if you take 2 of those values, you can always calculate the third: (price * shares = cost, cost / price = shares, etc). What you're seeing in your account (9 decimal places) is probably the result of dividing uneven values (such as $9.37 invested in a commodity which trades for $235.11, results in 0.03985368550891072264046616477394 shares). Most brokerages will round this value off somewhere, yours just happens to include more decimal places than your financial software allows. Since your brokerage is the one who has the definitive total for your account balance, the only real solution is to round up or down, whichever keeps your total balance in the software in line with the balance shown online.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ee39ed06924306cf76f2b97018a28957",
"text": "If you are looking to go long (buy) you would use bid prices as this is what you will be matched against for your order to be executed and a trade to go through. If you are looking to go short (sell) you would use the ask prices as this is what you will be matched against for your order to be executed and a trade go through. In your analysis you could use either this convention or the midpoint of the two prices. As FX is very liquid the bid and ask prices would be quite close to each other, so the easiest way to do your analysis is to use the convention I listed above.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3a75aef42b2ea095ab21acbd518c1c4f",
"text": "Under US law, if you clearly have more than half of a torn bill it is worth its full value; the smaller piece is worth nothing... except that having both halves makes the banking system much happier, since it prevents some particularly stupid counterfeiting attempts. So this proposal wouldn't be cheat-proof unless the cut is close enough to the middle to make determining 51% difficult. And I'd like to see you try to explain to a bank how so many bills were cut in half... (This is more normally an issue when money has been damaged unintentionally, of course.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c673ccd11ad9d1f7ff188d2f48f926e3",
"text": "How can I correctly account for having money in different currencies, without currency transfers or currency fluctuations ending up as gains or losses? In my view, your spreadsheet should be in multiple currencies. i.e. if you have gained some in specific currency, make a note of it in that specific currency. If you have spent something in a specific currency, then make a note accordingly. You can use an additional column for reporting this in a neutral currency say GBP. If you are transferring the money from account of one currency to account of another; change the balances as appropriate with the actual conversion rate. If you need this record keeping for tax purposes, then get a proper advise from accountant.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0f8ff70696e06a1a1df44938f4de14eb",
"text": "If you have access, factset and bloomberg have this. However, these aren't standardized due to non-existent reporting regulations, therefore each company may choose to categorize regions differently. This makes it difficult to work with a large universe, and you'll probably end up doing a large portion manually anyways.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b4940a56597daa47fcd9f02797c22a8e",
"text": "\"Once a currency loses value, it never regains it. Period. Granted there have been short term periods of deflation, as well as periods where, due to relative value fluctuation, a currency may temporarily gain value against the U.S. dollar (or Euro, Franc, whatever) but the prospect of a currency that's lost 99.99% of its value will reclaim any of that value is an impossibility. Currency is paper. It's not stock. It's not a hard commodity. It has no intrinsic value, and no government in history has ever been motivated to \"\"re-value\"\" its currency. Mind you, there have been plenty of \"\"reverse splits\"\" where a government will knock off the extraneous zeroes to make handling units of the currency more practical.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "93599a667e5e05cfc00b971d3408c650",
"text": "Thank you Slater\\_John for voting on metric\\_units. This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://goodbot-badbot.herokuapp.com/). *** ^^Even ^^if ^^I ^^don't ^^reply ^^to ^^your ^^comment, ^^I'm ^^still ^^listening ^^for ^^votes. ^^Check ^^the ^^webpage ^^to ^^see ^^if ^^your ^^vote ^^registered!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "250776fdc7608cf2ad194f982553b759",
"text": "\"In Europe in most of the countries there is also a thing called ACH. In UK there is a thing called BACS and in other countires there are other things. Essentially every country has what is called a \"\"Low value Net Settlement System\"\" that is used to transfer funds between accounts of different banks. In US there is rounting number, in UK there is a Sort Code, in Indonesia there is a sort code. Essentially a Bank Identifier that is issued by the Governing body within respective countires. Certian identifiers like SWIFT BIC [Bank Identification Code] are Unique across world.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.