query_id
stringlengths 32
32
| query
stringlengths 6
5.38k
| positive_passages
listlengths 1
22
| negative_passages
listlengths 9
100
| subset
stringclasses 7
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|
efba3607637a0a24c705cc10a2f4610a
|
What makes an actual share valuable? [duplicate]
|
[
{
"docid": "9b2d2c75bd6c3a17bf78bb9b37a514ea",
"text": "\"What benefit do I get from buying a share The value of any financial asset is its ability to generate cash in the future, and thus the \"\"value\"\" of a share is heavily influenced by the dividends it pays and the equity value. The equity value can be calculated different ways. Two common ways are to just take \"\"book\"\" value, meaning assets - liabilities, or you can look at the projected free cash flows of the company discounted back to the present time. Voting rights don't typically influence a share price except in hostile takeover scenarios (meaning someone buys up a lot of shares to have more influence in company decisions)\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "52d826b925842aa604e0b295fcd54608",
"text": "\"No, the stock market is not there for speculation on corporate memorabilia. At its base, it is there for investing in a business, the point of the investment being, of course, to make money. A (successful) business earns money, and that makes it valuable to its owners since that money can be distributed to them. Shares of stock are pieces of business ownership, and so are valuable. If you knew that the business would have profit of $10,000,000 every year, and would distribute that to the owners of each of its 10,000,000 shares each year, you would know to that each share would receive $1 each year. How much would such a share be worth to you? If you could instead put money in a bank and get 5% a year back, to get $1 a year back you would have to put $20 into the bank. So maybe that share of stock is worth about $20 to you. If somebody offers to sell you such a share for $18, you might buy it; for $23, maybe you pass up the offer. But business is uncertain, and how much profit the business will make is uncertain and will vary through time. So how much is a share of a real business worth? This is a much harder call, and people use many different ways to come up with how much they should pay for a share. Some people probably just think something like \"\"Apple is a good company making money, I'll buy a share at whatever price it is being offered at right now.\"\" Others look at every number available, build models of the company and the economy and the risks, all to estimate what a share might be worth, more or less. There is no indisputable value for a share of a successful business. So, what effect does a company's earnings have on the price of its stock? You can only say that for some of the people who might buy or sell shares, higher earnings will, all other thing being equal, have them be willing to spend more to buy it or demand more when selling it. But how much more is not quantifiable but depends on each person's approach to the problem. Higher earnings would tend to raise the price of the stock. Yet there are other factors, such as people who had expected even higher earnings, whose actions would tend to lower the price, and people who are OK with the earnings now, but suspect trouble for the business is appearing on the horizon, whose actions would also tend to lower the price. This is why people say that a stock's price is determined by supply and demand.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6f0cb1b299c8902d05de659c56af9285",
"text": "\"In finance, form is function, and while a reason for a trade could be anything, but since the result of a trade is a change in value, it could be presumed that one seeks to receive a change in value. Stock company There may have been more esoteric examples, but currently, possession of a company (total ownership of its' assets actually) is delineated by percentage or a glorified \"\"banknote\"\" frequently called a \"\"share\"\". Percentage companies are usually sole proprietorship and partnerships, but partnerships can now trade in \"\"units\"\". Share companies are usually corporations. With shares, a company can be divided into almost totally indistinguishable units. This allows for more flexible ownership, so individuals can trade them without having to change the company contract. Considering the ease of trade, it could be assumed that common stock contract provisions were formulated to provide for such an ease. Motivation to trade This could be anything, but it seems those with the largest ownership of common stock have lots of wealth, so it could be assumed that people at least want to own stocks to own wealth. Shorting might be a little harder to reason, but I personally assume that the motivation to trade is still to increase wealth. Social benefit of the stock market Assuming that ownership in a company is socially valuable and that the total value of ownership is proportional to the social value provided, the social benefit of a stock market is that it provided the means to scale ownership through convenience, speed, and reliability.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "da781e6cc464fae224f7616998e5d61b",
"text": "Imagine that I own 10% of a company, and yesterday my portion was valued at $1 Million, therefore the company is valued at $10 Million. Today the company accepts an offer to sell 1% of the company for $500 Thousand: now my portion is worth $5 Million, and company is worth $50 Million. The latest stock price sets the value of the company. If next week the news is all bad and the new investor sells their shares to somebody else for pennies on the dollar, the value of the company will drop accordingly.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d23850fbada2d4080a297417671d571d",
"text": "Yeah, lots of value in companies is much less tangible than it used to be. But then i think we put too much faith in tangible value. EG a coal mining company my buddy invested in cos it had so much tangible value; had precisely zero tangible value when it collapsed tho",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ac18a23cf30f659b257d22786cc092b5",
"text": "\"As I understand it, a company raises money by sharing parts of it (\"\"ownership\"\") to people who buy stocks from it. It's not \"\"ownership\"\" in quotes, it's ownership in a non-ironic way. You own part of the company. If the company has 100 million shares outstanding you own 1/100,000,000th of it per share, it's small but you're an owner. In most cases you also get to vote on company issues as a shareholder. (though non-voting shares are becoming a thing). After the initial share offer, you're not buying your shares from the company, you're buying your shares from an owner of the company. The company doesn't control the price of the shares or the shares themselves. I get that some stocks pay dividends, and that as these change the price of the stock may change accordingly. The company pays a dividend, not the stock. The company is distributing earnings to it's owners your proportion of the earnings are equal to your proportion of ownership. If you own a single share in the company referenced above you would get $1 in the case of a $100,000,000 dividend (1/100,000,000th of the dividend for your 1/100,000,000th ownership stake). I don't get why the price otherwise goes up or down (why demand changes) with earnings, and speculation on earnings. Companies are generally valued based on what they will be worth in the future. What do the prospects look like for this industry? A company that only makes typewriters probably became less valuable as computers became more prolific. Was a new law just passed that would hurt our ability to operate? Did a new competitor enter the industry to force us to change prices in order to stay competitive? If we have to charge less for our product, it stands to reason our earnings in the future will be similarly reduced. So what if the company's making more money now than it did when I bought the share? Presumably the company would then be more valuable. None of that is filtered my way as a \"\"part owner\"\". Yes it is, as a dividend; or in the case of a company not paying a dividend you're rewarded by an appreciating value. Why should the value of the shares change? A multitude of reasons generally revolving around the company's ability to profit in the future.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9ff4b83c8e5627b710d84964fc9b0a85",
"text": "\"This answer will expand a bit on the theory. :) A company, as an entity, represents a pile of value. Some of that is business value (the revenue stream from their products) and some of that is assets (real estate, manufacturing equipment, a patent portfolio, etc). One of those assets is cash. If you own a share in the company, you own a share of all those assets, including the cash. In a theoretical sense, it doesn't really matter whether the company holds the cash instead of you. If the company adds an extra $1 billion to its assets, then people who buy and sell the company will think \"\"hey, there's an extra $1 billion of cash in that company; I should be willing to pay $1 billion / shares outstanding more per share to own it than I would otherwise.\"\" Granted, you may ultimately want to turn your ownership into cash, but you can do that by selling your shares to someone else. From a practical standpoint, though, the company doesn't benefit from holding that cash for a long time. Cash doesn't do much except sit in bank accounts and earn pathetically small amounts of interest, and if you wanted pathetic amounts of interests from your cash you wouldn't be owning shares in a company, you'd have it in a bank account yourself. Really, the company should do something with their cash. Usually that means investing it in their own business, to grow and expand that business, or to enhance profitability. Sometimes they may also purchase other companies, if they think they can turn a profit from the purchase. Sometimes there aren't a lot of good options for what to do with that money. In that case, the company should say, \"\"I can't effectively use this money in a way which will grow my business. You should go and invest it yourself, in whatever sort of business you think makes sense.\"\" That's when they pay a dividend. You'll see that a lot of the really big global companies are the ones paying dividends - places like Coca-Cola or Exxon-Mobil or what-have-you. They just can't put all their cash to good use, even after their growth plans. Many people who get dividends will invest them in the stock market again - possibly purchasing shares of the same company from someone else, or possibly purchasing shares of another company. It doesn't usually make a lot of sense for the company to invest in the stock market themselves, though. Investment expertise isn't really something most companies are known for, and because a company has multiple owners they may have differing investment needs and risk tolerance. For instance, if I had a bunch of money from the stock market I'd put it in some sort of growth stock because I'm twenty-something with a lot of savings and years to go before retirement. If I were close to retirement, though, I would want it in a more stable stock, or even in bonds. If I were retired I might even spend it directly. So the company should let all its owners choose, unless they have a good business reason not to. Sometimes companies will do share buy-backs instead of dividends, which pays money to people selling the company stock. The remaining owners benefit by reducing the number of shares outstanding, so they own more of what's left. They should only do this if they think the stock is at a fair price, or below a fair price, for the company: otherwise the remaining owners are essentially giving away cash. (This actually happens distressingly often.) On the other hand, if the company's stock is depressed but it subsequently does better than the rest of the market, then it is a very good investment. The one nice thing about share buy-backs in general is that they don't have any immediate tax implications for the company's owners: they simply own a stock which is now more valuable, and can sell it (and pay taxes on that sale) whenever they choose.\"",
"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": "49af1a7aa7b174792ea7e082421cc332",
"text": "\"It's been said before, but to repeat succinctly, a company's current share price is no more or less than what \"\"the market\"\" thinks that share is worth, as measured by the price at which the shares are being bought and sold. As such, a lot of things can affect that price, some of them material, others ethereal. A common reason to own stock is to share the profits of the company; by owning 1 share out of 1 million shares outstanding, you are entitled to 1/1000000 of that company's quarterly profits (if any). These are paid out as dividends. Two key measurements are based on these dividend payments; the first is \"\"earnings per share\"\", which is the company's stated quarterly profits, divided by outstanding shares, with the second being the \"\"price-earnings ratio\"\" which is the current price of the stock divided by its EPS. Your expected \"\"yield\"\" on this stock is more or less the inverse of this number; if a company has a P/E ratio of 20, then all things being equal, if you invest $100 in this stock you can expect a return of $5, or 5% (1/20). As such, changes in the expected earnings per share can cause the share price to rise or fall to maintain a P/E ratio that the pool of buyers are willing to tolerate. News that a company might miss its profit expectations, due to a decrease in consumer demand, an increase in raw materials costs, labor, financing, or any of a multitude of things that industry analysts watch, can cause the stock price to drop sharply as people look for better investments with higher yields. However, a large P/E ratio is not necessarily a bad thing, especially for a large stable company. That stability means the company is better able to weather economic problems, and thus it is a lower risk. Now, not all companies issue dividends. Apple is probably the most well-known example. The company simply retains all its earnings to reinvest in itself. This is typically the strategy of a smaller start-up; whether they're making good money or not, they typically want to keep what they make so they can keep growing, and the shareholders are usually fine with that. Why? Well, because there's more than one way to value a company, and more than one way to look at a stock. Owning one share of a stock can be seen quite literally as owning a share of that company. The share can then be valued as a fraction of the company's total assets. Sounds simple, but it isn't, because not every asset the company owns has a line in the financial statements. A company's brand name, for instance, has no tangible value, and yet it is probably the most valuable single thing Apple owns. Similarly, intellectual property doesn't have a \"\"book value\"\" on a company's balance sheet, but again, these are huge contributors to the success and profitability of a company like Apple; the company is viewed as a center of innovation, and if it were not doing any innovating, it would very quickly be seen as a middleman for some other company's ideas and products. A company can't sustain that position for long even if it's raking in the money in the meantime. Overall, the value of a company is generally a combination of these two things; by owning a portion of stock, you own a piece of the company's assets, and also claim a piece of their profits. A large company with a lot of material assets and very little debt can be highly valued based solely on the sum of its parts, even if profits are lagging. Conversely, a company more or less operating out of a storage unit can have a patent on the cure for cancer, and be shoveling money into their coffers with bulldozers.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "57ae1dabaed20e2a1c7a8d770aa3941a",
"text": "\"I probably don't understand something. I think you are correct about that. :) The main way money enters the stock market is through investors investing and taking money out. Money doesn't exactly \"\"enter\"\" the stock market. Shares of stock are bought and sold by investors to investors. The market is just a mechanism for a buyer and seller to find each other. For the purposes of this question, we will only consider non-dividend stocks. Okay. When you buy stock, it is claimed that you own a small portion of the company. This statement has no backing, as you cannot exchange your stock for the company's assets. For example, if I bought $10 of Apple Stock early on, but it later went up to $399, I can't go to Apple and say \"\"I own $399 of you, here you go it back, give me an iPhone.\"\" The only way to redeem this is to sell the stock to another investor (like a Ponzi Scheme.) It is true that when you own stock, you own a small portion of the company. No, you can't just destroy your portion of the company; that wouldn't be fair to the other investors. But you can very easily sell your portion to another investor. The stock market facilitates that sale, making it very easy to either sell your shares or buy more shares. It's not a Ponzi scheme. The only reason your hypothetical share is said to be \"\"worth\"\" $399 is that there is a buyer that wants to buy it at $399. But there is a real company behind the stock, and it is making real money. There are several existing questions that discuss what gives a stock value besides a dividend: The stock market goes up only when more people invest in it. Although the stock market keeps tabs on Businesses, the profits of Businesses do not actually flow into the Stock Market. In particular, if no one puts money in the stock market, it doesn't matter how good the businesses do. The value of a stock is simply what a buyer is willing to pay for it. You are correct that there is not always a correlation between the price of a stock and how well the company is doing. But let's look at another hypothetical scenario. Let's say that I started and run a publicly-held company that sells widgets. The company is doing very well; I'm selling lots of widgets. In fact, the company is making incredible amounts of money. However, the stock price is not going up as fast as our revenues. This could be due to a number of reasons: investors might not be aware of our success, or investors might not think our success is sustainable. I, as the founder, own lots of shares myself, and if I want a return on my investment, I can do a couple of things with the large revenues of the company: I can either continue to reinvest revenue in the company, growing the company even more (in the hopes that investors will start to notice and the stock price will rise), or I can start paying a dividend. Either way, all the current stock holders benefit from the success of the company.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f48115d3d43eea8f5b9323be4de730af",
"text": "\"This is an excellent question, one that I've pondered before as well. Here's how I've reconciled it in my mind. Why should we agree that a stock is worth anything? After all, if I purchase a share of said company, I own some small percentage of all of its assets, like land, capital equipment, accounts receivable, cash and securities holdings, etc., as others have pointed out. Notionally, that seems like it should be \"\"worth\"\" something. However, that doesn't give me the right to lay claim to them at will, as I'm just a (very small) minority shareholder. The old adage says that \"\"something is only worth what someone is willing to pay you for it.\"\" That share of stock doesn't actually give me any liquid control over the company's assets, so why should someone else be willing to pay me something for it? As you noted, one reason why a stock might be attractive to someone else is as a (potentially tax-advantaged) revenue stream via dividends. Especially in this low-interest-rate environment, this might well exceed that which I might obtain in the bond market. The payment of income to the investor is one way that a stock might have some \"\"inherent value\"\" that is attractive to investors. As you asked, though, what if the stock doesn't pay dividends? As a small shareholder, what's in it for me? Without any dividend payments, there's no regular method of receiving my invested capital back, so why should I, or anyone else, be willing to purchase the stock to begin with? I can think of a couple reasons: Expectation of a future dividend. You may believe that at some point in the future, the company will begin to pay a dividend to investors. Dividends are paid as a percentage of a company's total profits, so it may make sense to purchase the stock now, while there is no dividend, banking on growth during the no-dividend period that will result in even higher capital returns later. This kind of skirts your question: a non-dividend-paying stock might be worth something because it might turn into a dividend-paying stock in the future. Expectation of a future acquisition. This addresses the original premise of my argument above. If I can't, as a small shareholder, directly access the assets of the company, why should I attribute any value to that small piece of ownership? Because some other entity might be willing to pay me for it in the future. In the event of an acquisition, I will receive either cash or another company's shares in compensation, which often results in a capital gain for me as a shareholder. If I obtain a capital gain via cash as part of the deal, then this proves my point: the original, non-dividend-paying stock was worth something because some other entity decided to acquire the company, paying me more cash than I paid for my shares. They are willing to pay this price for the company because they can then reap its profits in the future. If I obtain a capital gain via stock in as part of the deal, then the process restarts in some sense. Maybe the new stock pays dividends. Otherwise, perhaps the new company will do something to make its stock worth more in the future, based on the same future expectations. The fact that ownership in a stock can hold such positive future expectations makes them \"\"worth something\"\" at any given time; if you purchase a stock and then want to sell it later, someone else is willing to purchase it from you so they can obtain the right to experience a positive capital return in the future. While stock valuation schemes will vary, both dividends and acquisition prices are related to a company's profits: This provides a connection between a company's profitability, expectations of future growth, and its stock price today, whether it currently pays dividends or not.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4b82b583651de7679354952bda4f95d7",
"text": "There is nothing called actual, unless you convert currency. There are real offer rates that are slightly different from Bank to Bank. Search Engines give a generic average value based on the sites they are trust / have tie-up with. Banks don't use google or search engines to get the basis, they have quite a bit more info and there is a specific Treasury function that would look at the trend and give out a huge spread between buy and sell.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3ccaab31cbf55185b353f68bf4441bad",
"text": "Presumably you're talking about the different share class introduced in the recent stock split, which mean that there are now three Google share classes: Due to the voting rights, Class A shares should be worth more than class C, but how much only time will tell. Actually, one could very well argue that a non-voting share of a company that pays no dividends has no value at all. It's unlikely the markets will see it that way, though.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9f94ab28cf420d279e87cabb6029f65c",
"text": "In simplest terms, when a company creates new shares and sells them, it's true that existing shareholders now own a smaller percentage of the company. However, as the company is now more valuable (since it made money by selling the new shares), the real dollar value of the previous shares is unchanged. That said, the decision to issue new shares can be interpreted by investors as a signal of the company's strategy and thereby alter the market price; this may well affect the real dollar value of the previous shares. But the simple act of creating new shares does not alter the value in and of itself.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0c6d9c87fc60a8c5f72ee0140b593d35",
"text": "\"A stock, at its most basic, is worth exactly what someone else will pay to buy it right now (or in the near future), just like anything else of value. However, what someone's willing to pay for it is typically based on what the person can get from it. There are a couple of ways to value a stock. The first way is on expected earnings per share, most of would normally (but not always) be paid in dividends. This is a metric that can be calculated based on the most recently reported earnings, and can be estimated based on news about the company or the industry its in (or those of suppliers, likely buyers, etc) to predict future earnings. Let's say the stock price is exactly $100 right now, and you buy one share. In one quarter, the company is expected to pay out $2 per share in dividends. That is a 2% ROI realized in 3 months. If you took that $2 and blew it on... coffee, maybe, or you stuffed it in your mattress, you'd realize a total gain of $8 in one year, or in ROI terms an annual rate of 8%. However, if you reinvested the money, you'd be making money on that money, and would have a little more. You can calculate the exact percentage using the \"\"future value\"\" formula. Conversely, if you wanted to know what you should pay, given this level of earnings per share, to realize a given rate of return, you can use the \"\"present value\"\" formula. If you wanted a 9% return on your money, you'd pay less for the stock than its current value, all other things being equal. Vice-versa if you were happy with a lesser rate of return. The current rate of return based on stock price and current earnings is what the market as a whole is willing to tolerate. This is how bonds are valued, based on a desired rate of return by the market, and it also works for stocks, with the caveat that the dividends, and what you'll get back at the \"\"end\"\", are no longer constant as they are with a bond. Now, in your case, the company doesn't pay dividends. Ever. It simply retains all the earnings it's ever made, reinvesting them into doing new things or more things. By the above method, the rate of return from dividends alone is zero, and so the future value of your investment is whatever you paid for it. People don't like it when the best case for their money is that it just sits there. However, there's another way to think of the stock's value, which is it's more core definition; a share of the company itself. If the company is profitable, and keeps all this profit, then a share of the company equals, in part, a share of that retained earnings. This is very simplistic, but if the company's assets are worth 1 billion dollars, and it has one hundred million shares of stock, each share of stock is worth $10, because that's the value of that fraction of the company as divided up among all outstanding shares. If the company then reports earnings of $100 million, the value of the company is now 1.1 billion, and its stock should go up to $11 per share, because that's the new value of one ten-millionth of the company's value. Your ROI on this stock is $1, in whatever time period the reporting happens (typically quarterly, giving this stock a roughly 4% APY). This is a totally valid way to value stocks and to shop for them; it's very similar to how commodities, for instance gold, are bought and sold. Gold never pays you dividends. Doesn't give you voting rights either. Its value at any given time is solely what someone else will pay to have it. That's just fine with a lot of people right now; gold's currently trading at around $1,700 an ounce, and it's been the biggest moneymaker in our economy since the bottom fell out of the housing market (if you'd bought gold in 2008, you would have more than doubled your money in 4 years; I challenge you to find anything else that's done nearly as well over the same time). In reality, a combination of both of these valuation methods are used to value stocks. If a stock pays dividends, then each person gets money now, but because there's less retained earnings and thus less change in the total asset value of the company, the actual share price doesn't move (much). If a stock doesn't pay dividends, then people only get money when they cash out the actual stock, but if the company is profitable (Apple, BH, etc) then one share should grow in value as the value of that small fraction of the company continues to grow. Both of these are sources of ROI, and both are seen in a company that will both retain some earnings and pay out dividends on the rest.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
753b5e80e69dce1e639e294756c3066a
|
Investment options in Australia
|
[
{
"docid": "1c06d4979519343b62cea20210071cd7",
"text": "It depends on the exact level of risk that you want, but if you want to keep your risk close to zero you're pretty much stuck with the banks (and those rates don't look to be going up any time soon). If you're willing to accept a little more risk, you can invest in some index tracking ETFs instead, with the main providers in Australia being Vanguard, Street State and Betashares. A useful tool for for an overview of the Australian ETF market is offered by StockSpot. The index funds reduce your level of risk by investing in an index of the market, e.g. the S&P 200 tracked by STW. If the market as a whole rises, then your investment will too, even though within that index individual companies will rise and fall. This limits your potential rate of return as well, and is still significantly more risky than leaving your cash in an Aussie bank (after all, the whole market can fall), but it might strike the right balance for you. If you're getting started, HSBC, Nabtrade, Commsec and Westpac were all offering a couple of months of free trades up to a certain value. Once the free trades are done, you'll do better to move to another broker (you can migrate your shares to the others to take advantage of their free trades too) or to a cheaper broker like CMC Markets.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "aa12cba86d52e3dec51271ecfec2688a",
"text": "I can't think of any more negatives apart from what you mentioned, but the positives might include higher cost base for when you sell the place (this only applies in Australia if it is an investment property) thus having to pay less tax on the capital gains, and being able to borrowing extra funds which may help with your cashflow (especially if you keep the extra funds in an 100% offset account so your interest payable is not increased until you really need the extra funds).",
"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": "9b5277d30311e647d09ce36da90bb168",
"text": "This may not be related to the US stock exchanges but in the Australian stock exchange (ASX) many of the largest shareholders of companies are bank nominee companies. i.e. JP Morgan Nominees Limited or HSBC Custody Nominees and they own large stakes in many business's. Who's behind these investments exacly? Could it be literally anyone and if so why do they hide behind these nominee companies? Do all banks have some kind of wealth management/funds management business?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1281d435dda233f46523c5ab9f4907f2",
"text": "A recent survey conducted in Australia shows that although their mining sector is enjoying a boom, services sector is in an opposite condition. Most of the contraction was caused by a decline in new orders among the various players in the services sector while sales and prices also fell. Just 2 out of 9 sub-sectors (namely, personal and recreational services and finance and insurance) included in the survey has grown during the month. The increased activity in the mining sector is not positively affecting the remaining sectors of the local market. The chief executive of the Australian Industry Group (AI Group) said that the contraction in the services industry just shows how narrow is its base of development in the broad market. Several stability in financial states abroad in a period of few months will be favorable for allowing consumer and business confidence to improve, resulting in a gradual increase in spending. More than half of the world’s mining acquisitions in 2011 has involved projects located in US, Australia and Canada. Other buyers include China, India, Russia and Brazil, all of which increased their acquisitions by 42% since 2006. In terms of gold, the average deal is valued at USD 41 million where a premium is almost 50%. Propelling the lucrative market is Australia with 15%, United States with 14% and Canada with 49%. Considering the bigger picture of the industry, PwC seems to be expecting that this year will see record M&A valuations and volumes in the mining sector worldwide. According to the company, sovereign wealth funds tend to have more advantage in winning transactions because of their low cost of capital. PwC is assuming that non-miners like sovereign wealth funds, large pension funds and private equity might reassess their approach to the industry and begin to participate more in M&A.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a187c37f4c2d2191980124864ae8fcc2",
"text": "In Australia there are 2 type of warrants (I don't know if it is the same in the US, UK and other countries), the first are trading warrants and the second are instalment warrants. The trading warrants are exactly what it says, they are used for trading. They are similar to option and have calls and puts. As Cameron says, they differ from exchange traded options in that they are issued by the financial companies whereas options are generally written by other investors. Instalment warrants on the other hand are usually bought and sold by investors with a longer term view. There are no calls and puts and you can just go long with them. They are also issued by financial companies, and how they work is best explained through an example: if I was to buy a stock directly say I would be paying $50 per share, however an instalment warrant in the underlying stock may be offered for $27 per warrant. I could buy the warrant directly from the company when it is issued or on the secondary market just like shares. I would pay the $27 per warrant upfront, and then in 2 years time when the warrant expires I have the choice to purchase the underlying stock for the strike price of say $28, roll over to a new issue of warrants, sell it back on the secondary market, or let it expire, in which case I would receive any intrinsic value left in the warrant. You would have noticed that the warrant purchase price plus the strike price adds up to more than the share price ($55 compared to $50). This is the interest component inherent in the warrant which covers the borrowing costs until expiry, when you pay the second portion (the strike price) and receive the underlying shares. Another difference between Instalment warrants and trading warrants (and options) is that with instalment warrants you still get the full dividends just like the shares, but at a higher yield than the shares.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "55ecdda1e229a73cd562b64220076832",
"text": "As user14469 mentions you would have to decide what type of properties you would like to invest in. Are you after negatively geared properties that may have higher long term growth potential (usually within 15 to 20km from major cities), or after positive cash-flow properties which may have a lower long term growth potential (usually located more than 20km from major cities). With negative geared properties your rent from the property will not cover the mortgage and other costs, so you will have to supplement it through your income. The theory is that you can claim a tax deduction on your employment income from the negative gearing (benefits mainly those on higher tax brackets), and the potential long term growth of the property will make up for the negative gearing over the long term. If you are after these type of properties Michael Yardney has some books on the subject. On the other hand, positive cash-flow properties provide enough rental income to cover the mortgage and other costs. They put cash into your pockets each week. They don't have as much growth potential as more inner city properties, but if you stick to the outer regions of major cities, instead of rural towns, you will still achieve decent long term growth. If you are after these type of properties Margaret Lomas has some books on the subject. My preference is for cash-flow positive properties, and some of the areas user14469 has mentioned. I am personally invested in the Penrith and surrounding areas. With negatively geared properties you generally have to supplement the property with your own income and generally have to wait for the property price to increase so you build up equity in the property. This then allows you to refinance the additional equity so you can use it as deposits to buy other properties or to supplement your income. The problem is if you go through a period of low, stagnate or negative growth, you may have to wait quite a few years for your equity to increase substantially. With positively geared properties, you are getting a net income from the property every week so using none of your other income to supplement the property. You can thus afford to buy more properties sooner. And even if the properties go through a period of low, stagnate or negative growth you are still getting extra income each week. Over the long term these properties will also go up and you will have the benefit of both passive income and capital gains. I also agree with user14469 regarding doing at least 6 months of research in the area/s you are looking to buy. Visit open homes, attend auctions, talk to real estate agents and get to know the area. This kind of research will beat any information you get from websites, books and magazines. You will find that when a property comes onto the market you will know what it is worth and how much you can offer below asking price. Another thing to consider is when to buy. Most people are buying now in Australia because of the record low interest rates (below 5%). This is causing higher demand in the property markets and prices to rise steadily. Many people who buy during this period will be able to afford the property when interest rates are at 5%, but as the housing market and the economy heat up and interest rates start rising, they find it hard to afford the property when interest rate rise to 7%, 8% or higher. I personally prefer to buy when interest rates are on the rise and when they are near their highs. During this time no one wants to touch property with a six foot pole, but all the owners who bought when interest rates where much lower are finding it hard to keep making repayments so they put their properties on the market. There ends up being low demand and increased supply, causing prices to fall. It is very easy to find bargains and negotiate lower prices during this period. Because interest rates will be near or at their highs, the economy will be starting to slow down, so it will not be long before interest rates start dropping again. If you can afford to buy a property at 8% you will definitely be able to afford it at 6% or lower. Plus you would have bought at or near the lows of the price cycle, just before prices once again start increasing as interest rates drop. Read and learn as much as possible from others, but in the end make up your own mind on the type of properties and areas you prefer.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a6646a8fb13a286d8eec676138656def",
"text": "Since you have presumably now been living here for six months you may already have discovered that Australian banks charge a transaction fee whether the funds are deposited from overseas by check/cheque or telegraphically. I have an account with Bank of America and used to be able to draw funds from Australian bank Westpac via their ATMs without incurring a fee, because BofA and Westpac are both members of a Global ATM Alliance that did not charge fees to each others customers. But now they have initiated a new policy, and take 3% of every sum withdrawn. Not quite usury, but in the same ballpark. I'm now investigating the possibility of opening a Schwab or a Capital One account in the US, and using one of their credit cards, which, I believe, would allow withdrawals at Australian ATMs for no fee. If you find or have found a good answer to your dilemma I hope you will share it.",
"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": "8f200ee7a5a6d36978324a23b4718750",
"text": "You cannot do this as per the reasons mentioned by others above, mainly foreign banks cannot hold mortgages over properties in other countries. If this was possible to do, don't you think many others would be applying overseas for mortgages and loans. And even if it was possible the overseas bank would give you a comparative rate to compete with the rates already offered in Australia (to compensate with the extra risks). If you cannot afford to purchase a property at record low rates of below 5% in Australia, then you may want to re-think your strategy.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "74b29da71765c7cbe5d01f3f964e4834",
"text": "That's a broad question, but I can throw some thoughts at you from personal experience. I'm actually an Australian who has worked in a couple of companies but across multiple countries and I've found out first hand that you have a wealth of opportunities that other people don't have, but you also have a lot of problems that other people won't have. First up, asset classes. Real estate is a popular asset class, but unless you plan on being in each of these countries for a minimum of one to two years, it would be seriously risky to invest in rental residential or commercial real estate. This is because it takes a long time to figure out each country's particular set of laws around real estate, plus it will take a long time to get credit from the local bank institutions and to understand the local markets well enough to select a good location. This leaves you with the classics of stocks and bonds. You can buy stocks and bonds in any country typically. So you could have some stocks in a German company, a bond fund in France and maybe a mutual fund in Japan. This makes for interesting diversification, so if one country tanks, you can potentially be hedged in another. You also get to both benefit and be punished by foreign exchange movements. You might have made a killing on that stock you bought in Tokyo, but it turns out the Yen just fell by 15%. Doh. And to top this off, you are almost certainly going to end up filling out tax returns in each country you have made money in. This can get horribly complicated, very quickly. As a person who has been dealing with the US tax system, I can tell you that this is painful and the US in particular tries to get a cut of your worldwide income. That said, keep in mind each country has different tax rates, so you could potentially benefit from that as well. My advice? Choose one country you suspect you'll spend most of your life in and keep most of your assets there. Make a few purchases in other places, but minimize it. Ultimately most ex-pats move back to their country of origin as friends, family and shared culture bring them home.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "59b331357427c7f84ef6709fbdfc5a91",
"text": "I've had a small forex investment in the AUDUSD since Oct of 2010 at 50:1 leverage, and have more than doubled my investment on the swap alone. Granted this is high risk with virtually every guarantee that it will fail *eventually*, but the AUD hasn't dropped at anytime during this trade enough to stop me out so far. With a higher interest rate, there's a natural scarcity in the AUD, especially when compared to the USD. Unless there's another crash like 2008, Asian trading with Aus significantly weakens, or the RBA screws the pooch, the AUD doesn't have many factors with a high probability for devastating impact on the currency.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "34924fabbad7d75e8e145ad423a95c1e",
"text": "Make sure you have a budget, there is a pretty cool budget tracker that you can download here (it works in excel and is easy to use). The important thing is to not only make a budget but also keep in touch and track your budget, some free ebooks and other investment ebooks too. Just start with the budget tracker: http://www.futureassist.com.au/young-to-mid-life Focus on paying off debt first Next look at ETF's (Exchange Traded Funds) as a possible investment option - this is an Australian Government Website but ETF's all work in the same way: https://www.moneysmart.gov.au/investing/managed-funds/exchange-traded-funds-etfs",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "58b4d3e97ef5bd7787febc8e5c69e50a",
"text": "Let us consider the risks in the investment opportunities: Now, what are the returns in each of the investment: What are the alternatives to these investments, then?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ab5c1671ac2ffb380ff40d351a547036",
"text": "Now it's been a while since I read these, and I'm not complete sure if these are the kinds of books that you're looking for, but I found them quite good: Options, Futures, and Other Derivatives by Hull: http://amzn.com/0133456315 Investments and Portfolio Management by Bodie, Kane & Marcus: http://amzn.com/0071289143 I hope this helps!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e45f199539d8ac4411bee0f9d02bb132",
"text": "OptionsXpress includes India in the list of countries where is possible to open an international account to invest in the US Stock Market. They just merged with Charles Schwab and they have a nice online trading platform. Stocks and ETFs are little bit pricey.. Get in touch with them to get more information.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
5f499a82c524404cf39793620cfc0642
|
Fund or ETF that simulates the investment goals of an options “straddle” strategy?
|
[
{
"docid": "f5d1bb9637a662ac31b1166409cf10ea",
"text": "I am not aware of a single instrument that encapsulates what you are after; but the components do exist. At least in Canada, there are many Options traded on the Montreal Exchange that are based on Toronto ETFs. All the standard TSX ETFs are represented, as well as some of the more exotic. With a regular investment account approved for Options you should be able to do what you want. In a parallel vein, there are also double down and up ETFs. One such example are the Horizons BetaPro series of ETFs. They are designed to return double the market up or down on a daily basis and reset daily. They do need to be watched closely, however. Good Luck",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "788df31037f6f5414e1fd5d8b0819883",
"text": "*Volatility and the VIX can be very tricky to trade. In particular, going out longer than a month can result in highly surprising outcomes because the VIX is basically always a one month snapshot, even when the month is out in the future.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "286feafe4312307d2c0fb34a4a46c7df",
"text": "\"Why bother with the ETF? Just trade the options -- at least you have the ability to know what you actually are doing. The \"\"exotic\"\" ETFs the let you \"\"double long\"\" or short indexes aren't options contracts -- they are just collections of unregulated swaps with no transparency. Most of the short/double long ETFs also only attempt to track the security over the course of one day -- you are supposed to trade them daily. Also, you have no guarantee that the ETFs will perform as desired -- even during the course of a single day. IMO, the simplicity of the ETF approach is deceiving.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "4d785c5ac59a0677718f29a2e3489921",
"text": "There are ETFs listed on the Brazilian stock market. Specifically there is one for S&P500 - SPXI11, which might fulfill your requirements, though as one commenter has observed, it doesn't answer your original question.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "80df8f80a32972fa0445cd1e0d529ac9",
"text": "This is the chart going back to the first full year of this fund. To answer your question - yes, a low cost ETF or Mutual fund is fine. Why not go right to an S&P index? VOO has a .05% expense. Why attracted you to a choice that lagged the S&P by $18,000 over this 21 year period? (And yes, past performance, yada, yada, but that warning is appropriate for the opposite example. When you show a fund that beat the S&P short term, say 5 years, its run may be over. But this fund lagged the S&P by a significant margin over 2 decades, what makes you think this will change?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ab3953e4aa133925a57bb0277db2538d",
"text": "Though a fan of ETFs (esp. high volume commission-free ones) recently a single, new fund VQT appeared on my radar of interest. It's based on dynamic hedging that has sort of build-in diversification and adapts to the market climate, pulling in and out varying amounts from cash, the S&P 500 and volatility futures based on VIX. I've been Long VQT and it's followed the S&P500 during good times, though not at far, but crucially disconnected with much milder losses when the general market was nose diving. You can lookup and compare to SPY at http://finance.google.com Not trying to give investment advice, in case that upsets some rules.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aa3e84867601957ef5b60a40bf9e86b3",
"text": "I would buy an ETF (or maybe a couple) in stable, blue chip companies with a decent yield (~3%) and then I'd play a conservative covered call strategy on the stock selling a new position about once a month. That's just me.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5a9de080444de75c710b8e60527623c7",
"text": "\"I'm trying to understand how an ETF manager optimized it's own revenue. Here's an example that I'm trying to figure out. ETF firm has an agreement with GS for blocks of IBM. They have agreed on daily VWAP + 1% for execution price. Further, there is a commission schedule for 5 mils with GS. Come month end, ETF firm has to do a monthly rebalance. As such must buy 100,000 shares at IBM which goes for about $100 The commission for the trade is 100,000 * 5 mils = $500 in commission for that trade. I assume all of this is covered in the expense ratio. Such that if VWAP for the day was 100, then each share got executed to the ETF at 101 (VWAP+ %1) + .0005 (5 mils per share) = for a resultant 101.0005 cost basis The ETF then turns around and takes out (let's say) 1% as the expense ratio ($1.01005 per share) I think everything so far is pretty straight forward. Let me know if I missed something to this point. Now, this is what I'm trying to get my head around. ETF firm has a revenue sharing agreement as well as other \"\"relations\"\" with GS. One of which is 50% back on commissions as soft dollars. On top of that GS has a program where if you do a set amount of \"\"VWAP +\"\" trades you are eligible for their corporate well-being programs and other \"\"sponsorship\"\" of ETF's interests including helping to pay for marketing, rent, computers, etc. Does that happen? Do these disclosures exist somewhere?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "a1067988ca3dbd54832b06c64a3db0e8",
"text": "Based on what you wrote, you would be better off with no position to start, and then enter a buy stop 10% above the market, and a sell stop 10% below the market, both to open positions depending on which way the market moves. If the market doesn't move that 10%, you stay flat. However, a long option straddle position requires that the market moves significantly one way or the other just so you recover the premium that you paid for the straddle. If the market doesn't move, you will lose money on your straddle due to theta decay and a drop in volatility. Alternatively, you could buy a strangle, with a call strike 10% out, and a put strike 10% out. The premiums would be much much lower, and these wculd take the place of the stop entries. Personally, I would never buy a straddle, but I do sometimes sell them, especially when implied volatility is very high.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dc0fca384efd207079bd84b1a61cfe63",
"text": "thanks! hence the etf - I hoped to get an ETF of say 20-25 positions, out of which 12 will lose in value, 10 will stay flat or lose a bit, and 2-3 go AAPL, bringing the total ETF up by a solid 10% or so :) and then the divident game begins.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c382ab89f323f5aa80febf3f096bc883",
"text": "A DRIP plan with the ETF does just that. It provides cash (the dividends you are paid) back to the fund manager who will accumulate all such reinvested dividends and proportionally buy more shares of stock in the ETF. Most ETFs will not do this without your approval, as the dividends are taxed to you (you must include them as income for that year if this is in a taxable account) and therefore you should have the say on where the dividends go.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ed926f710629515a91067c59d843d108",
"text": "Hi. Straddle: Buy a call and a put with an identical strike price. The strike is the price at which you can exercise the option. You pay a premium (cash) to buy the options. Typically you need a large amount of volatility in pricing movement in order to breakeven on the combined premium paid. Strangle: Purchasing a call and a put option with a non-identical strike price. Once again it is a volatility trading play. You need some type of price movement in the underlying security in order to break even or profit on the trade.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a38a79a2d92f9dc619c8dd5d99637ceb",
"text": "A long straddle using equity would be more akin to buying a triple leveraged ETF and an inverse triple leveraged ETF, only because one side will approach zero while the other can theoretically increase to infinity, in a short time span before time decay hits in. The reason your analogy fails is because the delta is 1.0 on both sides of your trade. At the money options, a necessary requirement for a straddle, have a delta of .5 There is an options strategy that uses in the money calls and puts with a delta closer to 1.0 to create an in the money strangle. I'm not sure if it is more similar to your strategy, an analogous options strategy would be better than yours as it would not share the potential for a margin call.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f50a77edeff46066dd58bbd93707a0f4",
"text": "Here are the specific Vanguard index funds and ETF's I use to mimic Ray Dalio's all weather portfolio for my taxable investment savings. I invest into this with Vanguard personal investor and brokerage accounts. Here's a summary of the performance results from 2007 to today: 2007 is when the DBC commodity fund was created, so that's why my results are only tested back that far. I've tested the broader asset class as well and the results are similar, but I suggest doing that as well for yourself. I use portfoliovisualizer.com to backtest the results of my portfolio along with various asset classes, that's been tremendously useful. My opinionated advice would be to ignore the local investment advisor recommendations. Nobody will ever care more about your money than you, and their incentives are misaligned as Tony mentions in his book. Mutual funds were chosen over ETF's for the simplicity of auto-investment. Unfortunately I have to manually buy the ETF shares each month (DBC and GLD). I'm 29 and don't use this for retirement savings. My retirement is 100% VSMAX. I'll adjust this in 20 years or so to be more conservative. However, when I get close to age 45-50 I'm planning to shift into this allocation at a market high point. When I approach retirement, this is EXACTLY where I want to be. Let's say you had $2.7M in your retirement account on Oct 31, 2007 that was invested in 100% US Stocks. In Feb of 2009 your balance would be roughly $1.35M. If you wanted to retire in 2009 you most likely couldn't. If you had invested with this approach you're account would have dropped to $2.4M in Feb of 2009. Disclaimer: I'm not a financial planner or advisor, nor do I claim to be. I'm a software engineer and I've heavily researched this approach solely for my own benefit. I have absolutely no affiliation with any of the tools, organizations, or funds mentioned here and there's no possible way for me to profit or gain from this. I'm not recommending anyone use this, I'm merely providing an overview of how I choose to invest my own money. Take or leave it, that's up to you. The loss/gain incured from this is your responsibility, and I can't be held accountable.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3aa935aa25a7851ccd845e69c74c8def",
"text": "\"There is a site that treats you like a fund manager in the real market, Marketoracy, http://marketocracy.com/. Each user is given 1 million in cash. You can have multiple \"\"mutual funds\"\", and the site allows use to choose between two types of strategies, buy/sell, short/cover. Currently, options are not supported. The real value of the site is that users are ranked against each other (of course, you can op out of the rankings). This is really cool because you can determine the real worth of your returns compared to the rest of investors across the site. A couple years back, the top 100 investors were invited to come on as real mutual fund managers - so the competition is legitimate. Take a look at the site, it's definitely worth a try. Were there other great sites you looked at?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "51a6ba3c5c5b04a242d6415f5793f7b8",
"text": "Does anyone know if there is a way to set up a practice account? I only have index ETFs currently, and would like to play around and get a feel for other stocks/options before putting real money into it.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
f73489b07caa1c9099e6c6d344609fdb
|
Options “Collar” strategy vs regular Profit/Loss stops
|
[
{
"docid": "9bc73d53e445d4e06f80d11061b421f0",
"text": "There are a few differences:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2959a2d3ba81411ae55c07a1df56331c",
"text": "consider capital requirements and risk timeframes. With options, the capital requirements are far smaller than owning the underlying securities with stops. Options also allow one to constrain risk to a timeframe of ones own choosing (the expiration date of the contract). If you own or are short the underlying security, there is no time horizon.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "b60b4dc09e62f541f1c4c482a5ba87b5",
"text": "You should know when to sell your shares before you buy them. This is most easily done by placing a stop loss conditional order at the same time you place your buy order. There are many ways to determine at what level to place your stop losses at. The easiest is to place a trailing stop loss at a percentage below the highest close price, so as the price reaches new highs the trailing stop will rise. If looking for short to medium term gains you might place your trailing stop at 10% below the highest close, whilst if you were looking for more longer term gains you should probably place a 20% trailing stop. Another way to place your stops for short to medium term gains is to keep moving your trailing stop up to just below the last trough in an existing uptrend.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a38a79a2d92f9dc619c8dd5d99637ceb",
"text": "A long straddle using equity would be more akin to buying a triple leveraged ETF and an inverse triple leveraged ETF, only because one side will approach zero while the other can theoretically increase to infinity, in a short time span before time decay hits in. The reason your analogy fails is because the delta is 1.0 on both sides of your trade. At the money options, a necessary requirement for a straddle, have a delta of .5 There is an options strategy that uses in the money calls and puts with a delta closer to 1.0 to create an in the money strangle. I'm not sure if it is more similar to your strategy, an analogous options strategy would be better than yours as it would not share the potential for a margin call.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8fd24a7a18ae6dee7c86ef01815fefa1",
"text": "\"The emphasis of \"\"stop loss\"\" is \"\"stop\"\", not \"\"loss\"\". Stop and long term are contradictory. After you stop, what are you going to do with your cash? Since it's long term, you still have 5+ years to before you use the money, do you simply park everything in 0.5% savings account? On the other hand, if your investment holds N stocks and one has dropped a lot, you are free to switch to another one. This is just an investment strategy and you are still in the market.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "36b8b1af37a467e92fa7713c0d929db8",
"text": "How so? If i sell short, then i make a profit only if the price goes down so i can buy back at a lower price. Yes, but if the price is going up then you would go long instead. Shorting a stock (or any other asset) allows you to profit when the price is going down. Going long allows you to profit when the price is going up. In the opposite cases, you lose money. In order to make a profit in either of those situations, you have to accurately assess which way the price will trade over the period of time you are dealing with. If you make the wrong judgment, then you lose money because you'll either sell for a lower price than you bought (if you went long), or have to buy back at a higher price than you sold for (if you went short). In either case, unless the trader can live with making a short-term loss and recouperating it later, one needs a good stop-loss strategy.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3cd8c165d5a3432ca97e0bc8d9c44877",
"text": "The issue with trading stocks vs. mutual funds (or ETFs) is all about risk. You trade Microsoft you now have a Stock Risk in your portfolio. It drops 5% you are down 5%. Instead if you want to buy Tech and you buy QQQ if MSFT fell 5% the QQQs would not be as impacted to the downside. So if you want to trade a mutual fund, but you want to be able to put in stop sell orders trade ETFs instead. Considering mutual funds it is better to say Invest vs. Trade. Since all fund families have different rules and once you sell (if you sell it early) you will pay a fee and will not be able to invest in that same fund for x number of days (30, 60...)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "544edd3bd1f3734a332ddf9166bad4ae",
"text": "I use over half my buying power of my portfolio for options, and I'm not a fan of any of the strategies listed above either (I stay away from negative theta trades for the most part), but I just listed them to point out that saying the reason someone wouldn't enter a short position is for fear of infinite losses is asinine. It's easy enough to make any trade risk defined if that is something the trader cares about.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2fd055035118e9368579e888c579bdf7",
"text": "It depends to some extent on how you interpret the situation, so I think this is the general idea. Say you purchase one share at $50, and soon after, the price moves up, say, to $55. You now have an unrealized profit of $5. Now, you can either sell and realize that profit, or hold on to the position, expecting a further price appreciation. In either case, you will consider the price change from this traded price, which is $55, and not the price you actually bought at. Hence, if the price fell to $52 in the next trade, you have a loss of $3 on your previous profit of $5. This (even though your net P&L is calculated from the initial purchase price of $50), allows you to think in terms of your positions at the latest known prices. This is similar to a Markov process, in the sense that it doesn't matter which route the stock price (and your position's P&L) took to get to the current point; your decision should be based on the current/latest price level.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "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": "9443fc7e998ed1319ccfc06ef4babaf3",
"text": "\"The question mentions a trailing stop. A trailing stop is a type of stop loss order. It allows you to protect your profit on the stock, while \"\"keeping you in the stock\"\". A trailing stop is specified as a percentage of market price e.g. you might want to set a trailing stop at 5%, or 10% below the market price. A trailing stop goes up along with the market price, but if the market price drops it doesn't move down too. The idea is that it is there to \"\"catch\"\" your profit, if the market suddenly moves quickly against you. There is a nice explanation of how that works in the section titled Trailing Stops here. (The URL for the page, \"\"Tailing Stops\"\" is misleading, and a typo, I suspect.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "53b529f6246aff964b4158c99be3e588",
"text": "I would be using stop limit orders for stocks that are not too volatile. If you look at the chart and there are not many gaps especially after peaks, then you have more chance of being filled at your specified stop loss level using a stop limit order. If the stock is very volatile and has a large or many gaps down after most peak, then I would consider using a stop market order to make sure you do get out even if it is somewhat past your desired stop level. One think to consider is to avoid trading very volatile stocks that gap often. This is what I do, and using stop limit orders my stop level is achieved more than 95% of the time.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "043403925d1b5a388d2882a62cad96ed",
"text": "An option, by definition, is a guess about the future value of the stock. If you guess too aggressively, you lose the purchase price of the option; if you guess too conservatively, you may not take the option or may not gain as much as you might have. You need to figure out what you expect to happen, and how confident you are about it, against the cost of taking the option -- and be reasonably confident that the change in the stock's value will be at least large enough to cover the cost of buying into the game. Opinion: Unless you're comfortable with expectation values and bell curves around them, it's significantly easier to lose money on options than to profit on them. And I'm not convinced that even statisticians can really do this well. I've always been told that the best use for options is hedging an investment you've already made; treating them as your primary bet is gambling, not investment.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "738f4f01cacfac6815ef39b5068ee1ea",
"text": "I don't know too much about the kelly criterion, but going by the other answers it sounds like it could be quite risky depending how you use it. I have been taught the first thing you do in trading is protect your existing capital and any profits you have made, and for this reason I prefer and use Position Sizing (PS). The concept with PS is that you only risk a small % of your capital on every trade, usually not more than 1%, however if you want to be very aggressive then not more than 2%. I use 1% of my capital for every trade. So if you are trading with an account of $40,000 and your risk R on every trade is 1%, then R = $400. As an example, say you decide to buy a stock at $10 and you work out your initial stop to be at $9.50, then our maximum risk R of $400 is divided by the stop distance of $0.50 to get your PS = $400/$0.50 = 800 shares. If the price then drops after your purchase, your maximum loss (subject to no slippage) would be $400. If the price moves up you would raise your stop until your potential loss becomes smaller and smaller and then becomes a gain once your stop moves above your initial purchase price. The aim is to make your gains be larger than your losses. So if your average loss is kept to 1R or less then you should aim to get your average gains to 2R, 3R or more. This would be considered a good trading system where you will make regular profits even with a win ratio of 50%.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "439a9d97937e6006281a1741048d939e",
"text": "\"As already noted, options contain inherent leverage (a multiplier on the profit or loss). The amount of \"\"leverage\"\" is dictated primarily by both the options strike relative to the current share price and the time remaining to expiration. Options are a far more difficult investment than stocks because they require that you are right on both the direction and the timing of the future price movement. With a stock, you could choose to buy and hold forever (Buffett style), and even if you are wrong for 5 years, your unrealized losses can suddenly become realized profits if the shares finally start to rise 6 years later. But with options, the profits and losses become very final very quickly. As a professional options trader, the single best piece of advice I can give to investors dabbling in options for the first time is to only purchase significantly ITM (in-the-money) options, for both calls and puts. Do a web search on \"\"in-the-money options\"\" to see what calls or puts qualify. With ITM options, the leverage is still noticeably better than buying/selling the shares outright, but you have a much less chance of losing all your premium. Also, by being fairly deep in-the-money, you reduce the constant bleed in value as you wait for the expected move to happen (the market moves sideways more than people usually expect). Fairly- to deeply-ITM options are the ones that options market-makers like least to trade in, because they offer neither large nor \"\"easy\"\" premiums. And options market-makers make their living by selling options to retail investors and other people that want them like you, so connect the dots. By trading only ITM options until you become quite experienced, you are minimizing your chances of being the average sucker (all else equal). Some amateur options investors believe that similar benefits could be obtained by purchasing long-expiration options (like LEAPS for 1+ years) that are not ITM (like ATM or OTM options). The problem here is that your significant time value is bleeding away slowly every day you wait. With an ITM option, your intrinsic value is not bleeding out at all. Only the relatively smaller time value of the option is at risk. Thus my recommendation to initially deal only in fairly- to deeply-ITM options with expirations of 1-4 months out, depending on how daring you wish to be with your move timing.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6c31cc642447b46b462ffbae99e40bcf",
"text": "\"As you are earning an income by working in India, you are required to pay tax in India. If you contract is of freelance, then the income earned by you has to be self declared and taxes paid accordingly. There are some expenses one can claim, a CA should be able to guide you. Not sure why the Swiss comapny is paying taxes?. Are they depositing this with Income Tax, India, do they have a TAN Number. If yes, then you don't need to pay tax. But you need to get a statement from your company showing the tax paid on behalf of you. You can also verify the tax paid on your behalf via \"\"http://incometaxindia.gov.in/26ASTaxCreditStatement.asp\"\" you cna register. Alternatively if you have a Bank Account in India with a PAN card on their records, most Banks provide a link to directly see\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
5ff870b09014c11e3f303a50d1a34810
|
Put Option Pricing
|
[
{
"docid": "6d312df32e59cafd30d39ede730a4e1b",
"text": "Standard options are contracts for 100 shares. If the option is for $0.75/share and you are buying the contract for 100 shares the price would be $75 plus commission. Some brokers have mini options available which is a contract for 10 shares. I don't know if all brokers offer this option and it is not available on all stocks. The difference between the 1 week and 180 day price is based on anticipated price changes over the given time. Most people would expect more volatility over a 6 month period than a 1 week period thus the demand for a higher premium for the longer option.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "37746c35a5215dfe0fce2b7fab17a074",
"text": "I use futures options as a sort of hedge to an underwater position that I want to hold onto. If I am short at 3900 on /NQ and it moves up 3910 then I can sell a put against my position. For example, I sell this month's 3850 put for 15.00. If the NQ continues up to 3920, I can probably buy back that put for ~12.00 and sell the 3860 for 15.00. Rinse and repeat if it keeps moving up. If then the NQ moves down to 3900 then my futures position will be up +10 where my futures options put position will only be down about -3 for a net of +7. I suppose you could also trade a futures option by itself instead of the future's contract if you didn't want to risk as much $ in a day trade. Keep in mind that price you see for a future's options relates to the underlying. For /NQ 1 point = $20 so if a 3850 put costs 15.00 that is really $300. ES (Sp 500 futures) 1 point = $50 so a 1900 put that costs 15.00 would really be $750.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c0d8c8068884d5e95389705b50c92ebb",
"text": "Not necessarily though, since you can simply adjust the premium. I'm thinking an embedded option is just an option with longer maturity, and the increased price of that adjusted option can be reflected (like any other option) in the strike price or the premium. Am I missing something?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "81cafbab05e74c278472f459ec1a270a",
"text": "But if underlying goes to 103 at expiration, both the call and the put expire worthless If the stock closes at 103 on expiration, the 105 put is worth $2, not worthless.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "93d2fe2b1e20f6d125c903df36baa9ca",
"text": "Option prices are computed by determining the cost of obtaining the option returns using a strategy that trades the underlying asset continuously. It sounds like what you are describing is rapidly trading the option in order to obtain returns similar to those of the stock. The equality goes both ways. If the option is appropriately priced, then a strategy that replicates stock returns using the option will cost the same as buying the stock. Because you can't trade continuously, you won't actually be able to replicate the stock return, and it may seem like you are making arbitrage profit (puts may seem abnormally expensive), but you do so by bearing tail risk (i.e., selling puts loses more money than owning the associated stock if an unusually bad event occurs).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "32ca0287dec65ed058c50e3065c832de",
"text": "\"Suppose the stock is $41 at expiry. The graph says I will lose money. I think I paid $37.20 for (net debit) at this price. I would make money, not lose. What am I missing? The `net debit' doesn't have anything to do with your P/L graph. Your graph is also showing your profit and loss for NOW and only one expiration. Your trade has two expirations, and I don't know which one that graph is showing. That is the \"\"mystery\"\" behind that graph. Regardless, your PUTs are mitigating your loss as you would expect, if you didn't have the put you would simply lose more money at that particular price range. If you don't like that particular range then you will have to consider a different contract. it was originally a simple covered call, I added a put to protect from stock going lower.. Your strike prices are all over the place and NBIX has a contract at every whole number.... there is nothing simple about this trade. You typically won't find an \"\"always profitable\"\" combination of options. Also, changes in volatility can distort your projects greatly.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "afb2514d0bcc317591e0880e2da56825",
"text": "/u/NotMyRealFaceBook As a sniff test, I threw the following assumptions into a Black-Scholes options pricing calculator: * Stock Price and Strike Price = $200 * Valuation date = 10/31/2017 * Expiration date = 10/29/2027 (European style - no early exercise) * Volatility = 20% (on the low end for a tech. company - but again see the non-log-normal assumption point above) * Interest rate = 4% (on the high end - which means the option seller is over-charging you) * Dividend yield = 0% The calculator's theoretical call option price results in $82. Unless the company in question has a materially skewed upside given today's starting valuation, my opinion is the options you are offered are being priced via a Black-Scholes model and are over-priced.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6a036dd6f6514c29d721f7415141b6b3",
"text": "I'll just copypasta out of the book for the sake of clarity: * If you think about it, you see that the only brokers who touch the switch for light bulb number 64 are those whose numbers are divisors of 64. That is, light bulb 64 has its state changed by brokers whose numbers are factors of 64. This means brokers 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64. Because light bulb 64 is originally off, it must be after this odd number of switches that it is on. * You want to be short a put if you expect a price rise. In this case, you expect to keep the option premium when the option expires worthless. There are a few pages worth of questions for the options, so the explanation for the IBM one is somewhat limited.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e3d1e48c30b962e0ee872af3c0d3f9db",
"text": "A few observations - A limit order can certainly work, as you've seen. I've put in such an order far beyond the true value, and gotten back a realistic bid/ask within 10 minutes or so. That at least gave me an idea where to set my limit. When this doesn't work, an exercise is always another way to go. You'll get the full intrinsic value, but no time value, by definition. Per your request in comment - You own a put, strike price $100. The stock (or ETF) is trading at $50. You buy the stock and tell the broker to exercise the put, i.e. deliver the stock to the buyer of the put.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "742924be536e77e72d8582ba9d07b79e",
"text": "Understanding the BS equation is not needed. What is needed is an understanding of the bell curve. You seem to understand volatility. 68% of the time an event will fall inside one standard deviation. 16% of the time it will be higher, 16%, lower. Now, if my $100 stock has a STD of $10, there's a 16% chance it will trade above $110. But if the STD is $5, the chance is 2.3% per the chart below. The higher volatility makes the option more valuable as there's a highr chance of it being 'in the money.' My answer is an over simplification, per your request.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "95990e2deb47c699cd1bc4ea73f3996b",
"text": "As other uses have pointed out, your example is unusual in that is does not include any time value or volatility value in the quoted premiums, the premiums you quote are only intrinsic values. For well in-the-money options, the intrinsic value will certainly be the vast majority of the premium, but not the sole component. Having said that, the answer would clearly be that the buyer should buy the $40 call at a premium of $10. The reason is that the buyer will pay less for the option and therefore risk less money, or buy more options for the same amount of money. Since the buyer is assuming that the price will rise, the return that will be realised will be the same in gross terms, but higher in relative terms for the buyer of the $40 call. For example, if the underlying price goes to $60, then the buyer of the $40 call would (potentially) double their money when the premium goes from $10 to $20, while the buyer of the $30 call would realise a (potential) 50% profit when the premium goes from $20 to $30. Considering the situation beyond your scenario, things are more difficult if the bet goes wrong. If the underlying prices expires at under $40, then the buyer of the $40 call will be better off in gross terms but may be worse off in relative terms (if it expires above $30). If the underlying price expires between $40 and $50, then the buy of the $30 will be better off in relative term, having lost a smaller percentage of their money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "82e097678b3ea048d84461ad7d38cdcc",
"text": "\"One thing I would like to clear up here is that Black Scholes is just a model that makes some assumptions about the dynamics of the underlying + a few other things and with some rather complicated math, out pops the Black Scholes formula. Black Scholes gives you the \"\"real\"\" price under the assumptions of the model. Your definition of what a \"\"real\"\" price entails will depend on what assumptions you make. With that being said, Black Scholes is popular for pricing European options because of the simplicity and speed of using an analytic formula as opposed to having a more complex model that can only be evaluated using a numerical method, as DumbCoder mentioned (should note that, for many other types of derivative contracts, e.g. American or Bermudan style exercise, the Black Scholes analytic formula is not appropriate). The other important thing to note here is that the market does not necessarily need to agree with the assumptions made in the Black Scholes model (and they most certainly do not) to use it. If you look at implied vols for a set of options which have the same expiration but differing strike prices, you may find that the implied vols for each contract differ and this information is telling you to what degree the traders in the market for those contracts disagree with the lognormal distribution assumption made by Black Scholes. Implied vol is generally the thing to look at when determining cheapness/expensiveness of an option contract. With all that being said, what I'm assuming you are interested in is either called a \"\"delta-gamma approximation\"\" or more generally \"\"Greek/sensitivities based profit and loss attribution\"\" (in case you wanted to Google some more about it). Here is an example that is relevant to your question. Let's say we had the following European call contract: Popping this in to BS formula gives you a premium of $4.01, delta of 0.3891 and gamma of 0.0217. Let's say you bought it, and the price of the stock immediately moves to 55 and nothing else changes, re-evaluating with the BS formula gives ~6.23. Whereas using a delta-gamma approximation gives: The actual math doesn't work out exactly and that is due to the fact that there are higher order Greeks than gamma but as you can see here clearly they do not have much of an impact considering a 10% move in the underlying is almost entirely explained by delta and gamma.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "285a03c9ad4b1e6cab12e0675e95ec57",
"text": "If we were to observe some call price (e.g., 15), and then derived implied volatilities from the BS formula depending on different strike prices but fixed maturity (i.e, maturity = 1, and strike goes from 80 to 140??), would we then see a smile? Yes. Market prices for various strikes and a given maturity often have higher implied volatilities from the Black-Scholes model away from at-the-money. It is not accounted for in the Black-Scholes model in the fact that volatility is not a function of strike, so volatility is assumed to be constant across strikes, but the market does not price options that way. I don't know that a quantitative theory has ever been proven; I've always just assumed that people are willing to pay slightly more for options deep in or out of the money based on their strategy, but I have no evidence to base that theory on.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f4ea07c1d545d71f26856ad9d46c4ed8",
"text": "Outside of software that can calculate the returns: You could calculate your possible returns on that leap spread as you ordinarily would, then place the return results of that and the return results for the covered call position side by side for any given price level of the stock you calculate, and net them out. (Netting out the dollar amounts, not percentage returns.) Not a great answer, but there ya go. Software like OptionVue is expensive",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "df8af3e35f4d98e5f505d9e2009341ab",
"text": "When dividend is announced the stock and option price may react to that news, but the actual payout of the dividend on the ex-dividend date is what you probably are referring to. The dividend payout affects the stock price on the ex-dividend date as the stock price will drop by the amount of paid out dividend (not taking into account other factors). This in turn drives the prices of all options. The amount of change in the option price for this event is not only dependent the dividend payout, but also on how far these are in our out of the money and what there time to expiration is. The price of a call option that is far out of the money would react less than the price of a put that would be far in the money. Therefore I would argue that these two will not necessarily offset each other.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4ba855945cfa8e9af71a8036def16481",
"text": "\"Bull means the investor is betting on a rising market. Puts are a type of stock option where the seller of a put option promises to buy 100 shares of stock from the buyer of the put option at a pre-agreed price called the strike price on any day before expiration day. The buyer of the put option does not have to sell (it is optional, thats why it is called buying an option). However, the seller of the put is required to make good on their promise to the buyer. The broker can require the seller of the put option to have a deposit, called margin, to help make sure that they can make good on the promise. Profit... The buyer can profit from the put option if the stock price moves down substantially. The buyer of the put option does not need to own the stock, he can sell the option to someone else. If the buyer of the put option also owns the stock, the put option can be thought of like an insurance policy on the value of the stock. The seller of the put option profits if the stock price stays the same or rises. Basically, the seller comes out best if they can sell put options that no one ends up using by expiration day. A spread is an investment consisting of buying one option and selling another. Let's put bull and put and spread together with an example from Apple. So, if you believed Apple Inc. AAPL (currently 595.32) was going up or staying the same through JAN you could sell the 600 JAN put and buy the 550 put. If the price rises beyond 600, your profit would be the difference in price of the puts. Let's explore this a little deeper (prices from google finance 31 Oct 2012): Worst Case: AAPL drops below 550. The bull put spread investor owes (600-550)x100 shares = $5000 in JAN but received $2,035 for taking this risk. EDIT 2016: The \"\"worst case\"\" was the outcome in this example, the AAPL stock price on options expiry Jan 18, 2013 was about $500/share. Net profit = $2,035 - $5,000 = -$2965 = LOSS of $2965 Best Case: AAPL stays above 600 on expiration day in JAN. Net Profit = $2,035 - 0 = $2035 Break Even: If AAPL drops to 579.65, the value of the 600 JAN AAPL put sold will equal the $2,035 collected and the bull put spread investor will break even. Commissions have been ignored in this example.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
2f5ff84301a1f3d46b57128cfb9a1eff
|
Calculating the profit earned from a leveraged futures contract
|
[
{
"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": "7b98ebb079f0d5f8f570aa1aab78fe5b",
"text": "\"The fact that dividends grow in perpetuity does not prevent one from calculating duration. In fact, many academic papers look at exactly this problem, such as Lewin and Satchell. This Wilmott thread discusses some of the pros and cons of the concept in some detail. PS: Although I was already broadly familiar with the literature and I use the duration of equities in some of my every-day work as a professional working in finance, I found the links above doing a simple google search for \"\"equity duration.\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1c311dcf9b9b6b19634e28b5e0457ec5",
"text": "In addition to the answer from CQM, let me answer your 'am I missing anything?' question. Then I'll talk about how your approach of simplifying this is making it both harder and easier for you. Last I'll show what my model for this would look like, but if you aren't capable of stacking this up yourself, then you REALLY shouldn't be borrowing 10,000 to try to make money on the margin. Am I missing anything? YES. You're forgetting (1) taxes, specifically income tax, and (2) sales commissions//transaction fees. On the first: You have not considered anything in your financial model for taxes. You should include at least 25% of your expected returns going to taxes, because anything that you buy... and then sell within 12 months... is taxed as income. Not capital gains. On the second: you will incur sales commissions and/or transaction fees depending on the brokerage you are using for your plan. These tend to vary widely, but I would expect to spend at least $25 per sale. So if I were building out this model I would think that your break-even would have to at least cover: monthly interest + monthly principal payment income tax when sold commissions and broker's fees every time you sell holdings On over-simplifying: You have the right idea with thinking about both interest and principal in trying to sketch this out. But as I mentioned above, you're making this both harder and easier for yourself. You are making it harder because you are doing the math wrong. The actual payment for this loan (assuming it is a normal loan) can be found most easily with the PMT function in Excel: =PMT(rate,NPER,PV,FV)... =PMT(.003, 24, -10000, 0). That returns a monthly payment (of principal + interest) of 432.47. So you actually are over-calculating the payment by $14/month with your ballpark approach. However, you didn't actually have all the factors in the model to begin with, so that doesn't matter much. You are making it artificially easier because you have not thought about the impact of repaying principal. What I mean is this--in your question you indicate: I'm guessing the necessary profit is just the total interest on this loan = 0.30%($10000)(24) = $720 USD ? So I'll break even on this loan - if and only if - I make $720 from stocks over 24 months (so the rate of return is 720/(10000 + 720) = 6.716%). This sounds great-- all you need is a 6.716% total return across two years. But, assuming this is a normal loan and not an 'interest-only' loan, you have to get rid of your capital a little bit at a time to pay back the loan. In essence, you will pay back 1/3 of your principal the first year... and then you have to keep making the same Fixed interest + principal payments out of a smaller base of capital. So for the first few months you can cover the interest easily, but by the end you have to be making phenomenal returns to cover it. Here is how I would build a model for it (I actually did... and your breakeven is about 1.019% per month. At that outstanding 12.228% annual return you would be earning a whopping $4.) At least as far as the variables are concerned, you need to be considering: Your current capital balance (because month 1 you may have $10,000 but month 2 you have just 9,619 after paying back some principal). Your rate of return (if you do this in Excel you can play with it some, but you should save the time and just invest somewhere else.) Your actual return that month (rate of return * existing capital balance). Loan payment = 432 for the parameters you gave earlier. Income tax = (Actual Return) * (.25). With this kind of loan, you're not actually making enough to preserve the 10,000 capital and you're selling everything you've gained each month. Commission = ($25 per month) ... assuming that covers your trade fees and broker commissions. I guarantee you that this is not the deal breaker in the model, so don't get excited if you think I'm over-estimating this and you realize that Scottrade or somewhere will let you have trades at $7.95 each. Monthly ending balance == next month's starting capital balance. Stack it all up in Excel for 24 months and see for yourself if you like. The key thing you left out is that you're repaying each month out of capital that you'd like to use to invest with. This makes you need much higher returns. Even if your initial description wasn't clear and this is an interest-only loan, you're still looking at a rate of about 7.6% annually that you need to hit in order to just break even on the costs of holding the loan and transferring your gains into cash.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "92d9ad3a393cd412ba4c0ac770bd3171",
"text": "\"When margin is calculated as the equity percentage of an account, the point at which a broker will forcibly liquidate is typically called \"\"maintenance margin\"\". In the US, this is 25% for equities. To calculate the price at which this will occur, the initial and maintenance margin must be known. The formula for a long with margin is: and for a short where P_m is the maintenance margin price, P_i is the initial margin price, m_i is the initial margin rate, and m_m is the maintenance margin rate. At an initial margin of 50% and a maintenance margin of 25%, a long equity may fall by 1/3 before forced liquidation, a short one may rise by 50%. This calculation can become very complex with different asset classes with differing maintenance margins because the margin debt is applied to all securities collectively.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7899255b9d21c5e86212fdc9fb628c00",
"text": "\"The other two folks here are right with the math and such, so I'll just throw some intuition out there for you. The basis for this valuation model is really just tacking the Gordon growth model (which is really just a form of valuing a perpetuity) onto a couple of finite discounted cash flows. So that ending part is the Gordon growth model *at the future point* discounted back to the present. The Gordon growth model uses a \"\"next period\"\" dividend for the very simple reason that it's the next one you'd get if you bought the stock. Is that explanation clear enough, or were some of these points not adequately explained in your class? I'll help a bit more, if I can.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a2e0d7a672ee7c3c4b620d4ded62c195",
"text": "leveraged etf's are killer to hold because they seek to return some multiple of the DAILY price movement in an index. so twm seeks to return 2x the daily move in the russell 2000 Let's trace this out assuming (just to make it easy) large daily moves, and that you start with $1000 and the russell 2000 starts at 100. start of first day rusell 2000 == 100 you have $1000 end of first day (up 10% nice!) rusell 2000 == 110 you have $1200 end of second day (~9.1% down) russell 20000 == 100 you have $981.60 so the russell 2000 can move nowhere and you have lost money! This doesn't apply to all etf's just leveraged etf's. You would be better buying more of a straight inverse etf (RWM) and holding that for a longer time if you wanted to hedge.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dc859b3b25fca1555b0fd5f6dddb8d2b",
"text": "As Chris pointed out: If your expenses are covered by the income exactly, as you have said to assume, then you are basically starting with a $40K asset (your starting equity), and ending with a $200K asset (a paid for home, at the same value since you have said to ignore any appreciation). So, to determine what you have earned on the $40K you leveraged 5x, wouldn't it be a matter of computing a CAGR that gets you from $40K to $200K in 30 years? The result would be a nominal return, not a real return. So, if I set up the problem correctly, it should be: $40,000 * (1 + Return)^30 = $200,000 Then solve for Return. It works out to be about 5.51% or so.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8331c07f3c8f33cb5083b8dd9bff0e5e",
"text": "The owner of a long futures contract does not receive dividends, hence this is a disadvantage compared to owning the underlying stock. If the dividend is increased, and the future price would not change, there is an arbitrage possibility. For the sake of simplicity, assume that the stock suddenly starts paying a dividend, and that the risk free rate is zero (so interest does not play a role). One can expect that the future price is (rougly) equal to the stock price before the dividend announcment. If the future price would not change, an investor could buy the stock, and short a futures contract on the stock. At expiration he has to deliver the stock for the price set in the contract, which is under the assumptions here equal to the price he bought the stock for. But because he owned the stock, he receives the announced dividend. Hence he can make a risk-free profit consisting of the divivends. If interest do play a role, the argument is similar.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dbbbfb16fb026b997f1c90807b69104e",
"text": "Is the following correct? The firm needs $20,000 for the investment. It borrows $6,000 @ 7%, and supplies $14,000 in equity. The interest expense on the borrowing is $420 ($6,000 times 7%). After one year, the firm receives $26,500 from its investment. Subtract $6,420 (return borrowings plus interest). The firm is left with $20,080. Divide by starting equity of $14,000. Subtract 1 from the ratio. **Levered return on equity is 43.4%.**",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e5c63730d87e35c09bda1588e9024bd6",
"text": "I have found a good explanation here: http://www.contracts-for-difference.com/Financing-charge.html Financing is calculated by taking the overall position size, and multiplying it by (LIBOR + say 2%) and then dividing by 365 x the amount of days the position is open. For instance, the interest rate applicable for overnight long positions may be 6% or 0.06. To calculate how much it would cost you to hold a long position for X number of days you would need to make this 'pro rata' meaning that you would need to divide the 0.06 by 365 and multiply it by X days and then multiply this by the trade size. So for example, for a trade size of $20,000, held for 30 days, the interest cost would be about $98.6. It is important to note that due to financing, long positions held for extended periods can reduce returns.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cd145cb1b9257d7f0fc1084a1d650913",
"text": "I think you're missing the fact that the trader bought the $40 call but wrote the $45 call -- i.e. someone else bought the $45 call from him. That's why you have to subtract 600-100. At expiration, the following happens: So $600 + -$100 = $500 total profit. Note: In reality he would probably use the shares he gets from the first call to satisfy the shares he owes on the second call, so the math is even simpler:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a195aa123226790c73bc1995aee219f8",
"text": "\"Of course, which is why you need to have a scoring function / utility function for the \"\"filters\"\", i.e. Are you going to value it by rate of accuracy hor by a metric where wins = +2, losses = -1, such that it uses a criteria like that to decide whether or not a filter adds value, (some even use a compound effect i.e. wins = 2+e^(1+w) where w is the consecutive wins). A metric like the above would capture the trade off between predictive power and profit. Also some traders watch their Max DD very carefully so they may be very risk averse.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "ece0faf30e26a03800214a0581508964",
"text": "The initial margin is $5940 and maintenance margin $5400. A simple search of Comex Gold Margin gives the CME group site. You then need to specify CMX metals to see the margins. Gold is currently about $1300. A gold future is 100 oz. So the full contract is worth $130K. You want to 'go long' so you enter into a contract for Dec '14. You put up $5940, and if gold rises, you gain $100 for each $1 it goes up. Likewise on the downside. If gold drops $5.40, you lost $540 and will get a call to end the position or to put up more money. It's similar to stock margin requirements, only the numbers are much lower, your leverage with futures is over 20 to 1.",
"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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
68764652d14d3ca3c9b61ea0be136245
|
How do I find the value of British Energy Nuclear Power Notes?
|
[
{
"docid": "2d59784bb0ebcbdcc971ee9068ec0039",
"text": "\"This BBC article says that nuclear power notes came about when the French energy company EDF purchased British Energy in 2008: The note changes in value with wholesale energy prices and power output levels from British Energy's existing nuclear stations. EDF Energy's website describes these notes under the section titled \"\"Nuclear Power Notes\"\": When EDF acquired British Energy in January 2009, Nuclear Power Notes were issued to British Energy shareholders who chose to take them in lieu of 74 pence of cash per British Energy share held. The Nuclear Power Notes are ten year financial instruments (2009 – 2019) which give ex British Energy shareholders a continuing interest in the “EDF Energy Nuclear Generation Fleet”. They are traded on the ICAP Securities & Derivatives Exchange (formerly known as the PLUS Quoted exchange). Each year a pre-defined calculation is performed to determine whether any cash will be paid to Nuclear Power Note holders. The calculation is dependent on the nuclear output of the EDF Energy Nuclear Generation Fleet (“Eligible Nuclear Output”) and market power prices (“Power Prices”). This calculation may or may not result in a cash payment each year to Nuclear Power Note holders. The MWh/TWh are figures you see are measures of watt-hours, i.e. energy output. The value of nuclear power notes is tied to this output. Looking at the most recent statement (June 2013), you can see a line that looks like this: Month Ahead Price in respect of July 2013: 47.46 GBP/MWh which is an energy spot price for the output of the nuclear plants. I'm not entirely sure of the relationship between this and the payment to shareholders, but if you look at the 2012 Yearly Payment Calculation Notice on the same page, you'll see this in the first section: (a) the Yearly Payment for the period 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2012, (the Relevant Year ) payable in respect of each CVR on 31 January 2013 shall be zero; The payments were also zero for 2010 and 2011. The 2009 calculation notice, however, states that (a) the Yearly Payment for the period 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2009, (the Relevant Year) payable in respect of each CVR on 31 January 2010 shall be 11.497164 pence stated to 6 decimal places I presume that payment would have appeared in whatever account holds these notes, e.g. your brokerage account. Technically, the financial statements above refer to a Contingent Value Rights (CVR) instrument, which is a derivative linked to the Nuclear Power Notes. This site sums it up better than I can: The British Energy CVRs were created by the issue of nuclear power notes (NPNs) to the target’s shareholders who opted to take up this alternative. The NPNs were issued by Barclays Bank plc and were linked to guaranteed contingent value rights instruments that were issued to Barclays by EDF’s acquisition vehicle (Lake Acquisitions) and which were ultimately guaranteed by EDF Energy plc (Lake CVRs). Barclays is required to make yearly payments to noteholders for 10 years, the amount of which is limited to the corresponding amount paid by Lake Acquisitions to Barclays for the Lake CVRs. Basically, there is a chain of payments through these derivatives that eventually links back to nuclear energy output.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "2bda2ab9afe3bb4914ac6723b18ab25f",
"text": "So is it weird that I write my check to the name of the company on the power plant? I cannot for the life of me see any of the middle men in my distribution channel. Where I am, you usually get power right from the big energy company (Xcel in my case) or if you live out of town you can opt for the co-op (that buys from Xcel). The co-op is in theory the better deal because they can negotiate larger volume pricing and all profit from the co-op goes to its members, but there aren't very many steps either way. edit: after a bit of digging, my power provider is also a buyer, but most definitely the owner of a large nuclear plant near me.",
"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": "1af4bacc58edd93fa4dde8b56d7b7766",
"text": "Big solar fan here. I like your argument for nuclear. With the way that electricity power generation works, we need ideally 3 sources of power. Nuclear is one of them. Base load, if you will. Solar and nat gas can sort of fluctuate against each other as the sunlight changes. And once battery tech updates we can do away with nat gas. I don't know enough about price/economics on nuclear and if you have a few concise things to share I'd appreciate it. Not asking for you to type a tome. I can always research later but appreciate your input!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2136538e1c183dd41f933085eadd0b7f",
"text": "\"The mathematics site, WolframAlpha, provides such data. Here is a link to historic p/e data for Apple. You can chart other companies simply by typing \"\"p/e code\"\" into the search box. For example, \"\"p/e XOM\"\" will give you historic p/e data for Exxon. A drop-down list box allows you to select a reporting period : 2 years, 5 years, 10 years, all data. Below the chart you can read the minimum, maximum, and average p/e for the reporting period in addition to the dates on which the minimum and maximum were applicable.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "afa477c7daa7926a74e9d65618230edc",
"text": "A quick search showed me that UEP merged into Ameren on Dec 31, 1997, and Ameren still exists today. So I took a look at Ameren's Investor Relations website. Unfortunately, they don't provide historical stock prices prior to Ameren forming, so starting with 1998. However, I've had good luck in the past emailing a company's investor relations contact and asking for data like this that isn't on the website. It's reasonably likely they'll have internal records they could look it up within.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c4bef758a078cff5aded80dbc6fc24be",
"text": "\"Matt explains the study numbers in his answer, but those are the valuation of the brand, not the value of the company or how \"\"rich\"\" the company is. Presuming that you're asking the value of the company, the usual way for a publicly traded company to be valued is by the market capitalization (1). Market capitalization is a fairly simple measure, basically the total value of all the shares of stock in that company. You can find the market cap for any publicly traded company on any of the usual finance sites like Google Finance or Yahoo Finance. If by rich you mean the total value of assets (assets being all property, including cash, real property, equipment, and licenses) a company owns, that information is included in a publicly traded company's quarterly SEC filing and investor releases, but isn't usually listed on the popular finance sites. An example can be seen at Duke Energy's Investor Relation Site (the same information can be found for all companies on EDGAR, the SEC's search tool). If you open the most recent 8-K (quarterly filing), and go to page 8, you can see that they have $33B+ in assets, and a high level breakdown of those. Note that the numbers are given in millions of dollars For a privately held company this information may or may not be available and you'd have to track it down if it is available. I picked Duke Energy because it's the first thing that popped into my mind. I have no affiliation with Duke, and I don't directly own any of their stock.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b6bd677c1e3ea129e086763705a7bdad",
"text": "\"The \"\"c.\"\" is probably circa, or \"\"about.\"\" Regulatory settlements is in blue because it's negative; the amount is in parentheses, which indicates a loss. WB and CB might be wholesale banking and commercial banking? BAU probably means \"\"business as usual\"\" or things that don't directly apply to the project. Incremental investment is the additional cash a company puts towards its long-term capital assets. FX is probably foreign exchange.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9c81a552c36f71fd5895519436975081",
"text": "Barton Biggs's book Wealth, War and Wisdom aims to answer the question of what investments are best-suited to preserving value despite large-scale catastrophes by looking at how various investments and assets performed in countries affected by WWII. In Japan, stocks and urban land turned out to be good investments; in France, farm land and gold did better. Stocks outperformed bonds in nearly every country. Phil Greenspun recently wrote a review of the book.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7d027612ddcd870c80169012f36ef6d5",
"text": "In general, the short answer is to use SEDAR, the Canadian database that compiles financial statements for Canadian companies. The financial statements for Pacific Rubiales Energy Corp can be found here. The long answer is that the data might be missing because in Canada, each province has their own agency to regulate securities. Yahoo might not compile information from such a wide array of sources. If other countries also have a decentralized system, Yahoo might not take the time to compile financial information from all these sources. There are a myriad of other reasons that could cause this too, however. This is why SEDAR is useful; it 's the Canadian equivalent of the SEC's EDGAR database, and it maintains a sizeable database of financial statements.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8e70ce25572e4501bd61389f004a1910",
"text": "Just buy a FTSE-100 tracker. It's cheap and easy, and will hedge you pretty well, as the FTSE-100 is dominated by big mining and oil companies who do most of their business in currencies other than sterling.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "37202af557616c776a0513fe2b5ca89b",
"text": "\"Normally I avoid any links pointing to guardian or telegraph or such sites but just was curios to what exactly the content of such a \"\"paper\"\" would be. As expected, it has the seeds of a world war and is a lab factory for future terrorism. How does one expect value without work. US atleast produces some value here and there, but the other countries are just decline stage. Seriously UK? It seems some people can just not let go off their easy life ride or \"\"way of life\"\" as it is often referred to - basically create a system highly stacked in one's own favor and then blatantly call out others as conspiracy theorists or some such noun to get them on the defensive. Elimination of public debt should not be allowed for these countries. There is so much cunningness, guile, cheating, lying in sneaky fashion and so much negativity hiding behind that theory - it is sometimes depressing how world operates and then people complain about it when there is real chance to put checks and balances to stop such disgusting things from taking form.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1b69527e2707e44cc701c57fc239b10a",
"text": "\"It's a form of debt issued by the United States Treasury. As the name implies, a 10-year note is held for 10 years (after which you get the face value in cash), and it pays interest twice per year. It's being used in the calculator to stand for a readily available, medium-term, nearly risk-free investment, as a means of \"\"discounting\"\" the value that the company gains. The explanation for why the discounting is done can be found on the page you linked. As a Canadian you could use the yield of comparable Canadian treasury securities as quoted by Bank of Canada (which seem to have had the bottom fall out since the new year), although I don't suppose American notes would be hard for a Canadian investor to come by, so if you wanted to be conservative you could use the US figure as long as it's higher.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ea4549ecee88d0ebf51be242700a3fa2",
"text": "Am I missing something or is the author? EUP5 USP5 SUP5 PUS5 EDIT: Its not just currency pairs either, 5DEL; EU5L; 5UKL; EU5S; 5DES. Unless I misunderstood something, the authors worst nightmare has already arrived in Europe.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eaee5116f787fd1fc84c9ab7fec2d7e2",
"text": "\"Fortunately, this can be solved by simply going to the website. Unfortunately, the website is not very well designed, so it took a while to find it! However, looking at the section about entering your own meter reading in, it is clear that this is indeed a \"\"credit\"\", meaning \"\"they owe you money\"\". Notice how the costs break down. They estimated an energy usage (cost equivalent) of £104.09, which resulted in a \"\"bill\"\" of £29.77 (credit). Then the customer entered a meter reading, which resulted in an actual energy usage (cost equivalent) of £142.45. Since it was £38.36 higher, it went from a credit to a debit of £8.59. Were £29.77 (Credit) to mean money was owed to SSE, they would owe a bit over £68 instead given the higher energy charges. You can see this help page to inquire about getting a refund, or simply allow this to carry over to your next bill. Or - consider doing a self-entered meter reading, if one hasn't been done recently, to make sure that any actual excessive usage comes out of your credit (rather than being a shock at one time).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6db30f454c040ad0bfefaf7151447a71",
"text": "Good day! Did a little research by using oldest public company (Dutch East India Company, VOC, traded in Amsterdam Stock Exchange) as search criteria and found this lovely graph from http://www.businessinsider.com/rise-and-fall-of-united-east-india-2013-11?IR=T : Why it is relevant? Below the image I found the source of data - Global Financial Data. I guess the answer to your question would be to go there: https://www.globalfinancialdata.com/index.html Hope this helps and good luck in your search!",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
397d73ca6287156eae6d03da2be2ce89
|
Start Investing - France
|
[
{
"docid": "2234ad152a94b06edf2086f30592fe80",
"text": "I am not interested in watching stock exchange rates all day long. I just want to place it somewhere and let it grow Your intuition is spot on! To buy & hold is the sensible thing to do. There is no need to constantly monitor the stock market. To invest successfully you only need some basic pointers. People make it look like it's more complicated than it actually is for individual investors. You might find useful some wisdom pearls I wish I had learned even earlier. Stocks & Bonds are the best passive investment available. Stocks offer the best return, while bonds are reduce risk. The stock/bond allocation depends of your risk tolerance. Since you're as young as it gets, I would forget about bonds until later and go with a full stock portfolio. Banks are glorified money mausoleums; the interest you can get from them is rarely noticeable. Index investing is the best alternative. How so? Because 'you can't beat the market'. Nobody can; but people like to try and fail. So instead of trying, some fund managers simply track a market index (always successfully) while others try to beat it (consistently failing). Actively managed mutual funds have higher costs for the extra work involved. Avoid them like the plague. Look for a diversified index fund with low TER (Total Expense Ratio). These are the most important factors. Diversification will increase safety, while low costs guarantee that you get the most out of your money. Vanguard has truly good index funds, as well as Blackrock (iShares). Since you can't simply buy equity by yourself, you need a broker to buy and sell. Luckily, there are many good online brokers in Europe. What we're looking for in a broker is safety (run background checks, ask other wise individual investors that have taken time out of their schedules to read the small print) and that charges us with low fees. You probably can do this through the bank, but... well, it defeats its own purpose. US citizens have their 401(k) accounts. Very neat stuff. Check your country's law to see if you can make use of something similar to reduce the tax cost of investing. Your government will want a slice of those juicy dividends. An alternative is to buy an index fund on which dividends are not distributed, but are automatically reinvested instead. Some links for further reference: Investment 101, and why index investment rocks: However the author is based in the US, so you might find the next link useful. Investment for Europeans: Very useful to check specific information regarding European investing. Portfolio Ideas: You'll realise you don't actually need many equities, since the diversification is built-in the index funds. I hope this helps! There's not much more, but it's all condensed in a handful of blogs.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eb075ec99e3a7eff8edf3ac57e3f431a",
"text": "In france you have several options: A good place to starts with: 1% as of may 2015 interest is low, but's money is 100% liquid (you can withdraw antime). You got slightly superior interest rates, and have to wire at least 45€ a month on it. It gives you lots of advantages if you use it to buy a house. You cannot use the money unless you close the account, so it's not as flexible. You get 2% rates as of may 2015 which is quite good. [If you open this account now, it's only 1% making it not so attractive. Look at Life Insurance Instead.] This one is useless: interest rate is too low. I highly recommend this one. You can open it with 0 cost with several online banks (ing, boursorama, ...) Minimum deposit should be around 1000€. Rate is flexible, but usually higher than what you get with the others. You shouldn't withdraw the money before 8 years (because of taxes, but you can still do it if you need). You can add money on it later if you want. Because of the 8 year duration, it's better to open one as soon as you can, even with the minimum amount. Open an PEL + Livret A + Life insurance. Put the minimum on both PEL + life insurance. Put every thing else on Livret A. If you are 100% sure you don't need some of the livret A money, send it to PEL. [As of 2017, PEL is not so attractive anymore. Bet on the Life Insurance instead, unless your account was open prior to this].",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7c7442ebef396f7fd034b19a37a1e394",
"text": "You mention you have an LDD. If your income is below a certain threshold (as of today, 19 255 € a year for a single person; quite likely if you're just a student), then you can open a Livret d'épargne populaire (in short, LEP). It works almost exactly the same as a Livret A / LDD, except that: Just like a Livret A / LDD: You should fill it up first before putting money in your LDD (assuming your Livret Jeune is maxed out, they have typically a higher rate than the LEP). If your bank is anything like mine, the very existence of the LEP is not very well-advertised, and I found that not many people are even aware that they exist. PS: The French administration's website has a whole section dedicated to financial matters. It's usually very clear and detailed. I advise you to check it out.",
"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": "bbb924516f9a902d2a3a2bd6d1158379",
"text": "No, he's right. Not only about the need to raise cash or capital via the equity markets, but the solvency and regulatory burden banks face. If there is a run on bank stocks, they will struggle to meet their reserve requirement ratios. This is what has been happening with the French banks over the past several months.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "31d6992cf6ec96afe2148aa04cd54d57",
"text": "I agree with buying gold, as this is truly the worldwide currency and will only increase in value if the Euro fails. The only issue will be if your country confiscates all citizen's gold ( it has happened many times throughout history. As for ETFs, be careful because unless you purchase these in terms of other currencies (I am assuming you aren't), than the ETF you own is still in terms of Euros, making the whole investment worthless if you are trying to avoid Euro currency risk.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "49183a72c0b15726b887ab56f8c064b5",
"text": "\"This is a tough question, because it is something very specific to your situation and finances. I personally started at a young age (17), with US$1,000 in Scottrade. I tried the \"\"stock market games\"\" at first, but in retrospect they did nothing for me and turned out to be a waste of time. I really started when I actually opened my brokerage account, so step one would be to choose your discount broker. For example, Scottrade, Ameritrade (my current broker), E-Trade, Charles Schwab, etc. Don't worry about researching them too much as they all offer what you need to start out. You can always switch later (but this can be a little of a hassle). For me, once I opened my brokerage account I became that much more motivated to find a stock to invest in. So the next step and the most important is research! There are many good resources on the Internet (there can also be some pretty bad ones). Here's a few I found useful: Investopedia - They offer many useful, easy-to-understand explanations and definitions. I found myself visiting this site a lot. CNBC - That was my choice for business news. I found them to be the most watchable while being very informative. Fox Business, seems to be more political and just annoying to watch. Bloomberg News was just ZzzzZzzzzz (boring). On CNBC, Jim Cramer was a pretty useful resource. His show Mad Money is entertaining and really does teach you to think like an investor. I want to note though, I don't recommend buying the stocks he recommends, specially the next day after he talks about them. Instead, really pay attention to the reasons he gives for his recommendation. It will teach you to think more like an investor and give you examples of what you should be looking for when you do research. You can also use many online news organizations like MarketWatch, The Motley Fool, Yahoo Finance (has some pretty good resources), and TheStreet. Read editorial (opinions) articles with a grain of salt, but again in each editorial they explain why they think the way they think.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "feed602014f1bbfa0c3741fda68b2e55",
"text": "I have done this last year. Just open an account with an online brocker and buy a couple of Apple shares (6 I think, for 190$ each or something like that :) ). If this is just to test how stock exchange works, I think this is a good idea. I am also in Europe (France), and you'r right the charge to buy on NasDaq are quite expensive but still reasonnable. Hope this helps.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "27956ee0d314fb8c8e1a361b3b04ae07",
"text": "I would say your decision making is reasonable. You are in the middle of Brexit and nobody knows what that means. Civil society in the United States is very strained at the moment. The one seeming source of stability in Europe, Germany, may end up with a very weakened government. The only country that is probably stable is China and it has weak protections for foreign investors. Law precedes economics, even though economics often ends up dictating the law in the long run. The only thing that may come to mind is doing two things differently. The first is mentally dropping the long-term versus short-term dichotomy and instead think in terms of the types of risks an investment is exposed to, such as currency risk, political risk, liquidity risk and so forth. Maturity risk is just one type of risk. The second is to consider taking some types of risks that are hedged either by put contracts to limit the downside loss, or consider buying longer-dated call contracts using a small percentage of your money. If the underlying price falls, then the call contracts will be a total loss, but if the price increases then you will receive most of the increase (minus the premium). If you are uncomfortable purchasing individual assets directly, then I would say you are probably doing everything that you reasonably can do.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "47d9f11485eb276a283de6d2ec44239b",
"text": "The basic problem here is that you need to have money to invest before you can make a profit from it. Now if you have say $500K or more, you can put that in mutual funds and live modestly off the profits. If you don't have that $500K to start out with, you're either looking at a long time frame to accumulate it - say by working a job for 30+ years, and contributing the max to your 401k - or are playing the market trying to get it. The last is essentially gambling (though with somewhat better odds than casinos or horse racing), and puts you up against the Gambler's Ruin problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler's_ruin You also, I think, have a very mistaken idea about the a typical investor's lifestyle. Take for instance the best known one, Warren Buffet. No offence to him, but from everything I've read he lives a pretty boring life. Spends all day reading financial reports, and what sort of life is that? As for flying places being exciting, ever tried it? I have (with scientific conferences, but I expect boardrooms are much the same), and it is boring. Flying at 30,000 ft is boring, and if it's a commercial flight, unpleasant as well. A conference room in London, Paris, or Milan is EXACTLY the same as a conference room in Podunk, Iowa. Even the cities outside the conference rooms are much of a muchness these days: you can eat at McDonalds in Paris or Shanghai. Only way to find interest is to take time from your work to get outside the conference rooms & commercial districts, and then you're losing money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "74b29da71765c7cbe5d01f3f964e4834",
"text": "That's a broad question, but I can throw some thoughts at you from personal experience. I'm actually an Australian who has worked in a couple of companies but across multiple countries and I've found out first hand that you have a wealth of opportunities that other people don't have, but you also have a lot of problems that other people won't have. First up, asset classes. Real estate is a popular asset class, but unless you plan on being in each of these countries for a minimum of one to two years, it would be seriously risky to invest in rental residential or commercial real estate. This is because it takes a long time to figure out each country's particular set of laws around real estate, plus it will take a long time to get credit from the local bank institutions and to understand the local markets well enough to select a good location. This leaves you with the classics of stocks and bonds. You can buy stocks and bonds in any country typically. So you could have some stocks in a German company, a bond fund in France and maybe a mutual fund in Japan. This makes for interesting diversification, so if one country tanks, you can potentially be hedged in another. You also get to both benefit and be punished by foreign exchange movements. You might have made a killing on that stock you bought in Tokyo, but it turns out the Yen just fell by 15%. Doh. And to top this off, you are almost certainly going to end up filling out tax returns in each country you have made money in. This can get horribly complicated, very quickly. As a person who has been dealing with the US tax system, I can tell you that this is painful and the US in particular tries to get a cut of your worldwide income. That said, keep in mind each country has different tax rates, so you could potentially benefit from that as well. My advice? Choose one country you suspect you'll spend most of your life in and keep most of your assets there. Make a few purchases in other places, but minimize it. Ultimately most ex-pats move back to their country of origin as friends, family and shared culture bring them home.",
"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": "b952267ed4fdff8489e77780a9e386dd",
"text": "I'm assuming you mean 4-6% annually over 10-15 years. If you mean 4%-6% total return over 10 years then this question is easy just find your local country's 10Y bond and that should likely cover it (though barely if you are German). So 4%-6% annually is not a big stretch but it does require some risk and at least a bit of work. A fire-and-forget good mix would include (using index mutual funds or etfs) Some internet research and a one-time meeting with a financial adviser who is paid by you (not paid on commission) should help you set the right balance of these index funds and be a good check on what I'm advising. If you are willing to do a tiny bit more work it's well worth starting with a heavier weight on the riskier stocks and ex-European funds (more currency risk) and then every 2-3 years slowly move into safer stocks and Euro-based funds. With that tiny amount of extra work there you can make it much more likely that you will end within your 4-6% range while taking significantly less risk overall.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a6538981686b2af921afea0fb21d7b9c",
"text": "\"Fool's 13 steps to invest is a good starting point. Specifically, IFF all your credit cards are paid, and you made sure you've got no outstanding liabilities (that also accrues interest), stock indexes might be a good place for 5-10 years timeframes. For grad school, I'd probably look into cash ISA (or local equivalent thereof) -the rate of return is going to be lower, but having it in a separate account at least makes it mentally \"\"out of sight - out of mind\"\", so you can make sure the money's there WHEN you need it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "625a988bfb55940701a041358b283f3b",
"text": "Some of the ETFs you have specified have been delisted and are no longer trading. If you want to invest in those specific ETFs, you need to find a broker that will let you buy European equities such as those ETFs. Since you mentioned Merrill Edge, a discount broking platform, you could also consider Interactive Brokers since they do offer trading on the London Stock Exchange. There are plenty more though. Beware that you are now introducing a foreign exchange risk into your investment too and that taxation of capital returns/dividends may be quite different from a standard US-listed ETF. In the US, there are no Islamic or Shariah focussed ETFs or ETNs listed. There was an ETF (JVS) that traded from 2009-2010 but this had such little volume and interest, the fees probably didn't cover the listing expenses. It's just not a popular theme for North American listings.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3a5e26a54c14df9789647c1dea47ee96",
"text": "There are some brokers in the US who would be happy to open an account for non-US residents, allowing you to trade stocks at NYSE and other US Exchanges. Some of them, along with some facts: DriveWealth Has support in Portuguese Website TD Ameritrade Has support in Portuguese Website Interactive Brokers Account opening is not that straightforward Website",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5f6ece7c89aeb6cab3a15d9aec09963b",
"text": "Before starting with investing, you should make sure you are saving enough. Living in a welfare country (France) does not exempt you from potentially needing to save large amounts of money. You state that you do not need much of an emergency day fund, but this is not true. Being dismissed unjustly from your job is not the only way to become unemployed and not all roads lead to unemployment pay. Being fired for cause or leaving your job voluntarily are two work related causes that will leave you without an income source. Unexpected major expenses are another reason you might need to dip into your emergency fund. If your emergency fund is in order, the next thing to investigate is your pension and saving for retirement. In a country with a strong pension system, you need to check how comfortable you are with its sustainability (Greece anyone?) and also whether it will adequately meet your needs. If not, there are no 401ks or IRAs in France, but there is a relatively new personal supplementary pension plan (PERP) that you might investigate contributing to. If you're comfortable with your emergency fund and your retirement savings, then preparing for buying a house is likely your next savings goal. A quick search shows that to get a mortgage to buy a house in France, banks will commonly require a downpayment of 20% plus various closing costs. See for example here. This is 40,000+ euro for a 200k euro house, which will take you several years at the rate of 500 euro / month. France has special plans (Plan d’Epargne Logement) with tax-exempt interest for saving up for a house that you might want to investigate. In your other question, you also ask about buying a cheap car. As you get older and possibly start a family, having a car will likely become more of a necessity. This is another goal you can save for rather than having to take a loan out when you buy one.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "becdcfc45a8504a311011b12d5987a2d",
"text": "When you start to buy stock, don't buy too little of it! Stocks come at a cost (you pay a commission), and you need to maintain a deposit, you have to take these costs into account when buying to calculate your break even point for selling. Don't buy stock for less than 1.500€ Also, diversify. Buy stock from different sectors and from different geographies. Spread your risks. Start buying 'defensive' stocks (food, pharma, energy), then move to more dynamic sectors (telecom, informatics), lastly buy stock from risky sectors that are not mature markets (Internet businesses). Lastly, look for high dividend. That's always nice at the end of the year.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
ed951dffbc56fcafe1b6dcdf20656475
|
Does Vanguard grant admiral shares only on a per-account basis?
|
[
{
"docid": "e710be66cacaa43a6b7e4b7df6033b02",
"text": "Yes, each of Vanguard's mutual funds looks only at its own shares when deciding to upgrade/downgrade the shares to/from Admiral status. To the best of my knowledge, if you hold a fund in an IRA as well as a separate investment, the shares are not totaled in deciding whether or not the shares are accorded Admiral shares status; each account is considered separately. Also, for many funds, the minimum investment value is not $10K but is much larger (used to be $100K a long time ago, but recently the rules have been relaxed somewhat).",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "fb0b3ca3e10bb1c0bdf3a585134f0204",
"text": "Just look at the published annualized returns, which are inclusive of distributions and fees. From the Vanguard website: Average annual returns include changes in share price and reinvestment of dividends and capital gains.",
"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": "b1551ce33e769d1897d208ca91c38a52",
"text": "\"There are a few reasons why an index mutual fund may be preferable to an ETF: I looked at the iShare S&P 500 ETF and it has an expense ratio of 0.07%. The Vanguard Admiral S&P 500 index has an expense ratio of 0.05% and the Investor Shares have an expense ratio of 0.17%, do I don't necessarily agree with your statement \"\"admiral class Vanguard shares don't beat the iShares ETF\"\".\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0421ab8d7a42901d7685e545c3551bd1",
"text": "\"Warren Buffett: 'Investing Advice For You--And My Wife' (And Other Quotes Of The Week): What I advise here is essentially identical to certain instructions I’ve laid out in my will. One bequest provides that cash will be delivered to a trustee for my wife’s benefit…My advice to the trustee could not be more simple: Put 10% of the cash in short-term government bonds and 90% in a very low-cost S&P 500 index fund. (I suggest Vanguard’s.) I believe the trust’s long-term results from this policy will be superior to those attained by most investors… Similarly from Will Warren Buffett's investment advice work for you?: Specifically, Buffett wants the trustee of his estate to put 10 percent of his wife's cash inheritance in short-term government bonds and 90 percent in a low-cost S&P index fund - and he tips his hat specifically to Bogle's Vanguard in doing so. Says Buffett: \"\"I believe the trust's long-term results from this policy will be superior to those attained by most investors - whether pension funds, institutions or individuals.\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "136a3319c5a9aa18f28e1dc9a86d035d",
"text": "If you are looking for an index index fund, I know vanguard offers their Star fund which invests in 11 other funds of theirs and is diversified across stocks, bonds, and short term investments.",
"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": "5a9de080444de75c710b8e60527623c7",
"text": "\"I'm trying to understand how an ETF manager optimized it's own revenue. Here's an example that I'm trying to figure out. ETF firm has an agreement with GS for blocks of IBM. They have agreed on daily VWAP + 1% for execution price. Further, there is a commission schedule for 5 mils with GS. Come month end, ETF firm has to do a monthly rebalance. As such must buy 100,000 shares at IBM which goes for about $100 The commission for the trade is 100,000 * 5 mils = $500 in commission for that trade. I assume all of this is covered in the expense ratio. Such that if VWAP for the day was 100, then each share got executed to the ETF at 101 (VWAP+ %1) + .0005 (5 mils per share) = for a resultant 101.0005 cost basis The ETF then turns around and takes out (let's say) 1% as the expense ratio ($1.01005 per share) I think everything so far is pretty straight forward. Let me know if I missed something to this point. Now, this is what I'm trying to get my head around. ETF firm has a revenue sharing agreement as well as other \"\"relations\"\" with GS. One of which is 50% back on commissions as soft dollars. On top of that GS has a program where if you do a set amount of \"\"VWAP +\"\" trades you are eligible for their corporate well-being programs and other \"\"sponsorship\"\" of ETF's interests including helping to pay for marketing, rent, computers, etc. Does that happen? Do these disclosures exist somewhere?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "e0f8c5f28061ad8e75404c5fcc51dbaf",
"text": "Fidelity Investments offers Solo 401(k) plans without any management fees. The plan administrator is typically the employer itself (so, your business, or you as the principal manager). You (as the individual employee) are the participant.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7c20fd7286305487ef74ec5c7d350402",
"text": "I found that the Target Date funds for Vanguard have a lower minimum, only $1,000. They are spaced every 5 years from 2010 to 2060. They are available as: General Account, IRA, UGMA/UTMA and Education Saving Account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c382ab89f323f5aa80febf3f096bc883",
"text": "A DRIP plan with the ETF does just that. It provides cash (the dividends you are paid) back to the fund manager who will accumulate all such reinvested dividends and proportionally buy more shares of stock in the ETF. Most ETFs will not do this without your approval, as the dividends are taxed to you (you must include them as income for that year if this is in a taxable account) and therefore you should have the say on where the dividends go.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "56596fac5107f6f0af730a04194202f2",
"text": "\"A little terminology: Grant: you get a \"\"gift\"\" with strings attached. \"\"Grant\"\" refers to the plan (legal contract) under which you get the stock options. Vesting: these are the strings attached to the grant. As long as you're employed by the company, your options will vest every quarter, proportionally. You'll become an owner of 4687 or 4688 options every quarter. Each such vest event means you'd be getting an opportunity to buy the corresponding amount of stocks at the strike price (and not the current market price which may be higher). Buying is called exercising. Exercising a nonqualified option is a taxable event, and you'll be taxed on the value of the \"\"gift\"\" you got. The value is determined by the difference between the strike price (the price at which you have the option to buy the stock) and the actual fair market value of the stock at the time of vest (based on valuations). Options that are vested are yours (depending on the grant contract, read it carefully, leaving the company may lead to forfeiture). Options that are not vested will disappear once you leave the company. Exercised options become stocks, and are yours. Qualified vs Nonqualifed - refers to the tax treatment. Nonqualified options don't have any special treatment, qualified do. 3.02M stocks issued refers to the value of the options. Consider the total valuation of the company being $302M. With $302M value and 3.02M stocks issued, each stock is worth ~$100. Now, in a year, a new investor comes in, and another 3.02M stocks are issued (if, for example, the new investor wants a 50% stake). In this case, there will be 6.04M stocks issued, for 302M value - each stock is worth $50 now. That is called dilution. Your grant is in nominal options, so in case of dilution, the value of your options will go down. Additional points: If the company is not yet public, selling the stocks may be difficult, and you may own pieces of paper that no-one else wants to buy. You will still pay taxes based on the valuations and you may end up paying for these pieces of paper out of your own pocket. In California, it is illegal to not pay salary to regular employees. Unless you're a senior executive of the company (which I doubt), you should be paid at least $9/hour per the CA minimum wages law.\"",
"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": "81a6ee7d7f7b8ef9e63c33641f686053",
"text": "A broker does not have to allow the full trading suite the regulations permit. From brokersXpress: Do you allow equity and index options trading in brokersXpress IRAs? Yes, we allow trading of equity and index options in IRAs based on the trading level assigned to an investor. Trading in IRAs includes call buying, put buying, cash-secured put writing, spreads, and covered calls. I understand OptionsXpress.com offers the same level of trading. Disclosure - I have a Schwab account and am limited in what's permitted just as your broker does. The trade you want is no more risky that a limit (buy) order, only someone is paying you to extend that order for a fixed time. The real answer is to ask the broker. If you really want that level of trading, you might want to change to one that permits it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2ee64c477f71e46524f285924da4742c",
"text": "Dow Jones: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_components_of_the_Dow_Jones_Industrial_Average NASDAQ: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASDAQ-100 (scroll down) S&P Tricky. From what I can find, you need to be in Harvard Business School, a member of CRSP, or have access to Bloomberg's databases. S&P did have the info available years ago, but no longer that I can find.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
33e9dbb70564105f9f8f709371fb09d0
|
Historic prices for currencies, commodities,
|
[
{
"docid": "9397e329af10fa55492a4a03e8725ced",
"text": "My guess it's a legal agreement between Yahoo and data provider on what data can be stored, displayed and for how long. Check out this list of data providers",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "500707114934997f55ec17ae6020bf57",
"text": "Gold isn't constant in value. If you look at the high price of $800 in January of 1980 and the low of $291 in 2001, you lost a lot of purchasing power, especially since money in 2001 was worth less than in 1980. People claim gold is a stable store of value but it isn't.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e27b4d067c78c5636685afe87425080c",
"text": "No. The long-term valuation of currencies has to do with Purchasing Power Parity. The long-term valuation of stocks has to do with revenues, expenses, market sizes, growth rates, and interest rates. In the short term, currency and stock prices change for many reasons, including interest rate changes, demand for goods and services, asset price changes, political fears, and momentum investing. In any given time window, a currency or stock might be: The Relative Strength Index tries to say whether a currency or stock has recently been rising or falling; it does not inherently say anything about whether the current value is high or low.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b9cf1a9d3d8234f8adeeb92f3ab10905",
"text": "\"During Graham's career, gold and currency were the same thing because of the gold standard. Graham did not advise investing in currencies, only in bonds and stocks, the latter only for intelligent speculation. Graham died a couple of years after Nixon closed the gold window, ending the gold standard. Gold may be thought of as a currency even today, as endowments and other investors use it as a store of value or for diversification of risks. However, currency or commodities investing does not seem Graham-like. How could you reliably estimate intrinsic value of a currency or commodity, so that you can have a Graham-like margin of safety after subtracting the intrinsic value from the market value? Saying that gold is \"\"clearly underpriced in today's market\"\" is just hand-waving. A Graham analysis such as \"\"net net\"\" (valuing stocks by their current tangible assets net of all liabilities) is a quantitative analysis of accounting numbers audited by CPAs and offers a true margin of safety.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a9a36dad5328565bc5ddca2e2b3bcdb6",
"text": "\"The relative value of Gold (or any other commodity) as measured against any given currency (such as the USD), is not a constant function either. If you have inflationary pressure, the \"\"value\"\" of an ounce of gold (or barrel of oil, etc) may \"\"double\"\", but it's really because the underlying comparator has lost \"\"half\"\" its value.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "660a8afdd994b4c948bc00ed4a36e93d",
"text": "I commented about oil in response to u/timothyblomfield. I know way more about oil than any other commodities. But steel is another heavily scrutinized commodity. All the talk of China importing illegal steel, people losing steel jobs, etc. Commodities become important like this when international politics become involved.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "652a441b503ccae88a469cfbf4f0a0d6",
"text": "I can't think of any specifically, but if you haven't already done so it would be worthwhile reading a textbook on macro-economics to get an idea of how money supply, exchange rates, unemployment and so on are thought to relate. The other thing which might be interesting in respect of the Euro crisis would be a history of past economic unions. There have been several of these, not least the US dollar (in the 19C, I believe); the union of the English and Scottish pound (early 1600s); and the German mark. They tend to have some characteristic problems, caused partly by different parts of the union being at different stages in an economic cycle. Unfortunately I can't think of a single text which gathers this together.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "50532dba417e7878dd4042a85918e8ac",
"text": "Look into commodities futures & options. Unfortunately, they are not trivial instruments.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1ebda2a7bb0b077f8bc29ca0eb874729",
"text": "Yes, this phenomenon is well documented. A collapse of an economy's exchange rate is coincidented with a collapse in its equities market. The recent calamities in Turkey, etc during 2014 had similar results. Inflation is highly correlated to valuations, and a collapse of an exchange rate is highly inflationary, so a collapse of an exchange rate is highly correlated to a collapse in valuations.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "63351b4cb549ad41b342e0dbf094f410",
"text": "The Federal Reserve Bank publishes exchange rate data in their H.10 release. It is daily, not minute by minute. The Fed says this about their data: About the Release The H.10 weekly release contains daily rates of exchange of major currencies against the U.S. dollar. The data are noon buying rates in New York for cable transfers payable in the listed currencies. The rates have been certified by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York for customs purposes as required by section 522 of the amended Tariff Act of 1930. The historical EURUSD rates for the value of 1 EURO in US$ are at: http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h10/hist/dat00_eu.htm If you need to know USDEUR the value of 1 US$ in EUROS use division 1.0/EURUSD.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "542f6a65b035a8b2d4c2355dadc9390b",
"text": "There are two ways to measure the value of money in the past. 1) As Victor mentioned there are inflation statistics covering the last 100 or so years that value the currency against an ever-changing basket of goods. This is sufficient when measuring general inflation over the period of the hundred years where there is data. This is how it was measured in your example. 2) For older time periods or where a value comparison is required between specific items (particularly where these were not in the basket of goods used for the inflation calculation) Historical records of the price of comparable goods can be used. This is in effect the same as mark to market valuations for illiquid financial instruments and requires poring through records to find the price of either a comparable basket of goods to one that would be used for inflation calculations today or a comparable set of items. An example of this is finding the value of a particular type of house (say a terraced house in London) in the 19th Century compared to the same house today by finding records of how much comparable houses would sell for, on average, then and now. This second measure is also used where the country in question didn't or doesn't keep reliable inflation statistics which may well be true of Colombia in the 90s. This means that there is a chance that this way of estimating Escobar's wealth in today's terms may have also been used. Another notable reason to use this methodology is that (unless you are using exchange rates in purchasing power parity terms) the value of money held in different currencies is different. This is even true today as the value of $1 in INR in India is likely to be higher than the value of a dollar in the US in terms of what you can buy. Using this methodology allows for a more accurate comparison in values where different countries and currencies are involved.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0221b08de55ce6d99cfc7df8255d9b26",
"text": "Hey thanks for your response. The commodity is actually electricity, so definitely not able to store. Would you mind giving me a short summary of your thought process or an example of how you compare liquid markets vs illiquid ones when looking at more traditional commodities? If that is a bit much to ask, as I am sure it could get quite involved do you have any reading recommendations? This little project has sparked an interest.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "73f0f5884654654b0658b3caef2f0620",
"text": "You will most likely not be able to avoid some form of format conversion, regardless of which data you use since there is, afaik, no standard for this data and everyone exports it differently. One viable option would be, like you said yourself, using the free data provided by Dukascopy. Please take into consideration that those are spot currency rates and will most likely not represent the rate at which physical and business-related exchange would have happened at this time.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6cd7ac20e75991e9a6c0b13fa77b122d",
"text": "Inflation can be held at whatever level the international fiat banking system desires up until it hits the tipping point. Commodities are still high over a 3 year tracking (my uncle and cousin run a family farm of 1000 acres and they are in heaven this year with prices of beef, corn, and soy so high), and luxury goods are deflating because no one is buying them.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1bd3a494c7eb6f42df17f00c2dd69910",
"text": "For press releases about economic data, the Bureau of Economic Analysis press release page is helpful. Depending on the series, you could also look at the Bureau of Labor Statistics press release page. For time series of both historical and present data, the St. Louis Federal Reserve maintains a database such data, including numerous measures of GDP, called FRED. They list nearly 15,000 series related to GDP alone. FRED is extremely useful because it allows you to make graphs that indicate areas of recession, like this: On the series' homepage, there's a bold link on the left side to download the data. If you simply need the most recent data, it's listed below the graph on that page. If you're interested in a more in-depth analysis, you can use the Bureau of Economic Analysis as well, specifically the National Income and Product Accounts, which are most of the numbers that feed into the calculation of GDP. FRED also archives some of these data. Both FRED and the BEA compile data on numerous other economic benchmarks as well. Other general sources for a wide range of announcements are the Yahoo, Bloomberg, and the Wall Street Journal economic calendars. These provide the dates of many economic announcements, e.g. existing home sales, durable orders, crude inventories, etc. Yahoo provides links to the raw data where available; Bloomberg and the WSJ provide links to their article where appropriate. This is a great way to learn about various announcements and how they affect the markets; for example, the somewhat disappointing durable orders announcement recently pushed markets down a few points. For Europe, look at Eurostat. On the left side of the page, they list links to common data, including GDP. They list the latest releases on the home page that I previously linked to. For the sake of keeping this question short, I'm lumping the rest of the world into this paragraph. Data for many other countries is maintained by their governments or central banks in a similar fashion. The World Bank's databank also has relevant data like Gross National Income (GNI), which isn't identical to GDP, but it's another (less common) macroeconomic indicator. You can also look at the economic calendar on livecharts.co.uk or xe.com, which list events for the US, Europe, Australasia, and some Latin American countries. If you're only interested in the US, the Bloomberg or Yahoo calendars may have a higher signal-to-noise ratio, but if you're interested in following how global markets like currency markets respond to new information, a global economic calendar is a must. Dailyfx.com also has a global economic calendar that, according to them, is specifically geared towards events that affect the forex market. As I said, governments and central banks compile a lot of this data, so to make searching easier, here are a few links to statistical agencies and central banks for major countries. I compiled this list a while ago on my personal machine, so although I think all the links are accurate, leave a comment if something isn't quite right. Statistics Australia / Brazil / Canada / Canada / China / Eurostat / France / Germany / IMF / Japan / Mexico / OECD / Thailand / UK / US Central banks Australia / Brazil / Canada / Chile / China / ECB / Hungary / India / Indonesia / Israel / Japan / Mexico / Norway / Russia / Sweden / Switzerland / Thailand / UK / US",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "63b7637214edacc81cb96fc946aaab97",
"text": "FYI...prices don't always go up. Inflation is a monetary phenomenon. I'm simplifying greatly here: if more money is printed (or the money supply increases through fractional reserve banking) and it is chasing the same amount of goods then prices will go up. Conversely, if money is held constant and the economy becomes more productive, producing more goods, then a constant amount of money is chasing an increasing amount of goods and prices go down. After the Civil War the greenback went back to being on a gold standard in 1879. After 1879 greenbacks could be redeemed for gold. Gold restricts money growth since it is difficult to obtain. Here are the price and wage indexes from 1869 - 1889 (from here): Notice from 1879 to 1889 that wholesale and consumer prices fall but wages start to increase. Imagine your salary staying the same (or even increasing) but the prices of items falling. Still don't think inflation is a monetary phenomenon? Here is a CPI chart from 1800 to 2007: Notice how the curve starts to go drastically up around 1970. What happen then? The US dollar went off the gold-exchange standard and the US dollar became a purely fiat currency backed by nothing but government decree which allows the Federal Reserve to print money ad nauseum.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
3910b833c388e587f486a917f7f4b965
|
Low risk withdrawal from market. Is there a converse to dollar-cost-averaging?
|
[
{
"docid": "2aa93b6a6be9b61f170f6d4804ceb9ff",
"text": "When you are a certain age you will be able to tap into your retirement accounts, or start receiving pension and social security funds. In addition you may be faced with required minimum distributions from these accounts. But even before you get to those points you will generally shift the focus of new funds into the retirement account to be more conservative. Depending on the balances in the various accounts and the size of the pension and social security accounts you may even move invested funds from aggressive to conservative investments. The proper proportion of the many different types of investments and revenue streams is open to much debate. During retirement you will be pulling money out of retirement accounts either to support your standard of living or to meet the required minimum distributions. What to sell will be based on either the tax implications or the required distributions that will still maintain the asset allocation you desire. If your distributions are driven by the law you will be selling enough to meet a specific required $ figure. You will either spend that money or move it into a low interest savings account or a non-retirement investment account. If trying to meet your standard of living expectations you will be selling funds that allow you to keep your desired asset allocation but still have enough to live on. Again you will be trying to meet a specific $ figure. Of course you may decide at anytime in retirement to rebalance based on changes to your lifestyle, family obligations, or winning the lottery.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "53bb45d891a7bec4bad44ba09a8080bb",
"text": "\"I'm just trying to visualize the costs of trading. Say I set up an account to trade something (forex, stock, even bitcoin) and I was going to let a random generator determine when I should buy or sell it. If I do this, I would assume I have an equal probability to make a profit or a loss. Your question is what a mathematician would call an \"\"ill-posed problem.\"\" It makes it a challenge to answer. The short answer is \"\"no.\"\" We will have to consider three broad cases for types of assets and two time intervals. Let us start with a very short time interval. The bid-ask spread covers the anticipated cost to the market maker of holding an asset bought in the market equal to the opportunity costs over the half-life of the holding period. A consequence of this is that you are nearly guaranteed to lose money if your time interval between trades is less than the half-life of the actual portfolio of the market maker. To use a dice analogy, imagine having to pay a fee per roll before you can gamble. You can win, but it will be biased toward losing. Now let us go to the extreme opposite time period, which is that you will buy now and sell one minute before you die. For stocks, you would have received the dividends plus any stocks you sold from mergers. Conversely, you would have had to pay the dividends on your short sales and received a gain on every short stock that went bankrupt. Because you have to pay interest on short sales and dividends passed, you will lose money on a net basis to the market maker. Maybe you are seeing a pattern here. The phrase \"\"market maker\"\" will come up a lot. Now let us look at currencies. In the long run, if the current fiat money policy regime holds, you will lose a lot of money. Deflation is not a big deal under a commodity money regime, but it is a problem under fiat money, so central banks avoid it. So your long currency holdings will depreciate. Your short would appreciate, except you have to pay interest on them at a rate greater than the rate of inflation to the market maker. Finally, for commodities, no one will allow perpetual holding of short positions in commodities because people want them delivered. Because insider knowledge is presumed under the commodities trading laws, a random investor would be at a giant disadvantage similar to what a chess player who played randomly would face against a grand master chess player. There is a very strong information asymmetry in commodity contracts. There are people who actually do know how much cotton there is in the world, how much is planted in the ground, and what the demand will be and that knowledge is not shared with the world at large. You would be fleeced. Can I also assume that probabilistically speaking, a trader cannot do worst than random? Say, if I had to guess the roll of a dice, my chance of being correct can't be less than 16.667%. A physicist, a con man, a magician and a statistician would tell you that dice rolls and coin tosses are not random. While we teach \"\"fair\"\" coins and \"\"fair\"\" dice in introductory college classes to simplify many complex ideas, they also do not exist. If you want to see a funny version of the dice roll game, watch the 1962 Japanese movie Zatoichi. It is an action movie, but it begins with a dice game. Consider adopting a Bayesian perspective on probability as it would be a healthier perspective based on how you are thinking about this problem. A \"\"frequency\"\" approach always assumes the null model is true, which is what you are doing. Had you tried this will real money, your model would have been falsified, but you still wouldn't know the true model. Yes, you can do much worse than 1/6th of the time. Even if you are trying to be \"\"fair,\"\" you have not accounted for the variance. Extending that logic, then for an inexperienced trader, is it right to say then that it's equally difficult to purposely make a loss then it is to purposely make a profit? Because if I can purposely make a loss, I would purposely just do the opposite of what I'm doing to make a profit. So in the dice example, if I can somehow lower my chances of winning below 16.6667%, it means I would simply need to bet on the other 5 numbers to give myself a better than 83% chance of winning. If the game were \"\"fair,\"\" but for things like forex the rules of the game are purposefully changed by the market maker to maximize long-run profitability. Under US law, forex is not regulated by anything other than common law. As a result, the market maker can state any price, including prices far from the market, with the intent to make a system used by actors losing systems, such as to trigger margin calls. The prices quoted by forex dealers in the US move loosely with the global rates, but vary enough that only the dealer should make money systematically. A fixed strategy would promote loss. You are assuming that only you know the odds and they would let you profit from your 83.33 percentage chance of winning. So then, is the costs of trading from a purely probabilistic point of view simply the transaction costs? No matter what, my chances cannot be worse than random and if my trading system has an edge that is greater than the percentage of the transaction that is transaction cost, then I am probabilistically likely to make a profit? No, the cost of trading is the opportunity cost of the money. The transaction costs are explicit costs, but you have ignored the implicit costs of foregone interest and foregone happiness using the money for other things. You will want to be careful here in understanding probability because the distribution of returns for all of these assets lack a first moment and so there cannot be a \"\"mean return.\"\" A modal return would be an intellectually more consistent perspective, implying you should use an \"\"all-or-nothing\"\" cost function to evaluate your methodology.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3293e141c7f31eef2fd7569dc3de00c7",
"text": "\"Dollar cost averaging is a fancy name someone came up with to say \"\"Invest all of the time\"\". I would not bother with spreading out purchases. If the market is too expensive right now ...so what? The items you sell will bring top dollar. The fund you buy will cost top dollar. It all evens out. You could sell your assets and just sit on cash, but that would require knowing when the next market drop is coming..which no one knows. Also, it never really is cash; it goes into a money market fund which is not guaranteed. I would rather own companies(VSTAX) and collect the dividend.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "be952cabcfcd84dd893acfba30c180ac",
"text": "Dollar-Cost averaging will allow you to reduce your risk while the stock prices falls provided: You must invest a fixed amount $X on a fixed time scale (i.e. every Y days). By doing this you will be able to take advantage of the lowering price by obtaining more shares per period as the price falls. But at the same time, if it starts to rise, you will already have your pig in the race. Example: Suppose you wanted to invest $300 in a company. We will do so over 3 periods. As the price falls, your average dollar cost will as well. But since you don't know where the bottom is, you cannot wait until the bottom. By trying to guess the bottom and dumping all of your investment at once you expose yourself to a higher level of risk.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e579c480f632018d2e79008cd1ccaa4b",
"text": "Line one shows your 1M, a return with a given rate, and year end withdrawal starting at 25,000. So Line 2 starts with that balance, applies the rate again, and shows the higher withdrawal, by 3%/yr. In Column one, I show the cumulative effect of the 3% inflation, and the last number in this column is the final balance (903K) but divided by the cumulative inflation. To summarize - if you simply get the return of inflation, and start by spending just that amount, you'll find that after 20 years, you have half your real value. The 1.029 is a trial and error method, as I don't know how a finance calculator would handle such a payment flow. I can load the sheet somewhere if you'd like. Note: This is not exactly what the OP was looking for. If the concept is useful, I'll let it stand. If not, downvotes are welcome and I'll delete.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6ee95a4848cb93fbdb1f31a78e483bf2",
"text": "That doesn't sound like dollar cost averaging. That sounds like a form of day trading. Dollar cost averaging is how most people add money to their 401K, or how they add money to some IRA accounts. You are proposing a form of day trading.",
"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": "634bdaeebed3f415b4930b0e86a0187e",
"text": "\"A big part of the answer depends on how \"\"beaten down\"\" the stock is, how long it will take to recover from the drop, and your taste for risk. If you honestly believe the drop is a temporary aberration then averaging down can be a good strategy to lower your dollar-cost average in the stock. But this is a huge risk if you're wrong, because now you're going to magnify your losses by piling on more stock that isn't going anywhere to the shares you already own at a higher cost. As @Mindwin pointed out correctly, the problem for most investors following an \"\"average down\"\" strategy is that it makes them much less likely to cut their losses when the stock doesn't recover. They basically become \"\"married\"\" to the stock because they've actualized their belief the stock will bounce back when maybe it never will or worse, drops even more.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0e8fefe281a9f811bfd8f1f21c19ed49",
"text": "If you define dollar cost cost averaging as investing a specific dollar amount over a certain fixed time frame then it does not work statistically better than any other strategy for getting that money in the market. (IE Aunt Ruth wants to invest $60,000 in the stock market and does it $5000 a month for a year.) It will work better on some markets and worse on others, but on average it won't be any better. Dollar cost averaging of this form is effectively a bet that gains will occur at the end of the time period rather than the beginning, sometimes this bet will pay off, other times it won't. A regular investment contribution of what you can afford over an indefinite time period (IE 401k contribution) is NOT Dollar Cost Averaging but it is an effective investment strategy.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4a19eb29e6bbded4886ff2d5b424e236",
"text": "\"I have been considering a similar situation for a while now, and the advice i have been given is to use a concept called \"\"dollar cost averaging\"\", which basically amounts to investing say 10% a month over 10 months, resulting in your investment getting the average price over that period. So basically, option 3.\"",
"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": "31217d7752953f3db3788b2a56bfe7e5",
"text": "\"Has anyone done this before? I'm sure someone has, but it doesn't completely remove any price risk. Suppose you buy it at 10 and it drops to 5? Then you've lost 5 on the stock and have no realized gain on the option (although you could buy back the option cheaply and exist the position). To completely remove price risk you have to delta hedge. At ATM option generally has a delta of 50%, meaning that the value of the option changes 0.50 for every $1 change in the stock. The downside to delta hedging is you can spend a lot on transaction fees and employ a lot of \"\"buy high, sell low\"\" transactions with a highly volatile stock.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eef9aedb0ad4b895b7f771712e625179",
"text": "If you are making regular periodic investments (e.g. each pay period into a 401(k) plan) or via automatic investment scheme in a non-tax-deferred portfolio (e.g. every month, $200 goes automatically from your checking account to your broker or mutual fund house), then one way of rebalancing (over a period of time) is to direct your investment differently into the various accounts you have, with more going into the pile that needs bringing up, and less into the pile that is too high. That way, you can avoid capital gains or losses etc in doing the selling-off of assets. You do, of course, take longer to achieve the balance that you seek, but you do get some of the benefits of dollar-cost averaging.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d82fb34dc2e7a18aa51ebcdac70db38a",
"text": "\"The previous answers make valid points regarding the risks, and why you can't reasonably compare trading for profit/loss to a roll of the die. This answer looks at the math instead. Your assumption: I have an equal probability to make a profit or a loss. Is incorrect, for the reasons stated in other answers. However, the answer to your question: Can I also assume that probabilistically speaking, a trader cannot do worst than random? Is \"\"yes\"\". But only because the question is flawed. Consequently it's throwing people in all directions with their answers. But quite simply, in a truly random environment the worst case scenario, no matter how improbable, is that you lose over and over again until you have nothing left. This can happen in sequential rolls of the dice AND in trading securities/bonds/whatever. You could guess wrong for every roll of the die AND all of your stock picks could become worthless. Both outcomes result in $0 (assuming you do not gamble with credit). Tell me, which $0 is \"\"worse\"\"? Given the infinite number of plays that \"\"random\"\" implies, the chance of losing your entire bankroll exists in both scenarios, and that is enough by itself to make neither option \"\"worse\"\" than the other. Of course, the opposite is also true. You could only pick winners, with an unlimited upside potential, but again that could happen with either dice rolls or stock picks. It's just highly improbable. my chances cannot be worse than random and if my trading system has an edge that is greater than the percentage of the transaction that is transaction cost, then I am probabilistically likely to make a profit? Nope. This is where it all falls apart. Just because your chances of losing it all are similarly improbable, does not make you more likely to win with one method or the other. Regression to the mean, when given infinite, truly random outcomes, makes it impossible to \"\"have an edge\"\". Also, \"\"probabilistically\"\" isn't a word, but \"\"probably\"\" is.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "66002fb9387b1f794929de8adce812a2",
"text": "\"This summer I used a loan from my 401(k) to help pay for the down payment of a new house. We planned on selling a Condo a few months later, so we only needed the loan for a short period but wanted to keep monthly payments low since we would be paying two mortgages for a few months. I also felt like the market might take a dip in the future, so I liked the idea of trying to cash out high and buy back low (spoiler alert: this didn't happen). So in July 2017 I withdrew $17,000 from my account (Technically $16,850.00 principal and $150 processing fee) at an effective 4.19% APR (4% rate and then the fee), with 240 scheduled payments of $86.00 (2 per month for 10 years). Over the lifetime of the loan the total finance charge was $3,790, but that money would be paid back into my account. I was happy with the terms, and it helped tide things over until the condo was sold a few months later. But then I decided to change jobs, and ended up having to pay back the loan ~20 weeks after it was issued (using the proceeds from the sale of the condo). During this time the market had done well, so when I paid back the funds the net difference in shares that I now owned (including shares purchased with the interest payments) was $538.25 less than today's value of the original count of shares that were sold to fund the loan. Combined with the $150 fee, the overall \"\"cost\"\" of the 20 week loan was about 4.05%. That isn't the interest rate (interest was paid back to my account balance), but the value lost due to the principal having been withdrawn. On paper, my account would be worth that much more if I hadn't withdrawn the money. Now if you extrapolate the current market return into 52 weeks, you can think of that loan having an APR \"\"cost\"\" of around 10.5% (Probably not valid for a multi year calculation, but seems accurate for a 12 month projection). Again, that is not interest paid back to the account, but instead the value lost due to the money not being in the account. Sure, the market could take a dip and I may be able to buy the shares back at a reduced cost, but that would require keeping sizable liquid assets around and trying to time the market. It also is not something you can really schedule very well, as the loan took 6 days to fund (not including another week of clarifying questions back/forth before that) and 10 day to repay (from the time I initiated the paperwork to when the check was cashed and shares repurchased). So in my experience, the true cost of the loan greatly depends on how the market does, and if you have the ability to pay back the loan it probably is worth doing so. Especially since you may be forced to do so at any time if you change jobs or your employment is terminated.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8385719c8db684b5a4e3be501ec207d1",
"text": "\"Your chance of even correctly recognizing the actual lowest point of a dip are essentially zero, so if you try to time the market, you'll most likely not get the \"\"buy cheap\"\" part perfectly right. And as you write yourself, while you wait for the dip, you have an ongoing opportunity cost. Cost averaging is by far the best strategy for non-professional and risk averse investors to deal with this. And yes, over the long run, it's far more important to invest at all than when you do it.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
090ab2acaf74b8a31d3e228c80248219
|
Is losing money in my 401K normal?
|
[
{
"docid": "0cf358cb9e2815b4e955a73e669c6438",
"text": "Depends on how the money is invested within the 401k... but in general, prices move both up and down with a long-tem bias toward up. Think of it this way: with fund shares priced lower now, you are getting shares cheaper than when you entered the plan. So this dip is actually working in your favor, as long as you are comfortable trusting that long-term view (and trusting the funds your 401k money is going into). Believe me, it's even scarier when you're nearer your target retirement date and a 10% dip may be six figures... but it's all theoretical until you actually start drawing the money back out, and you have to learn to accept some volatility as part of the trade-off for getting returns better than bonds.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3cd235702fd875f2162c307bab31c06e",
"text": "\"It is absolutely normal for your investments to go down at times. If you pull money out whenever your investments decrease in value, you lock in the losses. It is better to do a bit of research and come up with some sort of strategy about how you will manage your investments. One such strategy is to choose a target asset allocation (or let the \"\"target date\"\" fund choose it for you) and never sell until you need the money for retirement. Some would advocate various other strategies that involve timing the market. The important thing is that you find a strategy that you can live with and that provides you with enough confidence that you won't buy and sell at random. Acting on gut feelings and selling whenever you feel queasy will likely lead to worse outcomes in the long run.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5394995b18736e3123af489412bcab30",
"text": "\"My two cents: I am a pension actuary and see the performance of funds on a daily basis. Is it normal to see down years? Yes, absolutely. It's a function of the directional bias of how the portfolio is invested. In the case of a 401(k) that almost always mean a positive directional bias (being long). Now, in your case I see two issues: The amount of drawdown over one year. It is atypical to have a 14% loss in a little over a year. Given the market conditions, this means that you nearly experienced the entire drawdown of the SP500 (which your portfolio is highly correlated to) and you have no protection from the downside. The use of so-called \"\"target-date funds\"\". Their very implication makes no sense. Essentially, they try to generate a particular return over the elapsed time until retirement. The issue is that the market is by all statistical accounts random with positive drift (it can be expected to move up in the long term). This positive drift is due to the fact that people should be paid to take on risk. So if you need the money 20 years from now, what's the big deal? Well, the issue is that no one, and I repeat, no one, knows when the market will experience long down moves. So you happily experience positive drift for 20 years and your money grows to a decent size. Then, right before you retire, the market shaves 20%+ of your investments. Will you recoup these damages? Most likely yes. But will that be in the timeframe you need? The market doesn't care if you need money or not. So, here is my advice if you are comfortable taking control of your money. See if you can roll your money into an IRA (some 401(k) plans will permit this) or, if you contribute less that the 401(k) contribution limit you make want to just contribute to an IRA (be mindful of the annual limits). In this case, you can set up a self-directed account. Here you will have the flexibility to diversify and take action as necessary. And by diversify, I don't mean that \"\"buy lots of different stuff\"\" garbage, I mean focus on uncorrelated assets. You can get by on a handful of ETFs (SPY, TLT, QQQ, ect.). These all have liquid options available. Once you build a base, you can lower basis by writing covered calls against these positions. This is allowed in almost all IRA accounts. In my opinion, and I see this far too often, your potential and drive to take control of your assets is far superior than the so called \"\"professionals or advisors\"\". They will 99% of the time stick you in a target date fund and hope that they make their basis points on your money and retire before you do. Not saying everyone is unethical, but its hard to care about your money more than you will.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "60ceb43c0ecd568017e8c3bdf28bdb17",
"text": "While historical performance is not necessarily indicative of future performance, I like to look at the historical performance of the markets for context. Vanguard's portfolio allocation models is one source for this data. Twenty years is a long term timeline. If you're well diversified in passively managed index funds, you should be positioned well for the future. You've lost nothing until it's realized or you sell. Meanwhile, you still own an asset that has value. As Warren Buffet says, buy low and sell high.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3c55d2342e83f665702c69dc98d21b3f",
"text": "Bottom line is our system is broken. For three years running I am 0% return with over 600k in. Yet, the 401k admin institution charges us all enormous fees that most aren't even aware exist. A helpful tip is to also check out your expense ratios and learn how those work as well so you know how much you are paying in hidden fees.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "f7ea091e56a9662c5feb474e8aaf7f0d",
"text": "\"I don't know if what they're doing is legal, however I believe you should be able to roll over the funds in your 401(k) to a self-administered IRA in which you can buy any stock you want. Is the company publicly traded? Also, you say the stock is \"\"expected\"\" to surpass its previous high? By who? You? Spokespeople at the company? Certainly not the market itself, as it wouldn't have fallen so much otherwise. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that you have to make your own judgments about these things, don't go by others' \"\"expectations\"\".\"",
"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": "24be2de48d1cfb7307664fdabdca1e4d",
"text": "\"I am currently running 12%. This is including IRA, 401k, HSA, and tax accounts. My LC is not a tax sheltered.The share used to be around 25% but i have been very aggressively putting away alot more into 401k/HSA. My current NAT returns on LC are 14.3%, but not a single loan has seasoned, i am nearing my first full year, and i have had 3 defaults in 150~ loans. My % across grades: A-0 B-6 C-30 D-31 E-20 F-12 G-1 Also to note, i use a very filter and only pick the \"\"best\"\" notes based on my own personally back testing. My 5 year average for stocks and such is around 11%, and YTD is 14%. Which is matching my LC rate. I am not sure which one will hurt more during the next bear markets, LC, or long term investments. Only time will tell. I suppose I plan on keeping my LC between 10-15% of my total investments. I will see how it goes as time goes on and my account gets more seasoned.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a21a8d6a2b951dcd5745c44bb393a930",
"text": "\"Probably not. In general, if you withdraw money from a 401k before age 59 1/2, you must pay a 10% penalty. There are some special cases. You can withdraw money to pay certain unreimbursed medical bills, if you are disabled, or to pay back taxes. You can also withdraw money if you are dead. See https://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/Plan-Participant,-Employee/Retirement-Topics-Tax-on-Early-Distributions. There is also a provision that you can make penalty-free withdrawals as long as you take them regularly: \"\"Made as part of a series of substantially equal periodic payments beginning after separation from service and made at least annually for the life or life expectancy of the participant or the joint lives or life expectancies of the participant and his or her designated beneficiary. (The payments under this exception, except in the case of death or disability, must continue for at least 5 years or until the employee reaches age 59½, whichever is the longer period.)\"\" See https://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/Plan-Sponsor/401(k)-Resource-Guide-Plan-Sponsors-General-Distribution-Rules. (I don't quite understand this rule. You can't take money out one time, but you can take money out multiple times. Oh well. I think the idea is supposed to be that you can take out money for an early retirement.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4df4ef31459c723e37be3d006ae61558",
"text": "$10.90 for every $1000 per year. Are you kidding me!!! These are usually hidden within the expense ratio of the plan funds, but >1% seems to be quite a lot regardless. FUND X 1 year return 3% 3 year return 6% 10 year return 5% What does that exactly mean? This is the average annual rate of return. If measured for the last 3 years, the average annual rate of return is 6%, if measured for 1 year - it's 3%. What it means is that out of the last 3 years, the last year return was not the best, the previous two were much better. Does that mean that if I hold my mutual funds for 10 years I will get 5% return on it. Definitely not. Past performance doesn't promise anything for the future. It is merely a guidance for you, a comparison measure between the funds. You can assume that if in the past the fund performed certain way, then given the same conditions in the future, it will perform the same again. But it is in no way a promise or a guarantee of anything. Since my 401K plan stinks what are my options. If I put my money in a traditional IRA then I lose my pre tax benefits right! Wrong, IRA is pre-tax as well. But the pre-tax deduction limits for IRA are much lower than for 401k. You can consider investing in the 401k, and then rolling over to a IRA which will allow better investment options. After your update: Just clearing up the question. My current employer has a 401K. Most of the funds have the expense ratio of 1.20%. There is NO MATCHING CONTRIBUTIONS. Ouch. Should I convert the 401K of my old company to Traditional IRA and start investing in that instead of investing in the new employer 401K plan with high fees. You should probably consider rolling over the old company 401k to a traditional IRA. However, it is unrelated to the current employer's 401k. If you're contributing up to the max to the Roth IRA, you can't add any additional contributions to traditional IRA on top of that - the $5000 limit is for both, and the AGI limitations for Roth are higher, so you're likely not able to contribute anything at all to the traditional IRA. You can contribute to the employer's 401k. You have to consider if the rather high expenses are worth the tax deferral for you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2a0af1c2c1b6c26dbc6f6d137d149688",
"text": "There are several things being mixed up in the questions being asked. The expense ratio charged by the mutual fund is built into the NAV per share of the fund, and you do not see the charge explicitly mentioned as a deduction on your 401k statement (or in the statement received from the mutual fund in a non-401k situation). The expense ratio is listed in the fund's prospectus, and should also have been made available to you in the literature about the new 401k plan that your employer is setting up. Mutual fund fees (for things like having a small balance, or for that matter, sales charges if any of the funds in the 401k are load funds, God forbid) are different. Some load mutual funds waive the sales charge load for 401k participants, while some may not. Actually, it all depends on how hard the employer negotiates with the 401k administration company who handles all the paperwork and the mutual fund company with which the 401k administration company negotiates. (In the 1980s, Fidelity Magellan (3% sales load) was a hot fund, but my employer managed to get it as an option in our plan with no sales load: it helped that my employer was large and could twist arms more easily than a mom-and-pop outfit or Solo 401k plan could). A long long time ago in a galaxy far far away, my first ever IRA contribution of $2000 into a no-load mutual fund resulted in a $25 annual maintenance fee, but the law allowed the payment of this fee separately from the $2000 if the IRA owner wished to do so. (If not, the $25 would reduce the IRA balance (and no, this did not count as a premature distribution from the IRA). Plan expenses are what the 401k administration company charges the employer for running the plan (and these expenses are not necessarily peanuts; a 401k plan is not something that needs just a spreadsheet -- there is lots of other paperwork that the employee never gets to see). In some cases, the employer pays the entire expense as a cost of doing business; in other cases, part is paid by the employer and the rest is passed on to the employees. As far as I know, there is no mechanism for the employee to pay these expenses outside the 401k plan (that is, these expenses are (visibly) deducted from the 401k plan balance). Finally, with regard to the question asked: how are plan fees divided among the investment options? I don't believe that anyone other than the 401k plan administrator or the employer can answer this. Even if the employer simply adopts one of the pre-packaged plans offered by a big 401k administrator (many brokerages and mutual fund companies offer these), the exact numbers depend on which pre-packaged plan has been chosen. (I do think the answers the OP has received are rubbish).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "47889eab884a9e22adff449e878ada32",
"text": "It's not really like im am going to lose my money unless I was doing penny stocks. And throwing away that much for a vacation when student debt will probally exist in my life later on appears not wise.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1d0c8618a8d82e57dc6c026b11c70958",
"text": "\"Since most of the answers are flawed in their logic, I decided to respond here. 1) \"\"What if you lose your job, you can't pay back the loan\"\" The point of the question was to reduce the amount paid per month. So obviously it would be easier to pay off the 401k loan rather than the 3 separate loans that are in place now. Also it's stated in the question that there's a mortgage, a child with medical costs, a car loan, student loans, other debt. On the list of priorities the 401k loan does not make the top 10 concerns if they lost their job. 2) \"\"Consider stopping the 401k contribution\"\" This is such a terrible idea. If you make the full contribution to the 401k and then just withdraw from the 401k rather than getting a loan you only pay a 10% penalty tax. You still get 90% of the company match. 3) \"\"You lose compound interest\"\" While currently the interest you get on a 401k (depending on how that money is invested) is higher than the interest you pay on your loans (which means it would be advantageous to keep the loans and keep contributing to the 401k), it's very unreliable and might even go down. I think you actually have a good case for getting a loan against the 401k if a) You have your spending and budget under control b) Your income is consistent c) You are certain that the loan will be paid back. My suggestion would be to take a loan against the 401k, but keep the current spending on the loans consistent. If you don't need the extra $150 per month, you really should try to pay off the loans as fast as you can. If you do need the $150 extra, you are lowering the mental threshold for getting more loans in the future.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cfb8eb76f144b9bc12d00e547c5e16c9",
"text": "\"I'd refer you to Is it true that 90% of investors lose their money? The answer there is \"\"no, not true,\"\" and much of the discussion applies to this question. The stock market rises over time. Even after adjusting for inflation, a positive return. Those who try to beat the market, choosing individual stocks, on average, lag the market quite a bit. Even in a year of great returns, as is this year ('13 is up nearly 25% as measured by the S&P) there are stocks that are up, and stocks that are down. Simply look at a dozen stock funds and see the variety of returns. I don't even look anymore, because I'm sure that of 12, 2 or three will be ahead, 3-4 well behind, and the rest clustered near 25. Still, if you wish to embark on individual stock purchases, I recommend starting when you can invest in 20 different stocks, spread over different industries, and be willing to commit time to follow them, so each year you might be selling 3-5 and replacing with stocks you prefer. It's the ETF I recommend for most, along with a buy and hold strategy, buying in over time will show decent returns over the long run, and the ETF strategy will keep costs low.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6d2575931e7d2b1704a1830353b1842d",
"text": "\"Unfortunately, I missed most of segment and I didn't get to understand the Why? To begin with, Cramer is an entertainer and his business is pushing stocks. If you put money into mutual funds (which most 401k plans limit your investments to), then you are not purchasing his product. Also, many 401k plans have limited selections of funds, and many of those funds are not good performers. While his stock-picking track record is much better than mine, his isn't that great. He does point out that there are a lot of fees (mostly hidden) in 401k accounts. If you read your company's 5500 filing (especialy Schedule A), you can determine just how much your plan administrators are paying themselves. If paying excessive fees is your concern, then you should be rolling over your 401k into your IRA when you quit (or the employer-match vests, which ever is later). Finally, Cramer thinks that most of his audience will max out their IRA contributions and have only a little bit left for their 401k. I'm most definately \"\"not most people\"\" as I'm maxing out both my 401k and IRA contributions.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5085b7413e9cb158544dce5b32e82066",
"text": "According to my calculations, you always lose money on group B. x = average monthly balance Income for a year = 0.015 * (12 * x) = 0.18 * x Cost of funds for one month = 0.04 * x Cost of funds for one year = 12 * (0.04 * x) = 0.48 * x Profit? at end of year = income_for_year - cost_of_funds_for_one_year = (0.18 * x) - (0.48 * x) = forever loss",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "c2985abf51365c0748e889c837755967",
"text": "I question the reliability of the information you received. Of course, it's possible the former 401(k) provider happened to charge lower expense ratios on its index funds than other available funds and lower the new provider's fees. There are many many many financial institutions and fees are not fixed between them. I think the information you received is simply an assumptive justification for the difference in fees.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d7436eb25a30020c21f3702ee266941b",
"text": "\"All right, I will try to take this nice and slow. This is going to be a little long; try to bear with me. Suppose you contribute $100 to your newly opened 401(k). You now have $100 in cash and $0 in mutual funds in your 401(k) (and $100 less than you used to somewhere else). At some later date, you use that money within the 401(k) to buy a single share of the Acme World All-Market Index Fund which happens to trade at exactly $100 per share on the day your purchase goes through. As a result, you have $0 in cash and exactly one share of that fund (corresponding to $100) within your 401(k). Some time later, the price of the fund is up 10%, so your share is now worth $110. Since you haven't contributed anything more to your 401(k) for whatever reason, your cash holding is still $0. Because your holding is really denominated in shares of this mutual fund, of which you still have exactly one, the cash equivalent of your holding is now $110. Now, you can basically do one of two things: By selling the share, you protect against it falling in price, thus in a sense \"\"locking in\"\" your gain. But where do you put the money instead? You obviously can't put the money in anything else that might fall in price; doing so would mean that you could lose a portion of your gains. The only way to truly \"\"lock in\"\" a gain is to remove the money from your investment portfolio altogether. Roughly speaking, that means withdrawing the money and spending it. (And then you have to consider if the value of what you spent the money on can fluctuate, and as a consequence, fall. What's the value of that three weeks old jug of milk in the back of your refrigerator?) The beauty of compounding is that it doesn't care when you bought an investment. Let's say that you kept the original fund, which was at $110. Now, since that day, it is up another 5%. Since we are looking at the change of price of the fund over some period of time, that's 5% of $110, not 5% of the $100 you bought at (which was an arbitrary point, anyway). 5% of $110 is $5.50, which means that the value of your holding is now at $115.50 from a gain first of 10% followed by another 5%. If at the same day when the original fund was at $110 you buy another $100 worth of it, the additional 5% gain is realized on the sum of the two at the time of the purchase, or $210. Thus after the additional 5% gain, you would have not $210 (($100 + $100) + 5%), nor $205 (($100 + 5%) + $100), but $220.50 (($110 + $100) + 5%). See how you don't need to do anything in particular to realize the beauty of compounding growth? There is one exception to the above. Some investments pay out dividends, interest or equivalent in cash equivalents. (Basically, deposit money into an account of yours somewhere; in the case of retirement plans, usually within the same container where you are holding the investment. These dividends are generally not counted against your contribution limits, but check the relevant legal texts if you want to be absolutely certain.) This is somewhat uncommon in mutual funds, but very common in other investments such as stocks or bonds that you purchase directly (which you really should not do if you are just starting out and/or feel the need to ask this type of question). In that case, you need to place a purchase order yourself for whatever you want to invest the dividend in. If you don't, then the extra money of the dividend will not be growing along with your original investment.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3c57466025d8d434473eb16e19950d95",
"text": "There are very strict regulations that requires the assets which a fund buys on behalf of its investors to be kept completely separate from the fund's own assets (which it uses to pay its expenses), except for the published fees. Funds are typically audited regularly to ensure this is the case. So the only way in which a default of the fund could cause a loss of invstor money would be if the fund managers broke the regulations and committed various crimes. I've never heard of this actually happening to a normal mutual fund. There is of course also a default risk when a fund buys bonds or other non-equity securities, and this may sometimes be non-obvious. For example, some ETFs which are nominally based on a stock index don't actually buy stocks; instead they buy or sell options on those stocks, which involves a counterparty risk. The ETF may or may not have rules that limit the exposure to any one counterparty.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
7226e865803347505f3835e7276e1d84
|
What's a good way to find someone locally to help me with my investments?
|
[
{
"docid": "c9cca61cae3777367618be2016ea092d",
"text": "Dave Ramsey has a list of ELPs (Endorsed Local Providers) of which I've only heard good things. You can request an investment ELP here.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "78026373933e19218386758995512731",
"text": "I would start by talking to a Fee-Only Financial Planner to make sure the portfolio fits with your goals. You can find a list here: http://www.napfa.org/",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "39cd5f6296d8871d6cd2d2fbb1e9cf07",
"text": "I strongly suggest personal referral. Ask all of your friends/family/neighbors/co-workers/dog-sitter what they think of their brokers until you find someone who loves his broker. As for transferring assets, I've found it to be quite easy. It's in the new broker's best interest to get those assets, so he should be more than willing to help.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "3bf230205bb1a357e7a52292f2a695eb",
"text": "\"There's several approaches to the stock market. The first thing you need to do is decide which you're going to take. The first is the case of the standard investor saving money for retirement (or some other long-term goal). He already has a job. He's not really interested in another job. He doesn't want to spend thousands of hours doing research. He should buy mutual funds or similar instruments to build diversified holdings all over the world. He's going to have is money invested for years at a time. He won't earn spectacular amazing awesome returns, but he'll earn solid returns. There will be a few years when he loses money, but he'll recover it just by waiting. The second is the case of the day trader. He attempts to understand ultra-short-term movements in stock prices due to news, rumors, and other things which stem from quirks of the market and the people who trade in it. He buys a stock, and when it's up a fraction of a percent half an hour later, sells it. This is very risky, requires a lot of attention and a good amount of money to work with, and you can lose a lot of money too. The modern day-trader also needs to compete with the \"\"high-frequency trading\"\" desks of Wall Street firms, with super-optimized computer networks located a block away from the exchange so that they can make orders faster than the guy two blocks away. I don't recommend this approach at all. The third case is the guy who wants to beat the market. He's got long-term aspirations and vision, but he does a lot more research into individual companies, figures out which are worth buying and which are not, and invests accordingly. (This is how Warren Buffett made it big.) You can make it work, but it's like starting a business: it's a ton of work, requires a good amount of money to get going, and you still risk losing lots of it. The fourth case is the guy who mostly invests in broad market indexes like #1, but has a little money set aside for the stocks he's researched and likes enough to invest in like #3. He's not going to make money like Warren Buffett, but he may get a little bit of an edge on the rest of the market. If he doesn't, and ends up losing money there instead, the rest of his stocks are still chugging along. The last and stupidest way is to treat it all like magic, buying things without understanding them or a clear plan of what you're going to do with them. You risk losing all your money. (You also risk having it stagnate.) Good to see you want to avoid it. :)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7f2c218ee74e0d3479758e528248143a",
"text": "\"Google Finance and Yahoo! Finance would be a couple of sites you could use to look at rather broad market information. This would include the major US stock markets like the Dow, Nasdaq, S & P 500 though also bond yields, gold and oil can also be useful as depending on which area one works the specifics of what are important could vary. If you were working at a well-known bond firm, I'd suspect that various bond benchmarks are likely to be known and watched rather than stock indices. Something else to consider here is what constitutes a \"\"finance practitioner\"\" as I'd imagine several accountants and actuaries may not watch the market yet there could be several software developers working at hedge funds that do so that it isn't just a case of what kind of work but also what does the company do.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5e5444f4bbe5b36d3ea14dcbce9d3bd6",
"text": "If you already have 500k in a Schwab brokerage account, go see your Schwab financial consultant. They will assign you one, no charge, and in my experience they're sharp people. Sure, you can get a second opinion (or even report back here, maybe in chat?), but they will get you started in the right direction. I'd expect them to recommend a lot of index funds, just a bit of bonds or blended funds, all weighted heavily toward equities. If you're young and expect the income stream to continue, you can be fairly aggressive. Ask about the fees the entire way and you'll be fine.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a3ead6164c50ccbd9cdb1398b9d611c2",
"text": "I don't know if this is exactly what you're looking for but Seedrs sorta fits what you're looking for. Private companies can raise money through funding rounds on Seedrs website. It wouldn't necessarily be local companies though. I've only recently found it myself so not sure if it has a uk or European slant to it. Personally I think it's a very interesting concept, private equity through crowd funding.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dc791ff7f4a2e648915913f2f2bc62ae",
"text": "Yup. What I wanted to know was where they are pulling it up from. Have casually used Google finance for personal investments, but they suck at corp actions. Not sure if they provide free APIs, but that would probably suck too! :D",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1836169d4b281e472f6b660492a5e2ed",
"text": "\"Question 1: How do I start? or \"\"the broker\"\" problem Get an online broker. You can do a wire transfer to fund the account from your bank. Question 2: What criticism do you have for my plan? Dividend investing is smart. The only problem is that everyone's currently doing it. There is an insatiable demand for yield, not just individual investors but investment firms and pension funds that need to generate income to fund retirements for their clients. As more investors purchase the shares of dividend paying securities, the share price goes up. As the share price goes up, the dividend yield goes down. Same for bonds. For example, if a stock pays $1 per year in dividends, and you purchase the shares at $20/each, then your yearly return (not including share price fluctuations) would be 1/20 = 5%. But if you end up having to pay $30 per share, then your yearly return would be 1/30 or 3.3% yield. The more money you invest, the bigger this difference becomes; with $100K invested you'd make about $1.6K more at 5%. (BTW, don't put all your money in any small group of stocks, you want to diversify). ETFs work the same way, where new investors buying the shares cause the custodian to purchase more shares of the underlying securities, thus driving up the price up and yield down. Instead of ETFs, I'd have a look at something called closed end funds, or CEFs which also hold an underlying basket of securities but often trade at a discount to their net asset value, unlike ETFs. CEFs usually have higher yields than their ETF counterparts. I can't fully describe the ins and outs here in this space, but you'll definately want to do some research on them to better understand what you're buying, and HOW to successfully buy (ie make sure you're buying at a historically steep discount to NAV [https://seekingalpha.com/article/1116411-the-closed-end-fund-trifecta-how-to-analyze-a-cef] and where to screen [https://www.cefconnect.com/closed-end-funds-screener] Regardless of whether you decide to buy stocks, bonds, ETFs, CEFs, sell puts, or some mix, the best advice I can give is to a) diversify (personally, with a single RARE exception, I never let any one holding account for more than 2% of my total portfolio value), and b) space out your purchases over time. b) is important because we've been in a low interest rate environment since about 2009, and when the risk free rate of return is very low, investors purchase stocks and bonds which results in lower yields. As the risk free rate of return is expected to finally start slowly rising in 2017 and gradually over time, there should be gradual downward pressure (ie selling) on the prices of dividend stocks and especially bonds meaning you'll get better yields if you wait. Then again, we could hit a recession and the central banks actually lower rates which is why I say you want to space your purchases out.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "89284f3984c1f9da4e87b7bcd0d6f026",
"text": "\"Many of my friends said I should invest my money on stocks or something else, instead of put them in the bank forever. I do not know anything about finance, so my questions are: First let me say that your friends may have the best intentions, but don't trust them. It has been my experience that friends tell you what they would do if they had your money, and not what they would actually do with their money. Now, I don't mean that they would be malicious, or that they are out to get you. What I do mean, is why would you take advise from someone about what they would do with 100k when they don't have 100k. I am in your financial situation (more or less), and I have friends that make more then I do, and have no savings. Or that will tell you to get an IRA -so-and-so but don't have the means (discipline) to do so. Do not listen to your friends on matters of money. That's just good all around advise. Is my financial status OK? If not, how can I improve it? Any financial situation with no or really low debt is OK. I would say 5% of annual income in unsecured debt, or 2-3 years in annual income in secured debt is a good place to be. That is a really hard mark to hit (it seems). You have hit it. So your good, right now. You may want to \"\"plan for the future\"\". Immediate goals that I always tell people, are 6 months of income stuck in a liquid savings account, then start building a solid investment situation, and a decent retirement plan. This protects you from short term situations like loss of job, while doing something for the future. Is now a right time for me to see a financial advisor? Is it worthy? How would she/he help me? Rather it's worth it or not to use a financial adviser is going to be totally opinion based. Personally I think they are worth it. Others do not. I see it like this. Unless you want to spend all your time looking up money stuff, the adviser is going to have a better grasp of \"\"money stuff\"\" then you, because they do spend all their time doing it. That being said there is one really important thing to consider. That is going to be how you pay the adviser. The following are my observations. You will need to make up your own mind. Free Avoid like the plague. These advisers are usually provided by the bank and make their money off commission or kickbacks. That means they will advise you of the product that makes them the most money. Not you. Flat Rate These are not a bad option, but they don't have any real incentive to make you money. Usually, they do a decent job of making you money, but again, it's usually better for them to advise you on products that make them money. Per Hour These are my favorite. They charge per hour. Usually they are a small shop, and will walk you through all the advise. They advise what's best for you, because they have to sit there and explain their choices. They can be hard to find, but are generally the best option in my opinion. % of Money These are like the flat rate advisers to me. They get a percentage of the money you give them to \"\"manage\"\". Because they already have your money they are more likely to recommend products that are in their interest. That said, there not all bad. % or Profit These are the best (see notes later). They get a percentage of the money they make for you. They have the most interest in making you money. They only get part of what you get, so there going to make sure you get the biggest pie, so they can get a bigger slice. Notes In the real world, all advisers are likely to get kickbacks on products they recommend. Make sure to keep an eye for that. Also most advisers will use 2-3 of the methods listed above for billing. Something like z% of profit +$x per hour is what I like to see. You will have to look around and see what is available. Just remember that you are paying someone to make you money (or to advise you on how to make money) so long as what they take leaves you with some profit your in a better situation then your are now. And that's the real goal.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3167b26b3d85953e30d252c7ae9aa5d5",
"text": "You can look into specific market targeted mutual funds or ETF's. For Norway, for example, look at NORW. If you want to purchase specific stocks, then you'd better be ready to trade on local stock exchanges in local currency. ETrade allows trading on some of the international stock exchanges (in Asia they have Hong Kong and Japan, in Europe they have the UK, Germany and France, and in the Americas they have the US and Canada). Some of the companies you're interested in might be trading there.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "762ab641a0efe27313282e4079dd8588",
"text": "\"While you’re new or relatively new to this idea then the fitting idea is to perform a little research and primary get conversant in what’s possible with offshore investment opportunities. I couldn't agree more. A good way to begin this research would be to do an online search for an investment opportunity called \"\"Royal Siam Trust.\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "35d7b7bfa64a908279a2976bd2f45da3",
"text": "The old school way would have been to identify some wealthy zip codes and cold call like a mofo. At present I would prefer to find some retiring advisor and buy his book (that may mean leaving your current firm).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "441f95afd6f679724e6c737d8e4a9369",
"text": "Why should I give you a single minute of my time? Until you can answer that question, it doesn't matter *how* you go about reaching them. You have to look at it like sales situation. Unless you can demonstrate value to them within the first couple of sentences, you won't be given the time of day. These guys get pitched all day long -whether it's their employees, investors, people looking for investments or people looking for a mentor. I'd suggest looking locally first. Go to a couple business association meetings in your area (a lot of them are free or cost under $50). These meetings almost always have time for networking, but you'll only get out of it what you put into it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b6dfeceee3dc0966885124b7ce7082da",
"text": "Small purchases will have a disproportionate expense for commissions. Even a $5 trade fee is 5% on a $100 purchase. So on one hand, it's common to advise individuals just starting out to use mutual funds, specifically index funds with low fees. On the flip side, holding stocks has no annual fee, and if you are buying for the long term, you may still be better off with an eye toward cost, and learn over time. In theory, an individual stands a better chance to beat the experts for a number of reasons, no shareholders to answer to, and the ability to purchase without any disclosure, among them. In reality, most investor lag the average by such a wide margin, they'd be best off indexing and staying in for the long term.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "83a6b4c01e2e4f682f1e9b327033b355",
"text": "\"What you're referring to is usually called an \"\"investment club\"\". If you're serious about it, it's a great way of collectively learning about investing and organizing a cooperative venture. A friend of the family has been involved with an investment club for about 30 years. It's a great way to keep in touch, learn and invest.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "31a82b7ed7528351a9da8c523b16833e",
"text": "\"Surprising that you have a \"\"finance background,\"\" but don't know what a cold-calling broker does - he calls people he's never met and tries to bullshit them into buying stock or making some other trade. You can call people from contact lists obtained from marketing firms, people who hopefully fit a certain income and age bracket best suited to investing. For some people it's ok, for others it's complete hell. If you fall into the latter category, your salary being based on how much trading you generate every month can make it even worse. If you want an idea of cold-calling, call 100 people today at random from the phonebook and try to convince them that they need to buy something.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4ba84bfbdd386cc7be5016258b24fb99",
"text": "If this matters to you a lot, I agree you should leave. My primary bank account raised chequing account and transaction fees. I left. When I was closing my account the teller asked for the reason (they needed to fill out a form) and I explained it was the monthly fees. Eventually, if a bank gets enough of these, they will change. I want to get back those features for the same price it cost when I opened it They are in their rights to cancel features or raise prices. Just as you are in your rights to withdraw if they don't give you a deal. The reason why I mention this is that this approach is comical in some instances. A grocery store may raise the price of carrots. Typically you either deal with it or change stores. Prices rise occasionally. thus they will lose a lot of money from my savings From my understanding, a bank makes a large chunk of their money from fees. Very little is from the floating kitty they can have because of your savings. If you have an investment account with your bank (not recommended) or your mortgage, that would matter more. I've had friends who have left banks (and moved their mortgages) because of the bank not giving them a better rate. Does the manager have any pressure into keeping the account to the point of giving away free products to keep the costumer or they don't really care? Depends. I've probably say no. One data point is an anecdote; it is expected in a client base of thousands that a few will leave for seemingly random reasons. Only if mass amounts of clients leave or complain will the manager or company care. A note: some banks waive monthly account or service fees if you keep a minimal account balance. I have one friend who keeps X thousand in his bank account to save the account fee; he budgets a month ahead of time and savings account rates are 0% so this costs him nothing.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
9e04e79378b1c9f68a535d2cda709e1e
|
Where to park money while saving for a car
|
[
{
"docid": "3f665baca9e2e42ab39bf00e9fb75c8b",
"text": "Bond aren't necessarily any safer than the stock market. Ultimately, there is no such thing as a low risk mutual fund. You want something that will allow you get at your money relatively quickly. In other words, CDs (since you you can pick a definite time period for your money to be tied up), money market account or just a plain old savings account. Basically, you want to match inflation and have easy access to the money. Any other returns on top of that are gravy, but don't fret too much about it. See also: Where can I park my rainy-day / emergency fund? Savings accounts don’t generate much interest. Where should I park my rainy-day / emergency fund?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1a35f96a14a089886783b22be0a55d45",
"text": "\"As you're saving up for an expenditure instead of investing for the long run, I would stay away from any sort of \"\"parking facility\"\" where you run the risk of not having the principal protected. The riskier investments that would potentially generate a bigger return also carry a bigger downside, ie you might not be able to get the money back that you put in. I'd shop around for a CD or a MMA/regular savings account with a half-decent interest rate. And yes, I'm aware that the return you might get is probably still less than inflation.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "28d242f7c2ac47f3f855c8fc7f4ac7c1",
"text": "Nothing's generating a whole lot of interest right now. But more liquid and stable is better (cash or cash-like). But a related question: Why a new car? You can knock thousands of dollars off of the price of a comparable vehicle by buying one that's one or two years old. Your new vehicle loses thousands of dollars in value the moment it goes off the lot.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "15ba43220578c9b495c2baeeb42ca862",
"text": "\"I would split the savings as you may need some of it quickly for an emergency. At least 1/2 should be very liquid, such as cash or MMA/Checking. From there, look at longer term CDs, from 30 day to 180 day, depending upon your situation. Don't be surprised if by the time you've saved the money up, your desire for the car will have waned. How many years will it take to save up enough? 2? 5? 10? You may want to review your current work position instead, so you'll make more and hopefully save more towards what you do want. Important: Be prepared for the speed bumps of life. My landlord sold the house I was renting out from under me, as I was on a month-to-month contract. I had to have a full second deposit at the ready to put down when renting elsewhere, as well as the moving expenses. Luckily, I had done what my tax attorney had said, which is \"\"Create a cushion of liquid assets which can cover at least three months of your entire outgoing expenses.\"\" The Mormon philosophy is to carry at least one year's worth of supplies (food, water, materials) at all times in your home, for any contingency. Not Mormon, not religious, but willing to listen to others' opinions. As always, YMMV. Your Mileage May Vary.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "8fee664c9a7b1e8ea08585dd44b8f382",
"text": "Two to three years? That is one long gestation period! :^) Welcome. Congratulations on taking savings into your own hands, you are a winner for taking responsibility for your, and your family's life. If I was you my first priority would be to pay off your car and never buy one on time again. Or you could sell it and buy something with cash if that would be easier. It is tremendous that you are thinking and planning. You are already ahead of most people. Are you working on your basement as you have time/money like when work might be slow? If so great idea.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "06401fa62af7f32b1642d8d2ea6771fc",
"text": "\"Looking at your numbers, I would definitively consider selling the car, and use the public transportation instead. You could easily save $450 month, plus gas and maintenance. As you mentioned, public transportation will be only a fraction of this amount, so you might end up saving around $400 monthly. If you decide to keep the car, the amount that you will spent monthly is easily a payment for a brand-new car. What if, God forbid, for any kind of reason, you get a traffic ticket that can increase your insurance premium? What if the engine stops working, and you will need to spent thousands of dollars fixing the car? With this, and all of the other expenses pilled up, you might be unable to afford all this at some point. If you decide to sell the car, the money that you will save monthly can be put in a savings account (or in any other sort of \"\"safe\"\" investment instrument). In this way, if your situation changes where you need a car again, you will be able to easily afford a new car. Regarding your need to visit your friends on the suburbs every other weekend, I think you can just talk with them, and meet on places where public transportation is available, or ask them to pick you up in the nearest station to the suburbs. In conclusion, based on what you said, I do not think the \"\"little\"\" convenience that you get in owning the car outweighs the big savings that you get monthly, if you decide to sell the car.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "72aae8e12b2fe135a24c39334b88a09a",
"text": "\"Do you guys think it's a good idea to put that much down on the car ? In my opinion, it depends on a lot of factors. If you have nothing to pay, and are not planning to invest in something that cost a lot soon (I.E an house, etc). Then I see no problem in put \"\"that much down on the car\"\". Remember that the more you pay at first, the less you will pay interest on. However, if you are planning on buying something big soon, then you might want to pay less and keep moneys for your future investment. I would honestly not finance a car with the garage as I find their interest rate to high. Possibilities depends a lot of your bank accounts, but what I would personally do is pay it cash using my credit margin with the bank which is only 2.8% interest rate. Garage where I live rarely finance under 7% interest rate. You may not have a credit margin, but maybe you could get a loan with the bank instead ? Many bank keep an history of your loan which will get you a better credit name when trying to buy an home later. On the other side, having a good credit name is not really useful in a garage. What interest rate is reasonable based on my credit score? I don't think it is possible to give a real answer to this as it change a lot around the world. However, I would recommend to simply compare with the interest rate asked when being loan by the bank.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a6484f3b27a12e3a429a8088cd9b1973",
"text": "There are many gas stations where I live that already have different prices if you pay for cash vs. credit. In addition, some small businesses are doing this as well. My wife bought a birthday cake from a bakery. If you paid with cash, you saved 5%.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fbe3c32df23d6bab65850a0504a96d0d",
"text": "Very generally speaking if you have a loan, in which something is used as collateral, the leader will likely require you to insure that collateral. In your case that would be a car. Yes certainly a lender will require you to insure the vehicle that they finance (Toyota or otherwise). Of course, if you purchase a vehicle for cash (which is advisable anyway), then the insurance option is somewhat yours. Some states may require that a certain amount of coverage is carried on a registered vehicle. However, you may be able to drop the collision, rental car, and other options from your policy saving you some money. So you buy a new car for cash ($25K or so) and store the thing. What happens if the car suffers damage during storage? Are you willing to save a few dollars to have the loss of an asset? You will have to insure the thing in some way and I bet if you buy the proper policy the amount save will be very minimal. Sure you could drop the road side assistance, rental car, and some other options, during your storage time but that probably will not amount to a lot of money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b792851016cf8ff3dd6156ff029a2333",
"text": "\"So this has been bugging me for a while, because I am facing a similar dilemma and I don't think anyone gave a clear answer. I bought a 2012 kia soul in 2012. 36 months financing at 300/mo. Will be done with my car loan in 2015. I plan on keeping it, while saving the same amount of money 300/mo until I buy my next car. But, I also have an option of trading it in for the the next car. Question: should I trade it in in 2015. should I keep it for 2 years more? 3 years more, before I buy the next car? What makes most financial sense and savings. I tried to dig up some data on edmunds - the trade-in value and \"\"true cost to own\"\" calculator. The make and model of my car started in 2010, so I do not have historical data, as well as \"\"cost to own\"\" calculator only spans 5 years. So - this is what I came up with: Where numbers in blue are totally made up/because I don't have the data for it. Granted, the trade-in values for the \"\"future\"\" years are guesstimated - based on Kia Soul's trade-in values from previous years (2010, 2011, 2012) But, this is handy, and as it gets closer to 2015 and beyond, I can re-plug in the data where it is available and have a better understanding of the trade-in vs keep it longer decision. Hope this helps. If the analysis is totally off the rocker, please let me know - i'll adjust it/delete it. Thank you\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "32c2294f4580f8255391a8dae4989cf4",
"text": "\"If you're making big money at 18, you should be saving every penny you can in tax-advantaged retirement accounts. (If your employer offers it, see if you can do a Roth 401(k), as odds are good you'll be in a higher tax bracket at retirement than you are now and you will benefit from the Roth structure. Otherwise, use a regular 401(k). IRAs are also an option, but you can put more money into a 401(k) than you can into an IRA.) If you do this for a decade or two while you're young, you'll be very well set on the road to retirement. Moreover, since you think \"\"I've got the money, why not?\"\" this will actually keep the money from you so you can do a better job of avoiding that question. Your next concern will be post-tax money. You're going to be splitting this between three basic sorts of places: just plain spending it, saving/investing it in bank accounts and stock markets, or purchasing some other form of capital which will save you money or provide you with some useful capability that's worth money (e.g. owning a condo/house will help you save on rent - and you don't have to pay income taxes on that savings!) 18 is generally a little young to be setting down and buying a house, though, so you should probably look at saving money for a while instead. Open an account at Vanguard or a similar institution and buy some simple index funds. (The index funds have lower turnover, which is probably better for your unsheltered accounts, and you don't need to spend a bunch of money on mutual fund expense ratios, or spend a lot of time making a second career out of stock-picking). If you save a lot of your money for retirement now, you won't have to save as much later, and will have more income to spend on a house, so it'll all work out. Whatever you do, you shouldn't blow a bunch of money on a really fancy new car. You might consider a pretty-nice slightly-used car, but the first year of car ownership is distressingly close to just throwing your money away, and fancy cars only make it that much worse. You should also try to have some fun and interesting experiences while you're still young. It's okay to spend some money on them. Don't waste money flying first-class or spend tooo much money dining out, but fun/interesting/different experiences will serve you well throughout your life. (By contrast, routine luxury may not be worth it.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "121b78600c056243d50d16e83fcf7327",
"text": "\"Personally, I would: a) consider selling the car and replacing it with a 'cheaper' one. If you only drive it once a month, you are probably not getting much 'value' from owning a nice car. b) move the car (either current or replacement) out to your parent's place. The cost of a plane ticket is about the same as the cost of the garage, and your parents would likely hold on to it for free (assuming they live in the suburbs, and parking is not an issue) option b should lower your insurance costs (very low annual mileage) and at least you'll get some frequent flier miles out of your $350 a month. That being said: this is a \"\"quality of life\"\" issue, which means that there isn't going to be a firm answer. If you are 25, have little debt, which you are paying off on time, have an emergency fund, and you are making regular contributions to your 401k, you are certainly NOT \"\"being seriously irresponsible\"\" by owning a nice car. But you may decide that the $1000 a month could be better spent somewhere else.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8cc41e5f9dfa3cd2344fc7977f6f5230",
"text": "There are several factors here. Firstly, there's opportunity cost, i.e. what you would get with the money elsewhere. If you have higher interest opportunities (investing, paying down debt) elsewhere, you could be paying that down instead. There's also domino effects: by reducing your liquid savings to or below the minimum, you can't move any of it into tax advantaged retirement accounts earning higher interest. Then there's the insurance costs. You are required to buy extra insurance to protect your lender. You should factor in the extra insurance you would buy vs the insurance required. Given that you can buy the car yourself, catastrophic insurance may not be necessary, or you may prefer a higher deductible than your lender will allow. If you're not sufficiently capitalized, you may need gap insurance to cover when your car depreciates faster than your loan is paid down. A 30 percent payment should be enough to not need it though. Finally, there's some value in having options. If you have the loan and the cash, you can likely pay it off without penalty. But it will be harder to get the loan if you don't finance it. Maybe you can take out a loan against the car later, but I haven't looked into the fees that might incur. If it's any help, I'm in the last stretch of a 3 year car loan. At the time paying in cash wasn't an option, and having done it I recognize that it's more complicated than it seems.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "46e0fd4a0513b1e04e20f5ec1819ed82",
"text": "Sometimes I think it helps to think of the scenario in reverse. If you had a completely paid off car, would you take out a title loan (even at 0%) for a few months to put the cash in a low-interest savings account? For me, I think the risk of losing the car due to non-payment outweighs the tens of dollars I might earn.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "086a9ad3b409d1498b7d28307f1f69f3",
"text": "If you have the money to pay cash for the car. Then 0 months will save you the most money. There are of course several caveats. The money for the car has to be in a relatively liquid form. Selling stocks which would trigger taxes may make the pay cash option non-optimal. Paying cash for the car shouldn't leave you car rich but cash poor. Taking all your savings to pay cash would not be a good idea. Note: paying cash doesn't involve taking a wheelbarrow full of bills to the dealer; You can use a a check. If cash is not an option then the longest time period balanced by the rates available is best. If the bank says x percent for 12-23 months, y percent for 24-47 months, Z percent for 48 to... It may be best to take the 47 month loan, because it keeps the middle rate for a long time. You want to lock in the lowest rate you can, for the longest period they allow. The longer period keeps the required minimum monthly payment as low as possible. The lower rate saves you on interest. Remember you generally can pay the loan off sooner by making extra or larger payments. Leasing. Never lease unless you are writing off the monthly lease payment as a business expense. If the choice is monthly lease payments or depreciation for tax purposes the lease can make the most sense. If business taxes aren't involved then leasing only means that you have a complex deal where you finance the most expensive part of the ownership period, you have to watch the mileage for several years, and you may have to pay a large amount at the end of the period for damages and excess miles. Plus many times you don't end up with the car at the end of the lease. In the United States one way to get a good deal if you have to get a loan: take the rebate from the dealer; and the loan from a bank/credit Union. The interest rate at banking institution is a better range of rates and length. Plus you get the dealer cash. Many times the dealer will only give you the 0% interest rate if you pay in 12 months and skip the rebate; where the interest paid to the bank will be less than the rebate.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "330bf78226ad31ceed4dba2a3dbe9b5e",
"text": "\"It's also worth thinking about minor \"\"emergencies\"\" when the location of your cash may be more important than the amount. I keep a baggie of change and small bills in my glovebox for meters and tolls. I keep a ten dollar bill in my armband when I go out for a jog or bike. Those little stashes have saved me more than once. Zombie apocalypse money? I just have a couple hundred at home.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "46ef1c349a7e585f5f3bd1e59c73d059",
"text": "Here's how I think about money. There are only 3 categories / contexts (buckets) that my earned money falls into. Savings is my emergency fund. I keep 6 months of total expenses (expenses are anything in the consumption bucket). You can be as detailed as you want with this area but I tend to leave a fudge factor. In other words, if I estimate that I spend approximately $3,000 a month in consumption dollars then I'll save $3,500 times 6 in the bank. This money needs to be liquid. Some people use a HELOC, other people use their ROTH contributions. In any case, you need to put this money some place you can get access to it in case you go from accumulation (income exceed expenses) to decumulation mode (expenses exceed income). This money is distinct from consumption which I will cover in paragraph three. Investments are stocks, bonds, income producing real estate, small businesses, etc. These dollars require a strategy. The strategy can include some form of asset allocation but more importantly a timeline. These are the dollars that are working for you. Each dollar placed here will multiply over time. Once you put a dollar here it shouldn't be taken out unless there is some sort of catastrophe that your savings can't handle or your timeline has been achieved. Notice that rental real estate is included so liquidating stocks to purchase rental real estate is NOT considered removing investment dollars. Just reallocating based on your asset allocation. This bucket includes 401k's, IRAs, all tax-sheltered accounts, non-sheltered brokerage accounts, and rental real estate. In general your primary residence is not included in this bucket. Some people include the equity of their primary residence in the investment column but it can complicate the equation and I prefer to leave it out. The consumption bucket is the most important bucket and the one you spend the most time with. It requires a budget. This includes your $5 magazine and your $200 bottle of wine. Anything in this bucket is gone. You can recover a portion of it by selling it on ebay for $3 (these are earned dollars) but the original $5 is still considered spent. The reason your thought process in this area is distinct from the other two, the decisions made in this area will have the biggest impact on your personal finances. Warren Buffett was famous for skimping on haircuts because they are worth thousands of dollars down the road if they are invested instead. Remember this is a zero-sum game so every $1 not consumed is placed in one of the other buckets. Once your savings bucket is full every dollar not consumed is sent to investments. Remember to include everything that does not fit in the other two buckets. Most people forget their car insurance, life insurance, tax bill at the end of the year, accountant bill, etc. In conclusion, there are three buckets. Savings, which serve as your emergency bucket. This money should not be touched unless you switch from accumulation to decumulation. Investments, which are your dollars that are working for you over time. They require a strategy and a timeline. Consumption, which are your monthly expenses. These dollars keep you alive and contribute to your enjoyment. This is a short explanation of my use of money. It can get as complicated and detailed as you want it to be but as long as you tag your dollars correctly you'll be okay IMHO. HTH.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fc597918ea889cc9c47e943265abc7d3",
"text": "I suggest you buy a more reasonably priced car and keep saving to have the full amount for the car you really want in the future. If you can avoid getting loans it helps a lot in you financial situation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "af223850d5c390d6a986d4bdb93cfedf",
"text": "Establish good saving and spending habits. Build up your savings so that when you do buy a car, you can pay cash. Make spending decisions, especially for housing, transportation and entertainment, that allow you to save a substantial portion of your income. The goal is to get yourself to a place where you have enough net worth that the return on your assets is greater than the amount you can earn by working. (BTW, this is basically what I did. I put my two sons through top colleges on my dime and retired six years ago at the age of 56).",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
d871b1a9d21291e302b9958e6ac79d25
|
How does one determine the width of a candlestick bar?
|
[
{
"docid": "529e9dd9e67e4159ad7c8e03aca7a20c",
"text": "Very common question. There is no any rule of thumb. This solely depends on your trading strategy. I will share my own experience. My day starts with the daily chart, if I have a signal, either I open my position or I check 30 minute chart to make sure that it won't go too much against my trade. and I open my position. If I am waiting for the signal the minimum timeframe is 4 hours for me. I use 30 minutes to find the best time to enter the market. So, this is totally something special for my trading strategy, that is why those things can change based on the different strategies. I also check weekly and monthly charts to confirm trend. I have been busy with forex since 2007 and I am a verified investor on etoro At the end, I never use 1,5,15,60 minute charts as they are against my strategy.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7f9221aa3d0a75d8bd967c04ee723e88",
"text": "You could theoretically use any time period unit, but 1 minute and 30 minute seem to be the most common and useful. Especially for active traders. This also has the added advantage of giving you useful insight into the trade volumes throughout the day; assuming that is also included on the chart. I think most include that as a bar chart across the bottom. Here is a great example for crude oil on dailyfx: https://www.dailyfx.com/crude-oil Notice that the chart has time options at the top left which include 1 minute, 30 minutes, 1 hour, and 1 day.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e003e55aa2fde7af21278d34fbb608ee",
"text": "There's no rule of thumb but the purpose of candlesticks of any kind (fixed, volume weighted etc.) is to display the intra-period price action. So if you'd fit 3 years worth of 1 minute bars on a chart, candlesticks become useless and you might as well use a line chart.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "4c3f732a5bc61311ac05e7b3b95984e3",
"text": "This strategy is called trading the 'Golden Cross' if the 50 day SMA moves above the 200 day, or the 'Death Cross' when the 50 day SMA moves below the 200 day SMA. Long-term indicators carry more weight than shorter-term indicators, and this cross, in a positive direction signals a change in momentum of the stock. You will not catch the very bottom using this method, but there is a better chance that you will catch a move near the beginning of a longer-term trend. Golden Cross Information - Zacks",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "82379ac03993b758aa664cb67d6905ad",
"text": "\"The size terminology for lumber is based on the rough cut dimensions from the mill, not the actual size of the board at Home Depot. There's post finishing done to 2x4's, etc from the big box stores. It's been that way for 50 years. If a couple of hipsters got their feelings hurt because they didn't know what they were doing, tell them to watch a youtube video about lumber before screwing up a home improvement project. They wouldn't have the slightest idea what to do with an actual rough cut 1x6 anyway. They'd get home with it, and if by some miracle they managed to plane it, they'd realize they're left with a 3/4\"\"x5 3/4\"\" board, just like you get from Home Depot. Grow up, pansies.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b9010a48577cb375e2eaddce4cbadae1",
"text": "A shorter term MA would be used for short term changes in price whilst a long term MA would be used for longer term movements in price. A 200 day SMA is widely used to determine the trend of the stock, simply a cross above the 200 day SMA would mean the stock may be entering an uptrend and a cross below that the price may be entering a downtrend. If the price is continuosly going above and below in a short period of time it is usually range trading. Then there are EMAs (Expodential Moving Averages) and WMAs (weighted moving averages) which give more emphasis to the latest price data than the earlier price data in the period chosen compared to a SMA. MAs can be used in many different ways, too many to list all here. The best way to learn about them is to read some TA books and articles about them, then choose a couple of strategies where you can use them in combination with a couple of other indicators that are complimentary with each other.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "44f1ab095c641a83739fb97de363f3c0",
"text": "Someone referred to the bend as a living hinge, I've heard it referred to as a kerf-bend. My office has a laser cutter and might be interested in putting it to use. What kind of volume are you looking for? If low-volume, PM me.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "80a85c95c7462ad01c4b710df507a311",
"text": "\"Hello! I am working on a project where I am trying to determine the profit made by a vendor if they hold our funds for 5 days in order to collect the interest on those funds during that period before paying a third party. Currently I am doing \"\"Amount x(Fed Funds Rate/365)x5\"\" but my output seems too low. Any advice?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f02a9257adc4e124ef1c014445d262a3",
"text": "\"> 41x92x1820mm 1.6\"\"x3.6\"\"x71.7\"\", which is more or less the same as in the US. 2\"\"x4\"\" is the rough cut board before drying and finishing. Anyone who regularly works with wood knows this. It's been the industry standard for decades.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7e6f2ca28fbc7ff354ac7aedbcd7b225",
"text": "http://dailyfinance.com Enter a stock ticker, then click on the Chain link to the left. Then, click on the option tickers to see their charts. EDIT: the site has changed, and there are no more option charts. So why are option charts so tough to find? Options are derivatives of the stock. Option prices are defined by a formula. The inputs are stock pricxe, strike, days to expiration, dividend, risk-free interest rate, and volatility. Volatility is the only thing that cannot be easily looked up. With a Black-Scholes calculator, and some reasonable volatility selections, it's possible to make your own fairly accurate option chart. I don't think it's very enlightening, though. The interesting things are: the stock price movement (as always), and the nature of option pricing behavior in general (understanding how the formula represents crowd behavior).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a8c371e758fe5e0eb141b70578ba7536",
"text": "\"You cannot determine this solely by the ticker length. However, there are some conventions that may help steer you there. Nasdaq has 2-4 base letters BATS has 4 base letters NYSE equity securities have 1-4 base letters. NYSE Mkt (formerly Amex) have 1-4 base letters. NYSE Arca has 4 base letters OTC has 4 base letters. Security types other than equities may have additional letters added, and each exchange (and data vendors) have different conventions for how this is handled. So if you see \"\"T\"\" for a US-listed security it would be only be either NASDAQ, NYSE or NYSE Mkt. If you see \"\"ANET\"\" then you cannot tell which exchange it is listed on. (In this case, ANET Arista Networks is actually a NYSE stock). For some non-equity security types, such as hybrids, and debt instruments, some exchanges add \"\"P\"\" to the end for \"\"preferreds\"\" (Nasdaq and OTC) and NYSE/NYSE Mkt have a variety of methods (including not adding anything) to the ticker. Examples include NYSE:TFG, NYSEMkt:IPB, Nasdaaq: AGNCP, Nasdaq:OXLCN. It all becomes rather confusing given the changes in conventions over the years. Essentially, you require data that provides you with ticker, listing location and security type. The exchanges allocate security tickers in conjunction with the SEC so there are no overlaps. eg. The same ticker cannot represent two different securities. However, tickers can be re-used. For example, the ticker AB has been used by the following companies:\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "adeb80ddb87ca61ed1643fd255493a12",
"text": "Candlesticks and TA are a relic of pre-computer trading, period. Market makers use sophisticated algorithms not for trading, but manipulations.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "428aa2334af0f19e86a32f71755c7c64",
"text": "Why would I go to amazon at 9pm at night to buy 2-4 to fix a broken box spring? Or go to amazon to purchase a handful of the right size screw which I sit and measure with an extra screw I bring? (My last two trips)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6d6a6df4590e71d80a5d36a08e59f60c",
"text": "\"Each candlestick in a candlestick chart represents the open, close, high and low for a period of time. If you are looking at a daily chart it represents the open price, close price, high price and low price for that day. If you are looking at an hourly chart, then a single candlestick represents the open, close, high and low prices for an hour. If looking at a weekly chart, then a single candlestick will represent the opening price on Monday morning, the closing price on Friday afternoon, and the highest and lowest price for that week. The diagram below represents the two main types of candle sticks. When the price closes higher than they open for the period of the candlestick it is called a bullish candle and the main body is usually represented in green. When the price closes lower than they open for the period of the candlestick it is called a bearish candle and the main body is usually represented in red. In a bullish candle with a large real body and small shadows or wicks, where prices open near the low of the period and close near the top of the period, it represents a very bullish period (especially if volume is high). An example of this situation could be when good news is released to the market and most market participants want to buy the shares driving prices higher during the period. An example of a bullish candle with a small real body and a large upper shadow or wick could be when market participants start buying early during the period, then some negative news comes out or prices reach a major resistance level, then prices drop from their highs but still close higher than the open. The large upper shadow represents some indecision in prices moving higher. In a bearish candle with a large real body and small shadows or wicks, where prices open near the high of the period and close near the low of the period, it represents a very bearish period (especially if volume is high). An example of this situation could be when bad news is released to the market and most market participants want to sell the shares driving prices lower during the period. An example of a bearish candle with a small real body and a large lower shadow or wick could be when market participants start selling early during the period, then some positive news comes out or prices reach a major support level, then prices move up from their lows but still close lower than the open. The large lower shadow represents some indecision in prices moving lower. These are just some examples of what can be derived from looking at candlestick charts. There are plenty more and too much to include in this answer. Another type of candle is the Doji, represented in the diagram below. The Doji Candle represents indecision in the market. Prices open then move up to the high of the period then start falling past the open before reversing again and closing either at the open or very close to the open. The market participants can't decide whether the price should move up or down, so prices end up closing very close to where they opened. A doji Candle close to a market high or low could represent a turning point in the short term trend and could mean that over the next period or two prices could reverse and go in the opposite direction. There are many more definitions for candlestick charts, and I would recommend an introductory book on candlestick charting, like one from the \"\"Dummies\"\" series. The main things to keep in mind as a beginner it that a strong bullish candle with small shadows and large real body could represent further price movement upwards, a strong bearish candle with small shadows and large real body could represent further movement downwards, and any candle with large shadows could represent indecision and a reversal from the direction of the large shadow.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8838933d3993e7b20282d877697b072f",
"text": "John Person has a pattern called the High Close Doji that is probably the most reliable signal in the world of candle patterns. I would check out Candle Stick and Pivot Point Trade Triggers. It all I use in trading stocks + forex.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9ce76e74e90e31ed3b558302e0a2342f",
"text": "\"Shhh... Don't tell them 1x lumber is actually 3/4\"\". There will be another lawsuit. I could see suing over being under the standard, as it would throw off all your plans. This is a national standard that has been in place for decades. Why should they pay for their customers' ignorance?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7839738fcc0f84de8f2d1459a0df1375",
"text": "Right from Home Depot's website emphasis mine. Product Overview Every piece of 2 in. x 6 in. x 10 ft. Kiln-Dried Heat Treated Dimensional Lumber meets the highest grading standards for strength and appearance. This high quality lumber is ideal for a wide range of structural and nonstructural applications including framing of houses, barns, sheds, and commercial construction. Perfect for projects that require structural dimensional lumber that meets building codes. It can also be used for furniture and hobbies, and comes in a variety of widths and lengths. As long as lumber is properly primed and painted or sealed and stained it can be used in exterior applications. Each piece of this lumber meets the highest quality grading standards for strength and appearance Lumber can be primed and painted or sealed and stained. For interior or exterior use **Common: 2 in. x 4 in. x 10 ft.; Actual: 1.5 in. x 3.5 in. x 120 in.** Untreated Premium Grade Note: product may vary by store Click to learn how to select the right lumber for your project This is the **DUMBEST** thing i've read all day.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "35ecc70f06b1d857067088599dea1266",
"text": "\"Your questions In the world of technical analysis, is candlestick charting an effective trading tool in timing the markets? It depends on how you define effective. But as a standalone and systematic strategy, it tends not to be profitable. See for example Market Timing with Candlestick Technical Analysis: Using robust statistical techniques, we find that candlestick trading rules are not profitable when applied to DJIA component stocks over 1/1/1992 – 31/12/2002 period. Neither bullish or bearish candlestick single lines or patterns provide market timing signals that are any better than what would be expected by chance. Basing ones trading decisions solely on these techniques does not seem sensible but we cannot rule out the possibility that they compliment some other market timing techniques. There are many other papers that come to the same conclusion. If used correctly, how accurate can they be in picking turning points in the market? Technical analysts generally fall into two camps: (i) those that argue that TA can't be fully automated and that interpretation is part of the game; (ii) those that use TA as part of a systematic investment model (automatically executed by a machine) but generally use a combination of indicators to build a working model. Both groups would argue (for different reasons) that the conclusions of the paper I quoted above should be disregarded and that TA can be applied profitably with the proper framework. Psychological biases It is very easy to get impressed by technical analysis because we all suffer from \"\"confirmation bias\"\" whereby we tend to acknowledge things that confirm our beliefs more than those that contradict them. When looking at a chart, it is very easy to see all the occurences when a certain pattern worked and \"\"miss\"\" the occurences when it did not work (and not missing those is much harder than it sounds). Conclusions\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
ae86d38e78a1c9f3c22dfaf8bb8bc857
|
I have a loan with a 6.5% interest rate. Should I divert money into my 401(k) instead of prepaying?
|
[
{
"docid": "682598e4f8164d7fdfb67a3925b2324c",
"text": "The long term growth is not 6.5%, it's 10% give or take. But, that return comes with risk. A standard deviation of 14%. Does the 401(k) have a match? And are you getting the full match? If no match, or you already top it off, the 6.5% is a rate that I'd be happy to get on my money. So, I would pay it off faster. My highest rate debt is my 3.5% mortgage, which is 2.5% after tax. At 2.5%, I prefer to be a borrower, as that gap 2.5%-10% is pretty appealing, long term.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f110db33d3b9354719dd74a4d5c4671d",
"text": "Having a loan also represents risk. IMHO you should retire the loan as soon as feasible in most cases. JoeTaxpayer, as usual, raises a good point. With numbers as he is quoting, it is tolerable to have a loan around on a asset such as a home. While he did not mention it, I am sure that his rate is fixed. If the interest rate is variable: pay it off. If it is a student loan: pay it off. If you can have it retired quickly: pay it off and get the bank off your payroll. If it is consumer debt: pay it off.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "1a583f8aa944dd9185528d222d199839",
"text": "\"As Mhoran answered, typical match, but some have no match at all, so not bad. The loan provision means you can borrow up to $50k or 50% of your balance, whichever is less. 5 year payback for any loan, but a 10 year payback for a home purchase. I am on the side of \"\"don't do it\"\" but finance is personal, and in some situations it does make sense. The elephant in this room is the expenses within the 401(k). Simply put, a high enough expense will wipe out any benefit from tax deferral. If you are in this situation, I recommend depositing to the match, but not a cent more. Last, do they offer a Roth 401(k) option? There's a high probability you will never be in as low a tax bracket as the next few years, now's the time to focus on the Roth deposits, if not in the 401(k), then in an IRA.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a3257260b59f3cf06e7337fa423cebee",
"text": "The key thing to consider in a question like this is, What return am I getting on my investment versus what interest am I paying on the loan? If the investment returns more than what you're paying on the loan, than it makes sense to keep the investment and pay off the loan with other income. If the investment returns less, than it makes sense to cash it out to pay off the loan. One complicating factor is taxes. In the case of an IRA, you're not paying taxes on the profits. You do pay a tax penalty for an early withdrawal. Those are both factors that tend to make keeping the money in the IRA more desirable. And of course, if the choice is between keeping your investment and defaulting on the loan, you probably want to close out the investment. I don't know what return you're getting on your IRA, but it's probably more than 6.8%. I'd have to check but I think my retirement funds got over 20% last year. If you're not getting 6.8%, you might want to investigate switching to another investment fund. I'm sure there's a lot I don't know about your situation, but I'd think that keeping the IRA would be a better plan. If you can't add to it for some time well you get these debts paid off, well, that's how it is.",
"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": "56aca2aa766b7e980642a5b02da78a3b",
"text": "\"If the difference in performance is worth it, consider \"\"borrowing\"\" from your 401k to put into the Roth. You pay it back, but you can stretch it out over time, and the interest charged is actually yours, because you borrowed from yourself. But you can only borrow half of the account and you have to pay it back before you can do another loan.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b8b1294c9216a410a61241b8b9dd9eae",
"text": "Your current loan is for a new car. Your refinanced loan would probably be for a used car. They have different underwriting standards and used car loan rates are usually higher because of the higher risks associated with the loans. (People with better credit will tend to buy new cars.) This doesn't mean that you can't come out ahead after refinancing but you'll probably have to do a bit of searching. I think you should take a step back though. 5% isn't that much money and five years is a long time. Nobody can predict the future but my experience tells me that the **** is going to hit the fan at least once over any five year period, and it's going to be a really big dump at least once over any ten year period. Do you have savings to cover it or would you have to take a credit card advance at a much higher interest rate? Are you even sure that's an option - a lot of people who planned to use their credit card advances as emergency savings found their credit limits slashed before they could act. I understand the desire to reduce what you pay in interest but BTDT and now I don't hesitate to give savings priority when I have some excess cash. There's no one size fits all answer but should have at least one or two months of income saved up before you start considering anything like loan prepayments.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0297d5dd35783ea82356968be4f1090a",
"text": "You need to talk to the 401(k) administrator, or HR, for the exact details. Typically, you can only borrow 50% of your balance, and can pay it back up to a ten year term. Some plans have different rules, this is just a common offering. The larger issue is whether the loan prevents you from making further deposits till repaid. This would cost you not just the growth in the account, but the matched deposits for those years. That would be a deal killer for me. If that were the case, I'd drop my deposits to only get the match, and save for a real deposit without the loan.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9aa6d6becc344873daafe3d8b326cabe",
"text": "817/150,000 = .54% Fees are based on balances not deposits, usually. Putting a front loaded fund as an option in a 401(k) should be criminal, not sure it is though. Ask your HR dept to provide you fee details. If the .54% is correct, it's not bad. I hope you have money from prior jobs as well, by the way.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7246080679e57da969988ad366823779",
"text": "(Note: The OP does not state whether the employer-sponsored retirement savings are pre-tax or post-tax (such as a Roth 401(k)). The following answer assumes the more common case of a pre-tax plan.) This is a bad idea, IMHO. IRS Pub 970 lists exceptions to the 10% early withdrawal penalty for educational expenses. This doesn't include, as far as I can tell, student loan payments. So withdrawing from your retirement account would incur both income tax and penalties. Even if there were an exception, you'd still have to pay income taxes, which, depending on the amount and your income, could be at a higher marginal rate than you are currently paying. If you really want the debt gone as soon as possible, why not reduce the amount you contribute to the retirement plan (but not below the amount that gets you the maximum employer match) and use that money to increase your monthly payments to the student loan? Note that, if you do this, you will pay taxes on income that would have been tax-deferred in order to save money on interest, so there's still a trade-off. (One more thing: rather than rolling over to your new company's plan, you could roll over to a self-directed Traditional IRA.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "926fffbbc3de329828a05b90d3b2a669",
"text": "Do you have other things you might want to spend that cash on in the near future? (Like a down-payment on a house?) Beyond having emergency cash, the only reason to keep a pile of cash around is because you might need it for another purchase. Unless you are going to have other expenses that will require higher-interest loans to cover them, there's no need to sit on a big pile of cash. As long as you are getting the full match on your 401(k), that's the free money that might be worth more than the interest you are paying on the loans. In any case, I suggest you aim for at least 10% into your 401(k) account moving forward in your life so that you can properly fund retirement. 15% would be even better. It doesn't sound like you would be losing anything by paying the student loans, and you could then use the money freed from your loan payments to pay down your car faster.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "309272655ebb54dfe92acc506e16c8ab",
"text": "\"Generally if you need to tap into your retirement for the house - you probably shouldn't buy the house. But that's your call. There are several things you could do. Sue your CPA \"\"friend\"\" for malpractice. Especially if there's any actual proof of that stupid suggestion. Check with your 401k administrator about home-purchase loan from the 401k. You'll be borrowing your own money, and repaying yourself back with interest, but it will be tax free and with no penalties. Keep in mind: if you cannot repay the loan, or you leave your employer without repaying it in full - the remaining balance will be considered withdrawal and you'll pay income taxes + 10% penalty on it. If you have an IRA, you can withdraw up to 10K without penalty if this is your first house (i.e.: you didn't own a house in the last 3 years), and is going to be your primary residence. You'll still pay taxes on the 10K. But, this is not available for 401k plans. You can request equal payments distribution calculated based on your life expectancy (This is the infamous 72(t)(2) distribution, even though many of the exceptions are in the IRC 72(t)(2). This in particular is 72(t)(2)(A)(iv)). Here's the full list of exceptions. Note that even if you're willing to pay the 10% penalty, many 401k plans do not allow distributions as long as you're still employed with the sponsoring employer. If you take a hardship distribution from your 401k (if it even allows it), you'll be prohibited from contributing for 6 months, and your employer will be prohibited from contributing on your behalf as well. I.e.: not only you take out your savings, you'll be barred from saving back. Also, in the same FAQ, it tells you that the hardship distribution can only include the amounts up to the original contributions (less whatever distributions already made), and not earnings or match. I.e.: it may actually be much less than the 40K you're counting on.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "913bdf1f8cd101e41e733ce3a8daf864",
"text": "I see you've marked an answer as accepted but I MUST tell you that STOPPING your 401k contribution all together is a bad idea. Your company match is 100% rate of return(or 50% depending on structure). I don't care what market you look at, or how bad a loan you take out, you will not receive 100% rate of return, or be charged 100% interest. Further, taking out a loan against your 401k effectively does two things: It is a loan that must be repaid according to the terms of your 401k AND in every 401k I've ever encountered, you cannot make contributions to the 401k until the loan is repaid. This in effect stops your contributions, and will almost certainly save you very little on your interest rates on your current loans. I have 4 potential solutions that may help achieve your goal without sacrificing your 401k match and transferring the debt from one lender to another, but they are conditional. Is your company match 100% up to 4% of your salary, or 50% of your contribution (up to a limit you have not yet reached)? This is important. If it is 100% up to 4%, stop committing the additional 4% and use that to pay down your debt...and after ward set up that 4% as auto pay into an IRA, not into the 401k. An IRA will make you more money because YOU have control over its management, not your employer. If it is 50% match, contribute until the match is met because you cannot get 50% rate of return anywhere, then take your additional monies and get an IRA. As far as your debt, in this scenario simply suck it up and pay it as is. You will lose far more than you gain by stopping your contributions. If you simply must reduce your expenses by 150$ month try refinancing the mortgage and rolling the 6500$ into it. If you get a big enough drop in the interest rate you could still end up paying less. OR If you cannot make the gain there, try snowballing the three payments. You do this by calling your student loan vendor and telling them you need to make much smaller payments, like even zero depending on the type of loan. Then take ALL of the money you are currently spending on the 3 loans and put into the car payment. When it's gone, roll the whole thing into the higher interest student loan, then finally roll it all into the last student loan. You'll pay it off faster, and student loans have lots of laws and regulations regarding working with payers to keep them paying something without breaking them. WHATEVER YOU DO, DO NOT STOP YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS. 50% OR 100%, THAT MONEY IS GUARANTEED AT A HIGHER RATE OF RETURN THAN YOU CAN GET ANYWHERE, ESPECIALLY GUARANTEED.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "03414ac16faff7680c7b9e0efefc349a",
"text": "\"In general taking money out of a 401k to repay a loan is a bad idea for a number of reasons. Taxes and penalties if you are under 59 and 1/2 you will pay a 10% penalty on withdrawals from a traditional 401k plan. Then you are going add the amount you withdraw to your income in determining your current tax bill. If you make a large withdrawal you will likely push yourself into a higher tax bracket and will end up paying additional taxes than if you made several smaller withdrawals or waited until retirement when your income would presumably be lower. Taxes and penalties will mean you will need to withdraw ~225k in order to pay taxes and penalties while still having 150k to pay toward the mortgage (this assumes you are single and have no other income). You miss out on the growth your 401k could have had. Lack of diversification the average person has the majority of their net worth tied up in their home and by paying off your mortgage you are putting even more of your money into residential real estate. By moving money from a 401k to your personal residence you could also lose some protection from creditors and lawsuits. Retirement accounts are generally off limits to creditors where as your house is limited by the homestead exemption (varies greatly from state to state). There are a few times when it might makes sense to use 401k money to pay off a mortgage. If you are older than 59.5 and have little tolerance for risk it might make sense to take the amount of money between your current income and the next higher tax bracket and \"\"invest\"\" the money in your mortgage each year. You would still want to avoid taking out a large chunk at one time though to avoid pushing yourself into a much higher tax bracket.\"",
"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": "0896df8e2b77394c34a57f77011b74bc",
"text": "I'm going to assume that the 401K is not a Roth. If that's the case, no, you should not withdraw from your 401K to pay off your mortgage. You will pay taxes on the withdrawal as if it is income, and that loss will far exceed the 6% you are paying in interest on the mortgage (which is deductable, so may actually be less than 6% all things considered). The calculation is really more complicated, but in general, this sounds like a bad idea.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "45341c528913ebfe7834a70ce3651f4e",
"text": "Am I thinking correctly and can I do the 2 separate withdrawals? Yes. Is there anything else I'm missing? Yes. For starters - instead of withdrawing 401k - why don't you take a loan out of it? This can be dangerous, but also can be beneficial - both for the same reason. The beneficial part is this: you don't pay neither the income tax nor the penalty on the amount you take out as a loan. I.e.: immediate saving of 35%. You can also get the full loan amount (up to 50% of the 401k balance) at once, no need to wait for the next year. You'll be saving on the difference on the APR between the credit card debt (which is usually huge) and the 401k loan (which is usually very low), and that will allow you to consolidate the debt and cover it quicker. The dangerous part is also taxes. In case you lose your job - you have to pay off the loan immediately (within 3 months). If you don't - the remaining balance will be considered as a taxable distribution and you'll owe the 25%+10% on them. But - if you don't lose your job, you win. And repaying the loan will revert your 401k balances back to the full amount, while with withdrawal - you cannot put it back (after 60 days are over, at least). So keep that in mind. Check with your 401k plan provider on the loan terms and costs (they'll charge some symbolic amount for managing the loan for you).",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
0c661cf7199f4edbe97cefaded18b304
|
How to decide on split between large/mid/small cap on 401(k) and how often rebalance
|
[
{
"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": "e5463efbd7bbd2ec1075a4e72ed4bbfa",
"text": "\"It's a trade-off. The answer depends on your risk tolerance. Seeking higher rewards demands higher risk. If you want advice, I would recommend hiring an expert to design a plan which meets your needs. As a sample point, NOT necessarily right for anyone else...I'm considered an aggressive investor, and my own spread is still more conservative than many folks. I'm entirely in low-cost index funds, distributed as ... with the money tied up in a \"\"quiesced\"\" defined-contribution pension fund being treated as a low-yield bond. Some of these have beaten the indexes they're tracking, some haven't. My average yield since I started investing has been a bit over 10%/year (not including the company match on part of the 401k), which I consider Good Enough -- certainly good enough for something that requires near-zero attention from me. Past results are not a guarantee of future performance. This may be completely wrong for someone at a different point in their career and/or life and/or finances. I'm posting it only as an example, NOT a recommendation. Regarding when to rebalance: Set some threshhold at which things have drifted too far from your preferred distribution (value of a fund being 5% off its target percentage in the mix is one rule I've sometimes used), and/or pick some reasonable (usually fairly low) frequency at which you'll actively rebalance (once a year, 4x/year, whenever you change your car's oil, something like that), and/or rebalance by selecting which funds you deposit additional money into whenever you're adding to the investments. Note that that last option avoids having to take capital gains, which is generally a good thing; you want as much of your profit to be long-term as possible, and to avoid triggering the \"\"wash sales\"\" rule. Generally, you do not have to rebalance very frequently unless you are doing something that I'd consider unreasonably risky, or unless you're managing such huge sums that a tiny fraction of a percent still adds up to real money.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "624d64de9d677b3001fe738a4e116cac",
"text": "\"One other thing to consider, particularly with Vanguard, is the total dollar amount available. Vanguard has \"\"Admiralty\"\" shares of funds which offer lower expense ratios, around 15-20% lower, but require a fairly large investment in each fund (often 10k) to earn the discounted rate. It is a tradeoff between slightly lower expense ratios and possibly a somewhat less diverse holding if you are relatively early in your savings and only have say 20-30k (which would mean 2 or 3 Admiralty share funds only).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ec40d35aaa8162393caf493bd166822e",
"text": "There many asset allocation strategies to chose from that beat lifestyle funds. For example: Relative Strength Asset Allocation keeps your money in Stocks when stocks perform well, bonds when they outperform stocks, and cash when both bonds and stocks are under-performing. The re-allocation happens on a monthly basis.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "bfb844efdcbda51b6ec1bb6a74c2bfb2",
"text": "The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated. - Twain I use index funds in my retirement planning, but don't stick to just S&P 500 index funds. Suppose I balance my money 50/50 between Small Cap and Large Cap and say I have $10,000. I'd buy $5,000 of an S&P Index fund and $5,000 of a Russell 2000 index fund. Now, fast forward a year. Suppose the S&P Index fund has $4900 and the Russell Index fund has $5200. Sell $150 of Russell Index Fund and buy $150 of S&P 500 Index funds to balance. Repeat that activity every 12-18 months. This lets you be hands off (index fund-style) on your investment choices but still take advantage of great markets. This way, I can still rebalance to sell high and buy low, but I'm not stressing about an individual stock or mutual fund choice. You can repeat this model with more categories, I chose two for the simplicity of explaining.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bde532eae5c6c8cbb1770a4bfd7c4d55",
"text": "\"For what it's worth, the distribution I'm currently using is roughly ... with about 2/3 of the money sitting in my 401(k). I should note that this is actually considered a moderately aggressive position. I need to phone my advisor (NOT a broker, so they aren't biased toward things which are more profitable for them) and check whether I've gotten close enough to retirement that I should readjust those numbers. Could I do better? Maybe, at higher risk and higher fees that would be likely to eat most of the improved returns. Or by spending far more time micromanaging my money than I have any interest in. I've validated this distribution using the various stochastic models and it seems to work well enough that I'm generally content with it. (As I noted in a comment elsewhere, many of us will want to get up into this range before we retire -- I figure that if I hit $1.8M I can probably sustain my lifestyle solely on the income, despite expected inflation, and thus be safely covered for life -- so this isn't all that huge a chunk of cash by today's standards. Cue Daffy Duck: \"\"I'm rich! I'm wealthy! I'm comfortably well off!\"\" -- $2M, these days, is \"\"comfortably well off.\"\")\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1f0cca52044dd1b928369fc8e2ad8a9e",
"text": "\"First, decide on your asset allocation; are you looking for a fund with 60% stocks/risky-stuff, or 40% or 20%? Second, look for funds that have a mix of stocks and bonds. Good keywords would be: \"\"target retirement,\"\" \"\"lifecycle,\"\" \"\"balanced,\"\" \"\"conservative/moderate allocation.\"\" As you discover these funds, probably the fund website (but at least Morningstar.com) will tell you the percentage in stocks and risk assets, vs. in conservative bonds. Look for funds that have the percentage you decided on, or as close to it as possible. Third, build a list of funds that meet your allocation goal, and compare the details. Are they based on index funds, or are they actively managed? What is the expense ratio? Is the fund from a reputable company? You could certainly ask more questions here if you have several candidates and aren't sure how to choose. For investing in US dollars one can't-go-wrong choice is Vanguard and they have several suitable funds, but unfortunately if you spend in NIS then you should probably invest in that currency, and I don't know anything about funds in Israel. Update: two other options here. One is a financial advisor who agrees to do rebalancing for you. If you get a cheap one, it could be worth it. Two is that some 401k plans have an automatic rebalancing feature, where you have multiple funds but you can set it up so their computer auto-rebalances you. That's almost as good as having a single fund, though it does still encourage some \"\"mental accounting\"\" so you'd have to try to only look at the total balance, not the individual fund balances, over time. Anyway both of these could be alternatives ways to go on autopilot, besides a single fund.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "01a16846bea2a845599e2bda0fa908c0",
"text": "\"That's a lot of manual checking-in to see if everything is performing the way you \"\"want\"\". Not to insult your intelligence, but that is not your job, and doing that on a monthly basis is going to eat a lot of time. Plus, most 401(k) programs have lockout periods wherein changes can't be made without incurring additional fees (related to distributions, etc). And if you're checking that often, you are [likely] losing the benefits of investing in mutual funds to start with. If you have the stomach to handle the risk, go for the high-risk investment vehicles early in your career - you can afford a 30% drop this year if you then make 105%, 15%, or 50% back each of the next 5. If, on the other hand, you're in your mid-career, switch to more conservative management tactics.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e3187c81565c030bb4ce834c1add5895",
"text": "\"Before anything, I see that no one mentioned the one thing about 401(k) accounts that's just shy of magic - The matching deposit. In 2015, 42% of companies offered a dollar for dollar match on deposits. Can't beat that. (Note - to respond to Xalorous' comment, the $18K OP deposits can be nearly any percent of his income. The typical match is 'up to' 6% of gross income. If that's the case, the 401(k) deposits are doubled. But say he makes $100K. The $18K deposit will see a $6K match. This adds a layer of complexity to the answer that I preferred to avoid, as I show with no match at all, and no change in tax brackets, the deferral alone shows value to the investor.) On to the main answer - Let's pull out a spreadsheet - We start with $10,000, and assume the 25% bracket. This gives a choice of $10,000 in the 401(k) or $7500 in the taxable account. Next, let 20 years pass, with 10% return each year. The 401(k) sees the full 10% and after 20 years, $67K. The taxable account owner waits to get the 15% cap gain rate and adjusts portfolio, thus seeing an 8.5% return each year and carrying no ongoing gains. After 20 years of 8.5% returns, he has $38K net. The 401(k) owner on withdrawal pays the 25% tax and has $50K, still more than 25% more money that the taxable account. Because transactions within the account were all tax deferred. EDIT - With respect to davmp's comment, I'll offer the other extreme - In his comment, he (rightly) objected that I chose to trade every year, although I did assign the long term 15% cap gain rate, he felt the annual trade was my attempt to game the analysis. Above, I offer his extreme case, a 10% return each year, no trade, no dividend. Just a cap gain at the end. The 401(k) still wins. I also left the tax (on the 401(k)) at withdrawal at 25%, when in fact, much, if not all will be taxed at 15% or lower, which would put the net at $57K or 30% above the taxable account final withdrawal. The next issue I'd bring up is that the 401(k) is taken out at the top (marginal) tax rate, e.g. a single filer with taxable income over $37,650 (in 2016) would save 25% on that 401(k) deduction. Of course if the deduction pulls you under that line, I'd go Roth or taxable. But, withdrawals start at zero. Today, a single retiree has a standard deduction ($4050) and exemption ($6300) for a total $10,350 \"\"zero bracket\"\" with the next $9275 taxed at 10%. This points to needing $500K in pre tax accounts before withdrawals each year would get you past the 10% bracket. (This comes from the suggestion of using 4% as an annual withdrawal rate). Last - the tax discussion has 2 major points in time, deposit and withdrawal, of course. But, the answers here all ignore all the time in between. In between, you see that for any number of reasons, you'll drop from the 25% bracket to 15% that year. That's the time to convert a bit of money to Roth and 'top off' the 15% bracket. It can happen due to job loss, marriage with new spouse either not working or having lower income, new baby, house purchase, etc. Or in-between, a disability put you out of work. That permits you to take money out with no penalty, and little chance of paying even the 25% that you paid going in. This, from personal experience with a family member, funded a 401(k) with 28% money. Then divorced and disabled, able to take the $10K/yr to supplement worker's comp (non taxed) income.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d48668c03c328eebe5c349e9895587fc",
"text": "Dollar cost averaging is an great way to diversify your investment risk. There's mainly 2 things you want to achieve when you're saving for retirement: 1) Keep your principal investment; 2) Grow it. The best methods recommended by most financial institutions are as follows: 1) Diversification; 2) Re-balance. There are a lot of additional recommendations, but these are my main take away. When you dollar cost average, you're essentially diversifying your exchange risk between the value of the funds you're investing. Including the ups and downs of the value of the underlying asset, may actually be re-balancing. Picking your asset portfolio: 1) You generally want to include within your 401k or any other invest, classes of investments that do not always move in total correlation as this allows you to diversify risk; 2) I'm making a lot of assumptions here - since you may have already picked your asset classes. Consider utilizing the following to tell you when to buy or sell your underlying investment: 1) Google re-balance excel sheet to find several examples of re-balance tools to help you always buy low and sell high; 2) Enter your portfolio investment; 3) Utilize the movement to invest in the underlying assets based on market movement; and 4) Execute in an emotionless way and stick to your plan. Example - Facts 1) I have 1 CAD and 1 USD in my 401k. Plan I will invest 1 dollar in the ratio of 50/50 - forever. Let's start in 2011 since we were closer to par: 2010 - 1 CAD (value 1 USD) and 1 USD (value 1 USD) = 50/50 ratio 2011 start - 1 CAD ( value .8 USD) and 1 USD (value 1 USD) = 40/60 ratio 2011 - rebalance - invest 1 USD as follows purchase .75 CAD (.60 USD) and purchase .40 USD = total of 1 USD reinvested 2011 end - 1.75 CAD (value 1.4USD) and 1.4 USD (value 1.4 USD) - 50/50 ratio As long as the fundamentals of your underlying assets (i.e. you're not expecting hyperinflation or your asset to approach 0), this approach will always build value over time since you're always buying low and selling high while dollar averaging. Keep in mind it does reduce your potential gains - but if you're looking to max gain, it may mean you're also max potential loss - unless you're able to find A symmetrical investments. I hope this helps.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "62dbf4f68c2595a56b639fd2f9ed87c0",
"text": "I do the same thing with my 401k (100% S&P 500). My strategy is to check it weekly. If the S&P falls by 10%-20% (based on risk tolerance, currently mine is 19%). I'll move all of it out into cash until I see 3-consecutive months of gains, then I'll get back in. I don't have a lot of time to manage my investments, and this was the simplest strategy I've come up with so far. It served me very well in the 2008 crash. I got out around 120 and returned to the S&P on 2009-06-29 around 90.",
"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": "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": "9eb7766286bcb7ea485bc32992de60ec",
"text": "\"Rebalancing has been studied empirically quite a bit, but not particularly carefully and actually turns out to be very hard to study well. The main problem is that you don't know until afterward if your target weights were optimal so a bad rebalancing program might give better performance if it strayed closer to optimal weights even if it didn't do an efficient job of keeping near the target weights. In your particular case either method might be preferred depending on a number of things: You can see why there isn't a generally correct answer to your question and the results of empirical studies might very wildly depending on the mix of assets and risk tolerance. Still if your portfolio is not too complicated you can estimate the costs of the two methods without too much trouble and figure out if it is worthwhile to you. EDIT In Response to Comment Below: Your example gets at what makes rebalancing so hard empirically but also generally pretty easy in practice. If you were to target 75% Equity (25% bonds?) and look at returns only for 30 years the \"\"best\"\" rebalancing method would be to never rebalance and just let 75% equity go to near 100% as equity has better long term returns. This happens when you look only at returns as the final number and don't take into account the change in risk in your portfolio. In practice, most people that are still adding (or subtracting in retirement) to a retirement portfolio are adding (removing) a significant amount compared to the total amount in their portfolio. In the case you discribe, it is cheaper (massively cheaper in the presence of load fees) just to use new capital to trade toward your target, keeping your risk profile. New money should be large enough to keep you near enough your target. If you just estimate the trading costs/fees in both cases I think you'll see just how large the difference is between the two methods this will dwarf any small differences in return over the long run even if you can't trade back all the way to your target.\"",
"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": "5067249e6b8ae4300dbac7cb050b5742",
"text": "Call up vanguard and tell them you want to do a rollover. They walk you through the process. Spend some time on reading up on asset allocation and benefits of indexing. 1.5% every year is steep and what do you have in return? The advisor's word that he'll make it up. How much did he manage to return during the last lost decade? It's a lose-win situation. He'll get his 1.5% no matter how the market does but that's not the deal you are getting. Go with Vanguard. You are already thinking correctly - diversification, rebalancing, low cost!",
"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": "5d2b124795bc36a1421cb615e4b3ab19",
"text": "\"Can you easily stomach the risk of higher volatility that could come with smaller stocks? How certain are you that the funds wouldn't have any asset bloat that could cause them to become large-cap funds for holding to their winners? If having your 401(k) balance get chopped in half over a year doesn't give you any pause or hesitation, then you have greater risk tolerance than a lot of people but this is one of those things where living through it could be interesting. While I wouldn't be against the advice, I would consider caution on whether or not the next 40 years will be exactly like the averages of the past or not. In response to the comments: You didn't state the funds so I how I do know you meant index funds specifically? Look at \"\"Fidelity Low-Priced Stock\"\" for a fund that has bloated up in a sense. Could this happen with small-cap funds? Possibly but this is something to note. If you are just starting to invest now, it is easy to say, \"\"I'll stay the course,\"\" and then when things get choppy you may not be as strong as you thought. This is just a warning as I'm not sure you get my meaning here. Imagine that some women may think when having a child, \"\"I don't need any drugs,\"\" and then the pain comes and an epidural is demanded because of the different between the hypothetical and the real version. While you may think, \"\"I'll just turn the cheek if you punch me,\"\" if I actually just did it out of the blue, how sure are you of not swearing at me for doing it? Really stop and think about this for a moment rather than give an answer that may or may not what you'd really do when the fecal matter hits the oscillator. Couldn't you just look at what stocks did the best in the last 10 years and just buy those companies? Think carefully about what strategy are you using and why or else you could get tossed around as more than a few things were supposed to be the \"\"sure thing\"\" that turned out to be incorrect like the Dream Team of Long-term Capital Management, the banks that were too big to fail, the Japanese taking over in the late 1980s, etc. There are more than a few times where things started looking one way and ended up quite differently though I wonder if you are aware of this performance chasing that some will do.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
e7d7046d3530c98f026ddebd523ada00
|
Does SIPC protect securities purchased in foreign exchanges?
|
[
{
"docid": "54bb445de033c81fb0cf87b81e81f6cb",
"text": "I'll give it a shot, even though you don't seem to be responding to my comment. SIPC insures against fraud or abuse of its members. If you purchased a stock through a SIPC member broker and it was held in trust by a SIPC member, you're covered by its protection. Where you purchased the stock - doesn't matter. There are however things SIPC doesn't cover. That said, SIPC members are SEC-registred brokers, i.e.: brokers operating in the USA. If you're buying on the UK stock exchange - you need to check that you're still operating through a US SIPC member. As I mentioned in the comment - the specific company that you mentioned has different entities for the US operations and the UK operations. Buying through them on LSE is likely to bind you with their UK entity that is not SIPC member. You'll have to check that directly with them.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "efb02741e131bbeb35fabd25c9d5edb7",
"text": "\"I have received a response from SIPC, confirming littleadv's answer: For a brief background, the protections available under the Securities Investor Protection Act (\"\"SIPA\"\"), are only available in the context of a liquidation proceeding of a SIPC member broker-dealer and relate to the \"\"custody\"\" of securities and related cash at the SIPC member broker-dealer. Thus, if a SIPC member broker-dealer were to fail at a time when a customer had securities and/or cash in the custody of the SIPC member broker-dealer, in most instances it would be SIPC's obligation to restore those securities and cash to the customer, within statutory limits. That does not mean, however, that the customer would necessarily receive the original value of his or her purchase. Rather, the customer receives the security itself and/or the value of the customer's account as of the day that the liquidation commenced. SIPC does not protect against the decline in value of any security. In a liquidation proceeding under the SIPA, SIPC may advance up to $500,000 per customer (including a $250,000 limit on cash in the account). Please note that this protection only applies to the extent that you entrust cash or securities to a U.S. SIPC member. Foreign broker dealer subsidiaries are not SIPC members. However, to the extent that any assets, including foreign securities, are being held by the U.S. broker dealer, the assets are protected by SIPC. Stocks listed on the LSE are protected by SIPC to the extent they are held with a SIPC member broker dealer, up to the statutory limit of $500,000 per customer. As I mentioned in the comments, in the case of IB, indeed they have a foreign subsidiary, which is why SIPC does not cover it (rather they are insured by Lloyds of London for such cases).\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "d3b29e8075a13386c894ae62e8f3d167",
"text": "According to this page on their website (http://www.kotaksecurities.com/internationaleq/homepage.htm), Kotak Securities is one big-name Indian broker that offers an international equities account to its Indian customers. Presumably, they should be able to answer all your questions. Since this is a competitive market, one can assume that others like ICICI Direct must also be doing so.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f773014a6042d754ea2057697b5efa0f",
"text": "So, couple of things. Firstly, every international ETF includes risk disclosure language in the prospectus covering both market disruption events as well as geopolitical risk, so the sponsor would be pretty well insulated from direct liability for anything. If the Russian market were truly shut down there are true-up mechanisms in place but in the scenario you're describing the market is still open, it's just only a few participants can trade in it. First thing to do is shut down creates- that is, allow no new money to come into the fund. This at least prevents your problem from getting bigger. Second you're going to switch all redemptions to in kind only. MV itself can't trade in the underlying so they're kind of jammed here. An ETF sponsor can't really refuse your redemption request (can delay, but only for a short time), but they can control the form in which they respond to it. What theoretically should happen here is an AP not subject to sanctions will step in and handle redemptions. Issue is, they'll probably charge for this so you should expect the fund to start trading at a discount to NAV (you, as an investor, sell to them cheaply, they submit a redemption request, then sell the stocks locally). Someone else has pointed that market makers will start stat arbing the fund using correlated/substitute instruments, which totally will help keep things in line, but my guess is that you'd still see the name trading away from NAV regardless. Driver of this will be the amount of money desperate to get out - if investors are content to wait the sanctions out who knows.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d666c38057c10de0df25b0b819739a26",
"text": "It doesn't matter which exchange a share was purchased through (or if it was even purchased on an exchange at all--physical share certificates can be bought and sold outside of any exchange). A share is a share, and any share available for purchase in New York is available to be purchased in London. Buying all of a company's stock is not something that can generally be done through the stock market. The practical way to accomplish buying a company out is to purchase a controlling interest, or enough shares to have enough votes to bind the board to a specific course of action. Then vote to sell all outstanding shares to another company at a particular fixed price per share. Market capitalization is an inaccurate measure of the size of a company in the first place, but if you want to quantify it, you can take the number of outstanding shares (anywhere and everywhere) and multiply them by the price on any of the exchanges that sell it. That will give you the market capitalization in the currency that is used by whatever exchange you chose.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a97a55ff1d603849bb7ca369e42394b4",
"text": "\"SIPC is a corporation - a legal entity separate from its owners. In the case of SIPC, it is funded through the fees paid by its members. All the US brokers are required to be members and to contribute to SIPC funds. Can it go bankrupt? Of course. Any legal entity can go bankrupt. A person can go bankrupt. A country can go bankrupt. And so can anything in between. However, looking at the history of things, there are certain assumptions that can be made. These are mere guesses, as there's no law about any of these things (to the best of my knowledge), but seeing how things were - we can try and guess that they will also be like this in the future. I would guess, that in case of a problem for the SIPC to meet its obligation, any of the following would happen (or combinations): Too big to fail - large insurance companies had been bailed out before by the governments since it was considered that their failure would be more destructive to the economy than the bailout. AIG as an example in the US. SIPC is in essence is an insurance company. So is Lloyd's of London. Breach of trust of the individual investors that can lead to a significant market crash. That's what happened in the US to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They're now \"\"officially\"\" backed by the US government. If SIPC is incapable of meeting its obligation, I would definitely expect the US government to step in, even though there's no such obligation. Raising funds through charging other members. If the actuary calculations were incorrect, the insurance companies adjust them and raise premiums. That is what should happen in this case as well. While may not necessarily solve a cashflow issue, in the long term it will allow SIPC to balance, so that bridge loans (from the US government/Feds/public bonds) could be used in between. Not meeting obligations, i.e.: bankruptcy. That is an option, and insurance companies have gone bankrupt before. Not unheard of, but from the past experience - again, I'd expect the US government to step in. In general, I don't see any significant difference between SIPC in the US and a \"\"generic\"\" insurance coverage elsewhere. Except that in the US SIPC is mandatory, well regulated, and the coverage is uniform across brokerages, which is a benefit to the consumer.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f3783f309371faca4f765f50b3f0f6d3",
"text": "> Turns out inside updates via the SIP are received faster than the prop market data feed, and faster than updates received over an order entry connection. Under these circumstances the street knows a trade occurred before the participants in the trade. You're saying if IEX is the inside quote you see it disappear on a sip feed before you see it disappear from iex's MD feed? AND if it's your quote, even before you receive the trade report?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c09e0ca4cba8ddc88883306ee7d79eac",
"text": "\"This sounds like a FATCA issue. I will attempt to explain, but please confirm with your own research, as I am not a FATCA expert. If a foreign institution has made a policy decision not to accept US customers because of the Foreign Financial Institution (FFI) obligations under FATCA, then that will of course exclude you even if you are resident outside the US. The US government asserts the principle of universal tax jurisdiction over its citizens. The institution may have a publicly available FATCA policy statement or otherwise be covered in a new story, so you can confirm this is what has happened. Failing that, I would follow up and ask for clarification. You may be able to find an institution that accepts US citizens as investors. This requires some research, maybe some legwork. Renunciation of your citizenship is the most certain way to circumvent this issue, if you are prepared to take such a drastic step. Such a step would require thought and planning. Note that there would be an expatriation tax (\"\"exit tax\"\") that deems a disposition of all your assets (mark to market for all your assets) under IRC § 877. A less direct but far less extreme measure would be to use an intermediary, either one that has access or a foreign entity (i.e. non-US entity) that can gain access. A Non-Financial Foreign Entity (NFFE) is itself subject to withholding rules of FATCA, so it must withhold payments to you and any other US persons. But the investing institutions will not become FFIs by paying an NFFE; the obligation rests on the FFI. PWC Australia has a nice little writeup that explains some of the key terms and concepts of FATCA. Of course, the simplest solution is probably to use US institutions, where possible. Non-foreign entities do not have foreign obligations under FATCA.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e92a5e3cfe7db5a782b9931710ff389d",
"text": "\"You might find some of the answers here helpful; the question is different, but has some similar concerns, such as a changing economic environment. What approach should I take to best protect my wealth against currency devaluation & poor growth prospects. I want to avoid selling off any more of my local index funds in a panic as I want to hold long term. Does my portfolio balance make sense? Good question; I can't even get US banks to answer questions like this, such as \"\"What happens if they try to nationalize all bank accounts like in the Soviet Union?\"\" Response: it'll never happen. The question was what if! I think that your portfolio carries a lot of risk, but also offsets what you're worried about. Outside of government confiscation of foreign accounts (if your foreign investments are held through a local brokerage), you should be good. What to do about government confiscation? Even the US government (in 1933) confiscated physical gold (and they made it illegal to own) - so even physical resources can be confiscated during hard times. Quite a large portion of my foreign investments have been bought at an expensive time when our currency is already around historic lows, which does concern me in the event that it strengthens in future. What strategy should I take in the future if/when my local currency starts the strengthen...do I hold my foreign investments through it and just trust in cost averaging long term, or try sell them off to avoid the devaluation? Are these foreign investments a hedge? If so, then you shouldn't worry if your currency does strengthen; they serve the purpose of hedging the local environment. If these investments are not a hedge, then timing will matter and you'll want to sell and buy your currency before it does strengthen. The risk on this latter point is that your timing will be wrong.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0553814a9908284b274dbf815cae7682",
"text": "The article http://www.forbes.com/2008/09/15/bearstearns-lehman-compliance-pf-ii-in_js_0915soapbox_inl.html does a nice job explaining SIPC insurance coverage. The coverage is currently $500k total / 250k of which can be cash, that's the one update I'd offer.",
"title": ""
},
{
"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": "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": "aad964023bfe20997bec03f865987ce6",
"text": "\"Given that such activities are criminal and the people committing them have to hide them from the law, it's very unlikely that an investor could detect them, let alone one from a different country. The only things that can realistically help is to keep in mind the adage \"\"If something sounds too good to be true, it probably is\"\", and to stick to relatively large companies, since they have more auditing requirements and fraud is much harder to hide at scale (but not impossible, see Enron). Edit: and, of course, diversify. This kind of thing is rare, and not systematic, so diversification is a very good protection.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d53e34fe02d98329fad8b4a92043b8fb",
"text": "not a chance. imagine how this could be abused. US stock exchanges rarely ever do any reversing of transactions. theres a million different ways the market can take your money. a loss from a typo is nothing special. its a mismanagement just like any other loss or profit for others.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0c1c1437ed0dd486a5e53b6e385afb39",
"text": "A protection similar to FDIC for banks is provided to brokerage accounts' owners by SIPC. Neither FDIC nor SIPC provide protection or insurance against identity thefts or frauds, only bank/brokerage failures. Your investment losses are obviously not insured either. For fraud liability check your bank/brokerage policies, you can get insurance for identity theft from your insurance provider (its an optional coverage with many home-owner/renter insurance policies).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1f61879cd5e304871fb2370501d01e5f",
"text": "\"How are derivatives like covered warrants or CFDs different from the bucket shops that were made illegal in the US? After reading up a little on the topic, the core difference seems to be that bucket shops were basically running betting pools, with everyone betting against the operator, whereas CFDs and similar derivatives are traded between speculators and the operator merely provides a market and checks the liquidity of participants. A CW seems to be a different matter that I'm not fully sure I understand (at least the description of Wikipedia seems to contradict your statement about not trade being performed on the underlying security). Should I worry that some regulator decides that my \"\"market maker\"\" is an illegal gambling operation? Not really. Nations with a mature financial industry (like Japan) invariably have heavy regulations that mandate constant auditing of institutions that sell financial instruments. In Japan, the Financial Services Agency is in charge of this. It's almost impossible that they would let an institution operate and later decide that its basic business model is illegal. What is possible are mainly two scenarios:\"",
"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
|
2fc9d8c31c8d2461e7bbcdf5c5b2043d
|
How to buy stuff (stocks?) in IRA account? What else?
|
[
{
"docid": "1c9569033a3d0a5bd57b3b256ee4b5f2",
"text": "You can buy stocks in the IRA, similarly to your regular investment account. Generally, when you open an account with a retail provider like TDAmeritrade, all the options available for you on that account are allowable. Keep in mind that you cannot just deposit money to IRA. There's a limit on how much you can deposit a year ($5500 as of 2015, $6500 for those 50 or older), and there's also a limit on top of that - the amount you deposit into an IRA cannot be more than your total earned income (i.e. income from work). In addition, there are limits on how much of your contribution you can deduct (depending on your income and whether you/your spouse have an employer-sponsored retirement plan).",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "04fc25149b5028e4a34d26e562cedb73",
"text": "\"I have a similar situation -- five different accounts between me and my wife. Just as you and @Alex B describe, I maintain my asset allocation across the combination of all accounts. I also maintain a spreadsheet to track the targets, deviations from the targets, amounts required to get back in balance, and overall performance. I (mostly) don't use mutual funds. I have selected, for each category, 1 or 2 ETFs. Choosing index ETFs with low expense ratios and a brokerage with cheap or free trades keeps expenses low. (My broker offers free ETF trades if you buy off their list as long as you aren't short-term trading; this is great for rebalancing for free 2 or 3 times a year.) Using ETFs also solves the minimum balance problem -- but watch out for commissions. If you pay $10 to buy $500 worth of an ETF, that's an immediate 2% loss; trade a couple of times a year and that ETF has to gain 5% just to break even. One issue that comes up is managing cash and avoiding transaction fees. Say your IRA has all the growth stock funds and your Roth has the bonds. Stocks do well and bonds do poorly, so you sell off some stocks, which creates a bunch of cash in your IRA. Now you want to buy some bonds but you don't have enough cash in your Roth, so you buy the bonds in your IRA. Not a problem at first but if you don't manage it you can end up with small amounts of various funds spread across all of your accounts. If you're not careful you can end up paying two commissions (in two different accounts) to sell off / purchase enough of a category to get back to your targets. Another problem I had is that only one account (401k) is receiving deposits on a regular basis, and that's all going into an S&P 500 index fund. This makes it so that my allocation is off by a fair amount every quarter or so -- too much in large cap equities, not enough of everything else. My solution to this going forward is to \"\"over-rebalance\"\" a couple of times a year: sell enough SPY from my other accounts so that I'm under-allocated in large caps by the amount I expect to add to my 401k over the next 3 months. (So that in six months at my next rebalancing I'm only 3 months over-allocated to large caps -- plus or minus whatever gains/losses there are.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "adcaaa179270d076ea0768d8715a2b95",
"text": "A Roth IRA is just an account wrapper. Inside a Roth IRA you can have a plain 0.1% savings account, or a brokerage account, or an annuity or whatever. There's no rate of return for a Roth IRA. That particular calculator seems to assume you'll be wrapping a brokerage account in a Roth IRA and investing in the stock market. Over a long period 6% is probably a reasonable rate of return considering the S&P 500 has returned about 7% over the last decade.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ecd8bd38a8923493a989fd91c8d71b8e",
"text": "In the U.S. it is typical that a stock brokerage account can be set up to buy stock with up to half the cost being borrowed from the broker. This is called a margin account. The stock purchased must remain in the account until sold (or the loan is paid off), as it serves as built-in collateral for the loan. If the market price for the stock goes down too much, you will be required to add money, or the stock will be sold to cover the loan. See this question for some more information.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "09831bc94519dff461f2559278ffa955",
"text": "Read the Forbes article titled IRA Adventures. While it's not the detailed regulations you certainly need, the article gives some great detail and caution. You may be able to do what you wish, but it must be structured to adhere to specific rules to avoid self dealing. Those rules would be known by the custodians who would help you set up the right structure, it's well buried within IRS regs, I'm sure. Last, in general, using IRA funds to invest in the non-traditional assets adds that other layer of risk, that the investment will be deemed non-allowed and/or self-dealing. So, even if you have the best business idea going, be sure you get proper council on this.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b92a5bc99fafcaec22cca3e45a88c347",
"text": "Your question indicates confusion regarding what an Individual Retirement Account (whether Roth or Traditional) is vs. the S&P 500, which is nothing but a list of stocks. IOW, it's perfectly reasonable to open a Roth IRA, put your $3000 in it, and then use that money to buy a mutual fund or ETF which tracks the S&P 500. In fact, it's ridiculously common... :)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c9fb3797db32b36d9e0384c2cc049454",
"text": "You are young, and therefore have a very long time horizon for investing. Absolutely nothing you do should involve paying any attention to your investments more than once a year (if that). First off, you can only deposit money in an IRA (of whatever kind) if you have taxable income. If you don't, you can still invest, just without the tax benefits of a Roth. My suggestion would be to open an account with a discount brokerage (Schwab, Fidelity, eTrade, etc). The advantage of a brokerage IRA is that you can invest in whatever you want within the account. Then, either buy an S&P 500 or total market index fund within the account, or buy an index-based ETF (like a mutual fund, but trades like a stock). The latter might be better, since many mutual funds have minimum limits, which ETFs do not. Set the account up to reinvest the dividends automatically--S&P 500 yields will far outstrip current savings account yields--and sit back and do nothing for the next 40 or 50 years. Well, except for continuing to make annual contributions to the account, which you should continue to invest in pretty much the same thing until you have enough money (and experience and knowledge) to diversify into bond funds/international funds/individual stocks, etc. Disclaimer: I am not a financial planner. I just manage my own money, and this strategy has mostly kept me from stressing too badly over the last few years of market turmoil.",
"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": "1f3dc5f3342791a9c6385b702ab00e25",
"text": "Accredited investors are required to have 1 million in assets (not including primary residence) or $200,000/yr income for the last 3 years. These kinds of regulations come from the SEC, not the company involved, which means the SEC thinks it's a risky investment. If I recall correctly, [someone I know] had to submit evidence of being an accredited investor to trade options on [his] IRA. It may be that this is related to the classification of the options.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a73a32e9c0c175cc10a1014387ee433f",
"text": "\"Your are mixing multiple questions with assertions which may or may not be true. So I'll take a stab at this, comment if it doesn't make sense to you. To answer the question in the title, you invest in an IRA because you want to save money to allow you to retire. The government provides you with tax incentives that make an IRA an excellent vehicle to do this. The rules regarding IRA tax treatment provide disincentives, through tax penalties, for withdrawing money before retirement. This topic is covered dozens of times, so search around for more detail. Regarding your desire to invest in items with high \"\"intrinsic\"\" value, I would argue that gold and silver are not good vehicles for doing this. Intrinsic value doesn't mean what you want it to mean in this context -- gold and silver are commodities, whose prices fluctuate dramatically. If you want to grow money for retirement over a long period, of time, you should be invested in diversified collection of investments, and precious metals should be a relatively small part of your portfolio.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a83b5dd0290b284fe4ca0d42b88cebfd",
"text": "\"All transactions within an IRA are irrelevant as far as the taxation of the distributions from the IRA are concerned. You can only take cash from an IRA, and a (cash) distribution from a Traditional IRA is taxable as ordinary income (same as interest from a bank, say) without the advantage of any of the special tax rates for long-term capital gains or qualified dividends even if that cash was generated within the IRA from sales of stock etc. In short, just as with what is alleged to occur with respect to Las Vegas, what happens within the IRA stays within the IRA. Note: some IRA custodians are willing to make a distribution of stock or mutual fund shares to you, so that ownership of the 100 shares of GE, say, that you hold within your IRA is transferred to you in your personal (non-IRA) brokerage account. But, as far as the IRS is concerned, your IRA custodian sold the stock as the closing price on the day of the distribution, gave you the cash, and you promptly bought the 100 shares (at the closing price) in your personal brokerage account with the cash that you received from the IRA. It is just that your custodian saved the transaction fees involved in selling 100 shares of GE stock inside the IRA and you saved the transaction fee for buying 100 shares of GE stock in your personal brokerage account. Your basis in the 100 shares of GE stock is the \"\"cash_ that you imputedly received as a distribution from the IRA, so that when you sell the shares at some future time, your capital gains (or losses) will be with respect to this basis. The capital gains that occurred within the IRA when the shares were imputedly sold by your IRA custodian remain within the IRA, and you don't get to pay taxes on that at capital gains rates. That being said, I would like to add to what NathanL told you in his answer. Your mother passed away in 2011 and you are now 60 years old (so 54 or 55 in 2011?). It is likely that your mother was over 70.5 years old when she passed away, and so she likely had started taking Required Minimum Distributions from her IRA before her death. So, You should have been taking RMDs from the Inherited IRA starting with Year 2012. (The RMD for 2011, if not taken already by your mother before she passed away, should have been taken by her estate, and distributed to her heirs in accordance with her will, or, if she died intestate, in accordance with state law and/or probate court directives). There would not have been any 10% penalty tax due on the RMDs taken by you on the grounds that you were not 59.5 years old as yet; that rule applies to owners (your mom in this case) and not to beneficiaries (you in this case). So, have you taken the RMDs for 2012-2016? Or were you waiting to turn 59.5 before taking distributions in the mistaken belief that you would have to pay a 10% penalty for early wthdrawal? The penalty for not taking a RMD is 50% of the amount not distributed; yes, 50%. If you didn't take RMDs from the Inherited IRA for years 2012-2016, I recommend that you consult a CPA with expertise in tax law. Ask the CPA if he/she is an Enrolled Agent with the IRS: Enrolled Agents have to pass an exam administered by the IRS to show that they really understand tax law and are not just blowing smoke, and can represent you in front of the IRS in cases of audit etc,\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2a2880cc32f51a709d7cc91acef8eb9e",
"text": "\"Let's handle this as a \"\"proof of concept\"\" (POC); OP wants to buy 1 share of anything just to prove that they can do it before doing the months of painstaking analysis that is required before buying shares as an investment. I will also assume that the risks and costs of ownership and taxes would be included in OP's future analyses. To trade a stock you need a financed broker account and a way to place orders. Open a dealing account, NOT an options or CFD etc. account, with a broker. I chose a broker who I was confident that I could trust, others will tell you to look for brokers based on cost or other metrics. In the end you need to be happy that you can get what you want out of your broker, that is likely to include some modicum of trust since you will be keeping money with them. When you create this account they will ask for your bank account details (plus a few other details to prevent fraud, insider trading, money laundering etc.) and may also ask for a minimum deposit. Either deposit enough to cover the price of your share plus taxes and the broker's commission, plus a little extra to be on the safe side as prices move for every trade, including yours, or the minimum if it is higher. Once you have an account the broker will provide an interface through which to buy the share. This will usually either be a web interface, a phone number, or a fax number. They will also provide you with details of how their orders are structured. The simplest type of order is a \"\"market order\"\". This tells the broker that you want to buy your shares at the market price rather than specifying only to buy at a given price. After you have sent that order the broker will buy the share from the market, deduct the price plus tax and her commission from your account and credit your account with your share.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3b1313c7fe9c8a6cae73baa0bc146c45",
"text": "Indeed, there's no short term/long term issue trading inside the IRA, and in fact, no reporting. If you have a large IRA balance and trade 100 (for example) times per year, there's no reporting at all. As you note, long term gains outside the IRA are treated favorably in the tax code (as of now, 2012) but that's subject to change. Also to consider, The worst thing I did was to buy Apple in my IRA. A huge gain that will be taxed as ordinary income when I withdraw it. Had this been in my regular account, I could sell and pay the long term cap gain rate this year. Last, there's no concept of Wash sale in one's IRA, as there's no taking a loss for shares sold below cost. (To clarify, trading solely within an IRA won't trigger wash sale rules. A realized loss in a taxable account, combined with a purchase inside an IRA can trigger the wash sale rule if the stock is purchased inside the IRA 30 days before or after the sale at a loss. Thank you, Dilip, for the comment.) Aside from the warnings of trading too much or running afoul of frequency restrictions, your observation is correct.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7513669b507e34a1436fd1b73c0e25b7",
"text": "\"Here are the few scenarios that may be worth noting in terms of using different types of accounts: Traditional IRA. In this case, the monies would grow tax-deferred and all monies coming out will be taxed as ordinary income. Think of it as everything is in one big black box and the whole thing is coming out to be taxed. Roth IRA. In this case, you could withdraw the contributions anytime without penalty. (Source should one want it for further research.) Past 59.5, the withdrawals are tax-free in my understanding. Thus, one could access some monies earlier than retirement age if one considers all the contributions that are at least 5 years old. Taxable account. In this case, each year there will be distributions to pay taxes as well as anytime one sells shares as that will trigger capital gains. In this case, taxes are worth noting as depending on the index fund one may have various taxes to consider. For example, a bond index fund may have some interest that would be taxed that the IRA could shelter to some extent. While index funds can be a low-cost option, in some cases there may be capital gains each year to keep up with the index. For example, small-cap indices and value indices would have stocks that may \"\"outgrow\"\" the index by either becoming mid-cap or large-cap in the case of small-cap or the value stock's valuation rises enough that it becomes a growth stock that is pulled out of the index. This is why some people may prefer to use tax-advantaged accounts for those funds that may not be as tax-efficient. The Bogleheads have an article on various accounts that can also be useful as dg99's comment referenced. Disclosure: I'm not an accountant or work for the IRS.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ca345ea66f077eab164938dda4afdc2e",
"text": "\"You can't get much better advice for a young investor than from Warren Buffet. And his advice for investors young and old, is \"\"Put 10% of the cash in short‑term government bonds, and 90% in a very low‑cost S&P 500 index fund.\"\" Or as he said at a different time, \"\"Most investors, both institutional and individual, will find that the best way to own common stocks is through an index fund that charges minimal fees\"\". You are not going to beat the market. So just save as much money as you can, and invest it in something like a Vanguard no-load, low-cost mutual fund. Picking individual stocks is fun, but treat it as fun. Never put in more money than you would waste on fun. Then any upside is pure gravy.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "90337c3fa4b8e6ade18c781f79fabe5f",
"text": "On average, you should be saving at least 10-15% of your income in order to be financially secure when you retire. Different people will tell you different things, but really this can be split between short term savings (cash), long term savings (401ks, IRAs, stocks & bonds), and paying down debt. That $5k is a good start on an emergency fund, but you probably want a little more. As justkt said, 6 months' worth is what you want to aim for. Put this in a Money Market account, where you'll earn a little more interest but won't be penalized from withdrawing it when its needed (you may have to live off it, after all). Beyond that, I would split things up; if possible, have payroll deductions going to a broker (sharebuilder is a good one to start with if you can't spare much change), as well as an IRA at a bank. Set up a separate checking account just for rent and utilities, put a month's worth of cash in there, and have another payroll deduction that covers your living expenses + maybe 5% put in there automatically. Then, set up automatic bill payments, so you don't even have to think about it. Check it once a month to make sure there aren't any surprises. Pay off your credit cards every month. These are, by far, the most expensive forms of credit that most people have. You shouldn't be financing large purchases with them (you'll get better rates by taking a personal loan from a bank). Set specific goals for savings, and set up automatic payroll deductions to work towards them. Especially for buying a house; most responsible lenders will ask for 20% down. In today's market, that means you need to write a check for $40k or $50k. While it's tempting to finance up to 100% of the property value, it's also risky considering how volatile markets can be. You don't want to end up owing more on the property than it's worth two years down the road. If you find yourself at the end of the month with an extra $50 or so, consider your savings goals or your current debt instead of blowing it on a toy. Especially if you have long term debt (high balance credit cards, vehicle or property loans), applying that money directly to principal can save you months (or years) paying it back, and hundreds or thousands of dollars of interest (all depending on the details of the loan, of course). Above all, have fun with it :) Think of your personal net worth as you do your Gamer score on the XBox, and look for ways to maximize it with a minimum of effort or investment on your part! Investing in yourself and your future can be incredibly rewarding emotionally :)",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
34ac33ba42c7770c7e4a888cdba4e589
|
Distribution vs withdrawal for an investment account
|
[
{
"docid": "46b129bf40544b2543dc880dfa3a75c0",
"text": "A mutual fund makes distributions of its dividends and capital gains, usually once a year, or seminanually or quarterly or monthly etc; it does not distribute any capital losses to its shareholders but holds them for offsetting capital gains in future years, (cf, this answer of mine to a different question). A stock pays dividends; a stock neither has nor does it distribute capital gains: you get capital gains (or losses) when you sell the shares of the stock, but these are not called distributions of any kind. Similarly, you incur capital gains or losses when you redeem shares of mutual funds but these are not called distributions either. Note that non-ETF mutual fund shares are generally not bought and sold on stock exchanges; you buy shares directly from the fund and you sell shares back (redeem them) directly to the fund. All of the above transactions are taxable events for the year to you unless the shares are being held in a tax-deferred account or are tax-free for other reasons (e.g. dividends from a municipal bond fund).",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "0445d59eb481021ee456139aec9da181",
"text": "You can argue that cash dividend is a kind of split as well by this logic. The stock price on ex-dividend gets a hit coincidental with the dividend to be paid, so one can argue that the investor has the same cash value on the day the dividend was paid as if it wouldn't be paid at all. However, for the company to distribute stocks instead of cash may be advantageous if they have low cash reserves but significant amount of treasury stocks, and the stocks are of high liquidity. It is also a way for the company to release treasury stocks without diluting the current shareholders and creating taxable income to the company, that's an important factor to consider. This is in fact the real answer to your question. The main difference between split and stock dividend is that in split, the stock distributions proportions don't change. With stock dividend - they do. While the outstanding share proportions do not change, total proportions do, because of the treasury stocks being distributed. So company has less stocks in its vaults, but everyone else still has the same proportions of ownership. Compare this to split: company's treasury stocks would be split as well, and it would continue essentially sitting on the same proportion of stocks. That shift of treasury stocks to the outside shareholders - this is what makes it a dividend.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c1deecfbe9951e08bdc507a92496fe83",
"text": "I'm a series 24 securities principle and have explained and trained people on questions like these more times than I can count. Although, my first recommendation is to speak to a qualified tax professional for the appropriate answer for each individual scenario. Disclosure aside, the source of truth for these questions is always the IRS publications. In this case it's IRS pub 590b: When Must You Withdraw Assets? (Required Minimum Distributions). IRA stands for Individual Retirement Arrangement. Basically it's an arrangement between you a the government to encourage retirement savings. Tax payers(up to a define taxable income amount) agree to receive a deduction during your working years lowering your taxable income in the present. Your taxable income should drop in retirement because you're not working anymore and any withdraws would most likely be taxed at a lower rate. To be clear the require minimum distribution is based on a life expectancy factor and the ending balance of your pre-tax retirement accounts from the prior year(for ex. 2016 ending balance for a 2017 rmd). The rmd works out to be somewhere around 3-4% of your total balance. Most retirement account providers(if not all) have established several conveniences to automate the withdraw process. I've believe that moving funds directly to bank deposits or moving the funds to another taxable investment account are most common. Retirement account providers are required by law to give you notifications about RMDs. Some big firms allow you to setup an auto-distribution a year before you turn 70.5 to start when they need to. Because of the 50% penalty you're given so many notifications about an RMD that it's hard to forget about it.",
"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": "d1472c65dc003b8301b259da45632449",
"text": "Have you changed how you handle fund distributions? While it is typical to re-invest the distributions to buy additional shares, this may not make sense if you want to get a little cash to use for the home purchase. While you may already handle this, it isn't mentioned in the question. While it likely won't make a big difference, it could be a useful factor to consider, potentially if you ponder how risky is it having your down payment fluctuate in value from day to day. I'd just think it is more convenient to take the distributions in cash and that way have fewer transactions to report in the following year. Unless you have a working crystal ball, there is no way to definitively predict if the market will be up or down in exactly 2 years from now. Thus, I suggest taking the distributions in cash and investing in something much lower risk like a money market mutual fund.",
"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": "a83b5dd0290b284fe4ca0d42b88cebfd",
"text": "\"All transactions within an IRA are irrelevant as far as the taxation of the distributions from the IRA are concerned. You can only take cash from an IRA, and a (cash) distribution from a Traditional IRA is taxable as ordinary income (same as interest from a bank, say) without the advantage of any of the special tax rates for long-term capital gains or qualified dividends even if that cash was generated within the IRA from sales of stock etc. In short, just as with what is alleged to occur with respect to Las Vegas, what happens within the IRA stays within the IRA. Note: some IRA custodians are willing to make a distribution of stock or mutual fund shares to you, so that ownership of the 100 shares of GE, say, that you hold within your IRA is transferred to you in your personal (non-IRA) brokerage account. But, as far as the IRS is concerned, your IRA custodian sold the stock as the closing price on the day of the distribution, gave you the cash, and you promptly bought the 100 shares (at the closing price) in your personal brokerage account with the cash that you received from the IRA. It is just that your custodian saved the transaction fees involved in selling 100 shares of GE stock inside the IRA and you saved the transaction fee for buying 100 shares of GE stock in your personal brokerage account. Your basis in the 100 shares of GE stock is the \"\"cash_ that you imputedly received as a distribution from the IRA, so that when you sell the shares at some future time, your capital gains (or losses) will be with respect to this basis. The capital gains that occurred within the IRA when the shares were imputedly sold by your IRA custodian remain within the IRA, and you don't get to pay taxes on that at capital gains rates. That being said, I would like to add to what NathanL told you in his answer. Your mother passed away in 2011 and you are now 60 years old (so 54 or 55 in 2011?). It is likely that your mother was over 70.5 years old when she passed away, and so she likely had started taking Required Minimum Distributions from her IRA before her death. So, You should have been taking RMDs from the Inherited IRA starting with Year 2012. (The RMD for 2011, if not taken already by your mother before she passed away, should have been taken by her estate, and distributed to her heirs in accordance with her will, or, if she died intestate, in accordance with state law and/or probate court directives). There would not have been any 10% penalty tax due on the RMDs taken by you on the grounds that you were not 59.5 years old as yet; that rule applies to owners (your mom in this case) and not to beneficiaries (you in this case). So, have you taken the RMDs for 2012-2016? Or were you waiting to turn 59.5 before taking distributions in the mistaken belief that you would have to pay a 10% penalty for early wthdrawal? The penalty for not taking a RMD is 50% of the amount not distributed; yes, 50%. If you didn't take RMDs from the Inherited IRA for years 2012-2016, I recommend that you consult a CPA with expertise in tax law. Ask the CPA if he/she is an Enrolled Agent with the IRS: Enrolled Agents have to pass an exam administered by the IRS to show that they really understand tax law and are not just blowing smoke, and can represent you in front of the IRS in cases of audit etc,\"",
"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": "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": "29bf60f160cfd49e16556707172aba39",
"text": "\"Your premise is false. When you withdraw money from a Tax Free Savings Account (TFSA), there is no tax due. Yes, you can read that again: withdrawals from a TFSA are tax free. They are labeled \"\"tax free\"\" for a good reason! After-tax money is deposited, and then from that point forward, no tax, no tax, no tax. :-) On a \"\"normal\"\", non-registered investment or savings account with no special treatment, your investment earnings will be taxed whenever gains are realized or income received (e.g. dividends or interest). You will necessarily have less in a normal non-registered investment or savings account compared to a TFSA, as long as the rate of return was positive, i.e. growing. Perhaps you were thinking not of comparing a regular investment account to a TFSA, but rather to a Registered Retirement Savings Plan (RRSP)? In the case of an RRSP, there is an up-front tax deduction, then earnings grow tax-deferred, and then on withdrawal, income tax is paid at regular rates. Even then, with RRSPs, if your marginal tax rate remains the same over time (not necessarily a reasonable assumption, but let's go with it) then you should still realize more after-tax income from your RRSP than from a normal non-registered investment or savings account. (Though, there's likely an exception case when most income came as qualified dividends and the capital itself hasn't appreciated.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "0eb36cb23e54bb663852701290267fcd",
"text": "My two-cents, read your plan document or Summary Plan Description. The availability of in-service withdrawals will vary by document. Moreover, many plans, especially those compliant with 404(c) of ERISA will allow for individual brokerage accounts. This is common for smaller plans. If so, you can request to direct your own investments in your own account. You will likely have to pay any associated fees. Resources: work as actuary at a TPA firm",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e134c8e2dc970331adafc60acda2ed44",
"text": "\"Welcome to the 'what should otherwise be a simple choice turns into a huge analysis' debate. If the choice were actually simple, we've have one 'golden answer' here and close others as duplicate. But, new questions continue to bring up different scenarios that impact the choice. 4 years ago, I wrote an article in which I discussed The Density of Your IRA. In that article, I acknowledge that, with no other tax favored savings, you can pack more value into the Roth. In hindsight, I failed to add some key points. First, let's go back to what I'd describe as my main thesis: A retired couple hits the top of the 15% bracket with an income of $96,700. (I include just the standard deduction and exemptions.) The tax on this gross sum is $10,452.50 for an 'average' rate of 10.8%. The tax, paid or avoided, upon deposit, is one's marginal rate. But, at retirement, the withdrawals first go through the zero bracket (i.e. the STD deduction and exemptions), then 10%, then 15%. The above is the simplest snapshot. I am retired, and our return this year included Sch A, itemized deductions. Property tax, mort interest, insurance, donations added up fast, and from a gross income (IRA withdrawal) well into the 25% bracket, the effective/average rate was reported as 7.3%. If we had saved in Roth accounts, it would have been subject to 25%. I'd suggest that it's this phenomenon, the \"\"save at marginal 25%, but withdraw at average sub-11%\"\" effect that account for much of the resulting tax savings that the IRA provides. The way you are asking this, you've been focusing on one aspect, I believe. The 'density' issue. That assumes the investor has no 401(k) option. If I were building a spreadsheet to address this, I'd be sure to consider the fact that in a taxable account, long term gains are taxed at 15% for higher earners (I take the liberty to ignore that wealthier taxpayers will pay a maximum 20% tax on long-term capital gains. This higher rate applies when your adjusted gross income falls into the top 39.6% tax bracket.) And those in the 10 or 15% bracket pay 0%. With median household income at $56K in 2016, and the 15% bracket top at $76K, this suggests that most people (gov data shows $75K is 80th percentile) have an effective unlimited Roth. So long as they invest in a way that avoids short term gains, they can rebalance often enough to realize LT gains and pay zero tax. It's likely the $80K+ earner does have access to a 401(k) or other higher deposit account. If they don't, I'd still favor pretax IRAs, with $11K for the couple still 10% or so of their earnings. It would be a shame to lose that zero bracket of that first $20K withdrawal at retirement. Again working backwards, the $78K withdrawal would take nearly $2M in pretax savings to generate. All in today's dollars.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5ee5f967f040a013fe5a5188ca5f7d40",
"text": "Capital gain distribution is not capital gain on sale of stock. If you have stock sales (Schedule D) you should be filing 1040, not 1040A. Capital gain distributions are distributions from mutual funds/ETFs that are attributed to capital gains of the funds (you may not have actually received the distribution, but you still may have gain attributed to you). It is reported on 1099-DIV, and if it is 0 - then you don't have any. If you sold a stock, your broker should have given you 1099-B (which is not the same as 1099-DIV, but may be consolidated by your broker into one large PDF and not provided separately). On 1099-B the sales proceeds are recorded, and if you purchased the stock after 2011 - the cost basis is also recorded. The difference between the proceeds and the cost basis is your gain (or loss, if it is negative). Fees are added to cost basis.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "449e601fbc8fcbbad27d7ee51bb87e9e",
"text": "\"There is not a special rate for short-term capital gains. Only long-term gains have a special rate. Short-term gains are taxed at your ordinary-income rate (see here). Hence if you're in the 25% bracket, your short-term gain would be taxed at 25%. The IRA withdrawal, as you already mentioned, would be taxed at 25%, plus a 10% penalty, for 35% total. Thus the bite on the IRA withdrawal is larger than that on a non-IRA withdrawal. As for the estimated tax issue, I don't think there will be a significant difference there. The reason is that (traditional) IRA withdrawals count as ordinary taxable income (see here). This means that, when you withdraw the funds from your IRA, you will increase your income. If that increase pushes you too far beyond what your withholding is accounting for, then you owe estimated tax. In other words, whether you get the money by selling stocks in a taxable account or by withdrawing them from an IRA, you still increase your taxable income, and thus potentially expose yourself to the estimated tax obligation. (In fact, there may be a difference. As you note, you will pay tax at the capital gains rate on gains from selling in a taxable account. But if you sell the stocks inside the IRA and withdraw, that is ordinary income. However, since ordinary income is taxed at a higher rate than long-term capital gains, you will potentially pay more tax on the IRA withdrawal, since it will be taxed at the higher rate, if your gains are long-term rather than short term. This is doubly true if you withdraw early, incurring the extra 10% penalty. See this question for some more discussion of this issue.) In addition, I think you may be somewhat misunderstanding the nature of estimated tax. The IRS will not \"\"ask\"\" you for a quarterly estimated tax when you sell stock. The IRS does not monitor your activity and send you a bill each quarter. They may indeed check whether your reported income jibes with info they received from your bank, etc., but they'll still do that regardless of whether you got that income by selling in a taxable account or withdrawing money from an IRA, because both of those increase your taxable income. Quarterly estimated tax is not an extra tax; it is just you paying your normal income tax over the course of the year instead of all at once. If your withholdings will not cover enough of your tax liability, you must figure that out yourself and pay the estimated tax (see here); if you don't do so, you may be assessed a penalty. It doesn't matter how you got the money; if your taxable income is too high relative to your withheld tax, then you have to pay the estimated tax. Typically tax will be withheld from your IRA distribution, but if it's not withheld, you'll still owe it as estimated tax.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "de65cacded988a766e4187cca6904dd6",
"text": "There are two basic ways you can separate your investments from the dollar (or any other currency).",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
cd1bd5d6b7e73c958262bbc8c0beab05
|
Risk to Reward Ratio Calculation
|
[
{
"docid": "23a1942c7b909c8c0a16d1cbf824842e",
"text": "If you plan to take profit at $1.00 then your profit will be $40. Then, if you set your stop at $0.88 then your loss if you get stopped will be $20. So your Reward : Risk = 2:1. Note, that this does not take into account brokerage in and out and any slippage from the price gapping past your stop loss.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "e67feb54e0801a51758bca20bb4bbec4",
"text": "I implemented this in MatLab about 10 years back. You just calculate your conditional variance of the required assets (x_i), use matrix multiplication on the correlation matrix (rho_i_j) from the same asset (this could be a point of research but unless you are using extreme conditions on the VaR it makes little difference) then apply a standard Markiowitz optimisation approach. You can then just use simple Sharpe ratio (marginal return over conditional risk) at every point on the efficient frontier. Then choose the maximum Sharpe ratio point.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "f0c60b6d9e5879dbf18d1031721b272a",
"text": "Annualize quarterly returns: AR = (1+QR)^4 Where *QR* is a decimal return, e.g. 0.05. Standard deviations are similar: Annual SD = SD * sqrt(T) If you have quarterly deviations, *T=4*, if you have daily, *T=252*, etc. As an aside, for work with money riding on it, it is *not* okay to aggregate standard deviations if there's autocorrelation amongst observations at a smaller time scale. Volatility is often quoted this way and that's fine, but it is dangerous to do any sort of risk management with this and you'll require more due diligence. It's a good enough approximation for napkin math, though.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "edc663e7d0c90c031d359caf3f23ca44",
"text": "\"The standard measure of risk is the variance of the asset. The return on investment of the asset is understood as a random variable with a particular distribution. One can make inferences about the underlying distribution using historical data. As you say, this is what the quants do. There are other, more sophisticated measures of risk that allow for such things as skewed distributions and Markov switching. If you are interested in learning more, I suggest starting with the foundations of Modern Portfolio Theory: \"\"Portfolio Selection\"\" by Harry Markowitz and \"\"Capital Asset Prices\"\" by William Sharpe.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ce4221079abce3405a8b34b151d4a4d5",
"text": "The Sharpe ratio is, perhaps, the method you are looking for. That said, not really sure beta is a meaningful metric, as there are plenty of safe bets to be made on volatile stocks (and, conversely, unsafe bets to be made on non-volatile ones).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a195aa123226790c73bc1995aee219f8",
"text": "\"Of course, which is why you need to have a scoring function / utility function for the \"\"filters\"\", i.e. Are you going to value it by rate of accuracy hor by a metric where wins = +2, losses = -1, such that it uses a criteria like that to decide whether or not a filter adds value, (some even use a compound effect i.e. wins = 2+e^(1+w) where w is the consecutive wins). A metric like the above would capture the trade off between predictive power and profit. Also some traders watch their Max DD very carefully so they may be very risk averse.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6856197742bcbab76c7f3726f14eda60",
"text": "\"Old question I know, but I have some thoughts to share. Your title and question say two different things. \"\"Better off\"\" should mean maximizing your ex-ante utility. Most of your question seems to describe maximizing your expected return, as do the simulation exercises here. Those are two different things because risk is implicitly ignored by what you call \"\"the pure mathematical answer.\"\" The expected return on your investments needs to exceed the cost of your debt because interest you pay is risk-free while your investments are risky. To solve this problem, consider the portfolio problem where paying down debt is the risk-free asset and consider the set of optimal solutions. You will get a capital allocation line between the solution where you put everything into paying down debt and the optimal/tangent portfolio from the set of risky assets. In order to determine where on that line someone is, you must know their utility function and risk parameters. You also must know the parameters of the investable universe, which we don't.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "60c9eac57d227944f7dd9dfc37899a80",
"text": "\"First, to mention one thing - better analysis calls for analyzing a range of outcomes, not just one; assigning a probability on each, and comparing the expected values. Then moderating the choice based on risk tolerance. But now, just look at the outcome or scenario of 3% and time frame of 2 days. Let's assume your investable capital is exactly $1000 (multiply everything by 5 for $5,000, etc.). A. Buy stock: the value goes to 103; your investment goes to $1030; net return is $30, minus let's say $20 commission (you should compare these between brokers; I use one that charges 9.99 plus a trivial government fee). B. Buy an call option at 100 for $0.40 per share, with an expiration 30 days away (December 23). This is a more complicated. To evaluate this, you need to estimate the movement of the value of a 100 call, $0 in and out of the money, 30 days remaining, to the value of a 100 call, $3 in the money, 28 days remaining. That movement will vary based on the volatility of the underlying stock, an advanced topic; but there are techniques to estimate that, which become simple to use after you get the hang of it. At any rate, let's say that the expected movement of the option price in this scenario is from $0.40 to $3.20. Since you bought 2500 share options for $1000, the gain would be 2500 times 2.8 = 7000. C. Buy an call option at 102 for $0.125 per share, with an expiration 30 days away (December 23). To evaluate this, you need to estimate the movement of the value of a 102 call, $2 out of the money, 30 days remaining, to the value of a 102 call, $1 in the money, 28 days remaining. That movement will vary based on the volatility of the underlying stock, an advanced topic; but there are techniques to estimate that, which become simple to use after you get the hang of it. At any rate, let's say that the expected movement of the option price in this scenario is from $0.125 to $ 1.50. Since you bought 8000 share options for $1000, the gain would be 8000 times 1.375 = 11000. D. Same thing but starting with a 98 call. E. Same thing but starting with a 101 call expiring 60 days out. F., ... Etc. - other option choices. Again, getting the numbers right for the above is an advanced topic, one reason why brokerages warn you that options are risky (if you do your math wrong, you can lose. Even doing that math right, with a bad outcome, loses). Anyway you need to \"\"score\"\" as many options as needed to find the optimal point. But back to the first paragraph, you should then run the whole analysis on a 2% gain. Or 5%. Or 5% in 4 days instead of 2 days. Do as many as are fruitful. Assess likelihoods. Then pull the trigger and buy it. Try these techniques in simulation before diving in! Please! One last point, you don't HAVE to understand how to evaluate projected option price movements if you have software that does that for you. I'll punt on that process, except to mention it. Get the general idea? Edit P.S. I forgot to mention that brokers need love for handling Options too. Check those commission rates in your analysis as well.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7cf3a0af9562c14c623d6225f986f0ce",
"text": "\"The key point to answer the question is to consider risk aversion. Assume I suggest a game to you: Throw a coin and if you win, you get $5, if you lose nothing happens. Will you play the game? Of course, you will - you have nothing to lose! What if I suggest this: If you win, you get $10,000,005 and if you lose you must pay $10,000,000 (I also accept cars, houses, spouses, and kidneys as payment). While the expected value of the second game is the same as for the first, if you lose the second game you are more or less doomed to spend the rest of your life in poverty or not even have a rest of your life. Therefore, you will not wish to play the second game. Well, maybe you do - but probably only if you are very, very rich and can easily afford a loss (even if you had $11,000,000 you won't be as happy with a possible raise to $21,000,005 as you'd be unhappy with dropping to a mere $1,000,000, so you'd still not like to play). Some model this by taking logarithms: If your capital grows from $500 to $1000 or from $1000 to $2000, in both cases it doubles, hence is considered the same \"\"personal gain\"\", effectively. And, voíla, the logartithm of your capital grows by the same amount in both cases. This refelcts that a rich man will not be as happy about finding a $10 note as a poor man will be about finding a nickel. The effect of an insurance is that you replace an uncertain event of great damage with a certain event of little damage. Of course, the insurance company plays the same game, with roles swapped - so why do they play? One point is that they play the game very often, which tends to nivel the risks - unless you do something stupid and insure all inhabitants of San Francisco (and nobody else) against eqarthquakes. But also they have enough capital that they can afford to lose the game. In a fair situation, i.e. when the insurance costs just as much as damage cost multiplied with probability of damage, a rational you would eagerly buy the insurance because of risk aversion. Therefore, the insurance will in effect be able to charge more than the statistically fair price and many will still (gnawingly) buy it, and that's how they make a living. The decision how much more one is willing to accept as insurance cost is also a matter of whether you can afford a loss of the insured item easily, with regrets, barely, or not all.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "82e1f714bcf875df2343789d9907506a",
"text": "\"I think you're confusing risk analysis (that is what you quoted as \"\"Taleb Distribution\"\") with arguments against taking risks altogether. You need to understand that not taking a risk - is by itself a risk. You can lose money by not investing it, because of the very same Taleb Distribution: an unpredictable catastrophic event. Take an example of keeping cash in your house and not investing it anywhere. In the 1998 default of the Russian Federation, people lost money by not investing it. Why? Because had they invested the money - they would have the investments/properties, but since they only had cash - it became worthless overnight. There's no argument for or against investing on its own. The arguments are always related to the investment goals and the risk analysis. You're looking for something that doesn't exist.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5aecb743b3b4ce1da86b2029b6d4bea6",
"text": "what is the mechanism by which they make money on the funds that I have in my account? Risk drives TD Ameritrade to look for profits, Turukawa's storytelling about 100,000$ and 500$ is trivial. The risk consists of credit risk, asset-liability risk and profit risk. The third, based on Pareto Principle, explains the loss-harvesting. The pareto distribution is used in all kind of decentralized systems such as Web, business and -- if I am not totally wrong -- the profit risk is a thing that some authorities require firms to investigate, hopefully someone could explain you more about it. You can visualize the distribution with rpareto(n, shape, scale) in R Statistics -program (free). Wikipedia's a bit populist description: In the financial services industry, this concept is known as profit risk, where 20% or fewer of a company's customers are generating positive income while 80% or more are costing the company money. Read more about it here and about the risk here.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5b5e473a2352f214530a8cea5ca9beae",
"text": "Risk in finance is defined as standard deviation of returns. This is a measure of size of your returns, both negative and positive. Since the mean return is positive (at least for the stock market and fixed income), if you double the standard deviation your mean return also doubles along with it. In this way you are compensated by the market for taking on more risk.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ae8f67bfd285b1254b3005ffff7b1f00",
"text": "It looks like you need a lot more education on the subject. I suggest you pick up a book on investing and portfolio management to get a first idea. Dividend yields are currently way below 5% on blue chips. Unlike coupons from fixed income instruments (which, in the same risk category, pay a lot less), dividend yields are not guaranteed and neither is the invested principal amount. In either case, your calculation is far away from reality. Sure, there are investments (such as the mentioned direct investments in companies or housings in emerging economies) that can potentially earn you two digit percentage returns. Just remember: risk always goes both ways. A higher earning potential means higher loss potential. Also, a direct investment is a lot less liquid than an investment on a publicly quoted high turnover market place. If you suddenly need money, you really don't want to be pressed to sell real estate in an emerging market (keyword: bid ask spread). My advice: the money that you can set aside for the long term (10 years plus), invest it in stock ETFs, globally. Everything else should be invested in bond funds or even deposits, depending on when you will need the access. As others have pointed out, consider getting professional advice.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1d9253c8c70e2157804ae47972e85797",
"text": "Factoring in the odds of winning (1 in 292.2 million), the expected return on a $2 ticket is between $1.79 at the high end, and $1.35 at the low end. Your odds of winning are drastically reduced if you don't play (/s), and your expected return depends on what your choose to do with that $2.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "356a2e623de8568a36800b87f23611e0",
"text": "\"There may well be several such graphs, I expect googling will turn them up; but the definition of risk is actually quite important here. My definition of risk might not be quite the same as yours, so the relative risk factors would be different. For example: in general, stocks are more risky than bonds. But owning common shares in a blue-chip company might well be less risky than owning bonds from a company teetering on the edge of bankruptcy, and no single risk number can really capture that. Another example: while I can put all my money in short-term deposits, and it is pretty \"\"safe\"\", if it grows at 1% so that my investment portfolio cannot fund my retirement, then I have a risk that I will run out of money before I shuffle off this mortal coil. How to capture that \"\"risk\"\" in a single number? So you will need to better define your parameters before you can prepare a visual aid. Good Luck\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
70da672ef3424b7bd1663ead5e496918
|
Are binary options really part of trading?
|
[
{
"docid": "4825e8a0962649b6904d3c1bcab7a93b",
"text": "\"you bet that a quote/currency/stock market/anything will rise or fall within a period of time. ... So, what is the relationship with trading ? I see no trading at all since I don't buy or sell quotes. So, if you just wander in and say \"\"oh, hey, look, a bunch of options, i'm going to play games and have excitement\"\" then that is, in fact, some sort of gambling. Indeed, most trading activities will be like that to you. On the other hand, you might be engaged in other business where those things matter. You might be doing a lot of trading elsewhere in the market, for instance, and suddenly everyone freaks out and the stock market goes crazy and you lose a ton of money. To protect yourself from losing a ton of money, you might buy a binary option based on VIX (the volatility index) going over a certain level. If you're not in a business where you're buying it to protect yourself, then you should probably only buy the options if you have reason to think it'll be profitable and worth the risk. If you don't understand the risks, skip it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d35cff4fb7363e321d88241932eab2a0",
"text": "\"If I really understood it, you bet that a quote/currency/stock market/anything will rise or fall within a period of time. So, what is the relationship with trading ? I see no trading at all since I don't buy or sell quotes. You are not betting as in \"\"betting on the outcome of an horse race\"\" where the money of the participants is redistributed to the winners of the bet. You are betting on the price movement of a security. To do that you have to buy/sell the option that will give you the profit or the loss. In your case, you would be buying or selling an option, which is a financial contract. That's trading. Then, since anyone should have the same technic (call when a currency rises and put when it falls)[...] How can you know what will be the future rate of exchange of currencies? It's not because the price went up for the last minutes/hours/days/months/years that it will continue like that. Because of that everyone won't have the same strategy. Also, not everyone is using currencies to speculate, there are firms with real needs that affect the market too, like importers and exporters, they will use financial products to protect themselves from Forex rates, not to make profits from them. [...] how the brokers (websites) can make money ? The broker (or bank) will either: I'm really afraid to bet because I think that they can bankrupt at any time! Are my fears correct ? There is always a probability that a company can go bankrupt. But that's can be very low probability. Brokers are usually not taking risks and are just being intermediaries in financial transactions (but sometime their computer systems have troubles.....), thanks to that, they are not likely to go bankrupt you after you buy your option. Also, they are regulated to insure that they are solid. Last thing, if you fear losing money, don't trade. If you do trade, only play with money you can afford to lose as you are likely to lose some (maybe all) money in the process.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1454b67dd5563224fd6d085491ecb8c0",
"text": "As far as I have read, yes binary option is a part of trading. I saw tutorials on many sites like investopedia.com , verifyproducts.com etc. which clearly shows that in binary options, trader has to take a yes or no position on the price of any underlying asset and the resulting payoff will be either all or nothing. Due to such characteristic, it has become the easier way for beginners to enter in financial trading market.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "8057d06cbcb766b7211eb29e90b52746",
"text": "This sometimes happens to me. It depends on how liquid the option is. Normally what I see happening is that the order book mutates itself around my order. I interpret this to mean that the order book is primarily market makers. They see a retail investor (me) come in and, since they don't have any interest in this illiquid option, they back off. Some other retail investor (or whatever) steps in with a market order, and we get matched up. I get a fill because I become the market maker for a brief while. On highly liquid options, buy limits at the bid tend to get swallowed because the market makers are working the spread. With very small orders (a contract or two) on very liquid options, I've had luck getting quick fills in the middle of the spread, which I attribute to MM's rebalancing their holdings on the cheap, although sometimes I like to think there's some other anal-retentive like me out there that hates to see such a lopsided book. :) I haven't noticed any particular tendency for this to happen more with puts or calls, or with buy vs sell transactions. For a while I had a suspicion that this was happening with strikes where IV didn't match IV of other strikes, but I never cared enough to chase it down as it was a minor part of my overall P/L.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "98ca4d549287c7ab43dc505cd88d3e6b",
"text": "Not that I am aware. There are times that an option is available, but none have traded yet, and it takes a request to get a bid/ask, or you can make an offer and see if it's accepted. But the option chain itself has to be open.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "138fc9063c2e29695bc29c3ad98f991c",
"text": "Just romped a competition my school had, won $100. I'm not participating in this, but the key is to trade options. I made 244% in 2 months off only 3 trades. Won another competition last semester in my investment analysis class as well",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9a1a98051b627a029a57786061576c51",
"text": "\"Options have legitimate uses as a way of hedging a bet, but in the hands of anyone but an expert they're gambling, not investing. They are EXTREMELY volatile compared to normal stocks, and are one of the best ways to lose your shirt in the stock market yet invented. How options actually work is that you're negotiating a promise that, at some future date or range of dates, they will let you purchase some specific number of shares (call), or they will let you sell them that number of shares (put), at a price specified in the option contract. The price you pay (or are paid) to obtain that contract depends on what the option's seller thinks the stock is likely to be worth when it reaches that date. (Note that if you don't already own the shares needed to back up a put option, you're promising to pay whatever it takes to buy those shares so you can sell them at the agreed upon price.) Note that by definition you're betting directly against experts, as opposed to a normal investment where you're usually trying to ride along with the experts. You are claiming that you can predict the future value of the stock better than they can, and that you will make a profit (on the difference between the value locked in by the option and the actual value at that time) which exceeds the cost of purchasing the option in the first place. Let me say that again: the option's price will have been set based on an expert's opinion of what the stock is likely to do in that time. If they think that it's really likely to be up $10 per share when the option comes due (really unlikely for a $20 stock!!!), they will try to charge you almost $10 per share to purchase the option at the current price. \"\"Almost\"\" because you're giving them a guaranteed profit now and assuming all the risk. If they're less sure it will go up that much, you'll pay less for the option -- but again, you're giving them hard money now and betting that you can predict the probabilities better than they can. Unless you have information that the experts don't have -- in which case you're probably committing insider trading -- this is a very hard bet to win. And it can be extremely misleading, since the price during the option period may cross back and forth over the \"\"enough that you'll make a profit\"\" line many times. Until you actually commit to exercising the option or not, that's all imaginary money which may vanish the next minute. Unless you are willing and able to invest pro-level resources in this, you'd probably get better odds in Atlantic City, and definitely get better odds in Las Vegas. If you don't see the sucker at the poker table, he's sitting in your seat. And betting against the guy who designed and is running the game is usually Not a Good Idea.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "12a44f72bcc6e299b061b76187cd394b",
"text": "\"Great answer by @duffbeer. Only thing to add is that the option itself becomes a tradeable asset. Here's my go at filling out the answer from @duffbeer. \"\"Hey kid... So you have this brand-new video game Manic Mazes that you paid $50 for on Jan 1st that you want to sell two months from now\"\" \"\"Yes, Mr. Video Game Broker, but I want to lock in a price so I know how much to save for a new Tickle Me Elmo for my baby sister.\"\" \"\"Ok, for $3, I'll sell you a 'Put' option so you can sell the game to me for $40 in two months.\"\" Kid says \"\"Ok!\"\", sends $3 to Mr Game Broker who sends our kid a piece of paper saying: The holder of this piece of paper can sell the game Manic Mazes to Mr Game Broker for $40 on March 1st. .... One month later .... News comes out that Manic Mazes is full of bugs, and the price in the shops is heavily discounted to $30. Mr Options Trader realizes that our kid holds a contract written by Mr Game Broker which effectively allows our kid to sell the game at $10 over the price of the new game, so maybe about $15 over the price in the second-hand market (which he reckons might be about $25 on March 1st). He calls up our kid. \"\"Hey kid, you know that Put option that Mr Game Broker sold to you you a month ago, wanna sell it to me for $13?\"\" (He wants to get it a couple of bucks cheaper than his $15 fair valuation.) Kid thinks: hmmm ... that would be a $10 net profit for me on that Put Option, but I wouldn't be able to sell the game for $40 next month, I'd likely only get something like $25 for it. So I would kind-of be getting $10 now rather than potentially getting $12 in a month. Note: The $12 is because there could be $15 from exercising the put option (selling for $40 a game worth only $25 in the second-hand market) minus the original cost of $3 for the Put option. Kid likes the idea and replies: \"\"Done!\"\". Next day kid sends the Put option contract to Mr Options Trader and receives $13 in return. Our kid bought the Put option and later sold it for a profit, and all of this happened before the option reached its expiry date.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8cde1f27c0432fe1c2c56d9cb5231181",
"text": "If you're into math, do this thought experiment: Consider the outcome X of a random walk process (a stock doesn't behave this way, but for understanding the question you asked, this is useful): On the first day, X=some integer X1. On each subsequent day, X goes up or down by 1 with probability 1/2. Let's think of buying a call option on X. A European option with a strike price of S that expires on day N, if held until that day and then exercised if profitable, would yield a value Y = min(X[N]-S, 0). This has an expected value E[Y] that you could actually calculate. (should be related to the binomial distribution, but my probability & statistics hat isn't working too well today) The market value V[k] of that option on day #k, where 1 < k < N, should be V[k] = E[Y]|X[k], which you can also actually calculate. On day #N, V[N] = Y. (the value is known) An American option, if held until day #k and then exercised if profitable, would yield a value Y[k] = min(X[k]-S, 0). For the moment, forget about selling the option on the market. (so, the choices are either exercise it on some day #k, or letting it expire) Let's say it's day k=N-1. If X[N-1] >= S+1 (in the money), then you have two choices: exercise today, or exercise tomorrow if profitable. The expected value is the same. (Both are equal to X[N-1]-S). So you might as well exercise it and make use of your money elsewhere. If X[N-1] <= S-1 (out of the money), the expected value is 0, whether you exercise today, when you know it's worthless, or if you wait until tomorrow, when the best case is if X[N-1]=S-1 and X[N] goes up to S, so the option is still worthless. But if X[N-1] = S (at the money), here's where it gets interesting. If you exercise today, it's worth 0. If wait until tomorrow, there's a 1/2 chance it's worth 0 (X[N]=S-1), and a 1/2 chance it's worth 1 (X[N]=S+1). Aha! So the expected value is 1/2. Therefore you should wait until tomorrow. Now let's say it's day k=N-2. Similar situation, but more choices: If X[N-2] >= S+2, you can either sell it today, in which case you know the value = X[N-2]-S, or you can wait until tomorrow, when the expected value is also X[N-2]-S. Again, you might as well exercise it now. If X[N-2] <= S-2, you know the option is worthless. If X[N-2] = S-1, it's worth 0 today, whereas if you wait until tomorrow, it's either worth an expected value of 1/2 if it goes up (X[N-1]=S), or 0 if it goes down, for a net expected value of 1/4, so you should wait. If X[N-2] = S, it's worth 0 today, whereas tomorrow it's either worth an expected value of 1 if it goes up, or 0 if it goes down -> net expected value of 1/2, so you should wait. If X[N-2] = S+1, it's worth 1 today, whereas tomorrow it's either worth an expected value of 2 if it goes up, or 1/2 if it goes down (X[N-1]=S) -> net expected value of 1.25, so you should wait. If it's day k=N-3, and X[N-3] >= S+3 then E[Y] = X[N-3]-S and you should exercise it now; or if X[N-3] <= S-3 then E[Y]=0. But if X[N-3] = S+2 then there's an expected value E[Y] of (3+1.25)/2 = 2.125 if you wait until tomorrow, vs. exercising it now with a value of 2; if X[N-3] = S+1 then E[Y] = (2+0.5)/2 = 1.25, vs. exercise value of 1; if X[N-3] = S then E[Y] = (1+0.5)/2 = 0.75 vs. exercise value of 0; if X[N-3] = S-1 then E[Y] = (0.5 + 0)/2 = 0.25, vs. exercise value of 0; if X[N-3] = S-2 then E[Y] = (0.25 + 0)/2 = 0.125, vs. exercise value of 0. (In all 5 cases, wait until tomorrow.) You can keep this up; the recursion formula is E[Y]|X[k]=S+d = {(E[Y]|X[k+1]=S+d+1)/2 + (E[Y]|X[k+1]=S+d-1) for N-k > d > -(N-k), when you should wait and see} or {0 for d <= -(N-k), when it doesn't matter and the option is worthless} or {d for d >= N-k, when you should exercise the option now}. The market value of the option on day #k should be the same as the expected value to someone who can either exercise it or wait. It should be possible to show that the expected value of an American option on X is greater than the expected value of a European option on X. The intuitive reason is that if the option is in the money by a large enough amount that it is not possible to be out of the money, the option should be exercised early (or sold), something a European option doesn't allow, whereas if it is nearly at the money, the option should be held, whereas if it is out of the money by a large enough amount that it is not possible to be in the money, the option is definitely worthless. As far as real securities go, they're not random walks (or at least, the probabilities are time-varying and more complex), but there should be analogous situations. And if there's ever a high probability a stock will go down, it's time to exercise/sell an in-the-money American option, whereas you can't do that with a European option. edit: ...what do you know: the computation I gave above for the random walk isn't too different conceptually from the Binomial options pricing model.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "582717eb89dc9346c0ff6f09069b1c98",
"text": "\"It depends on the volatility of the underlying stock. But for \"\"normal\"\" levels of volatility, the real value of that option is probably $3.50! Rough estimates of the value of the option depending on volatility levels: Bottom line: unless this is a super volatile stock, it is trading at $3.50 for a reason. More generally: it is extremely rare to find obvious arbitrage opportunities in the market.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e757a872f296ab3a1f8eeb62ebb919e2",
"text": "Exchange traded options are issued in a way that there is no counter party risk. Consider, stocks and options are held in street name. So, for example, if I am short and you are long shares, no matter what happens on my end, your shares are yours. To be complete, it's possible to enter into a direct deal, where you have a contract for some non-standard option, but that would be very rare for the average investor.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1b3223e6c6ae497ac0cf50ce1b853081",
"text": "Yes, theoretically you can flip the shares you agreed to buy and make a profit, but you're banking on the market behaving in some very precise and potentially unlikely ways. In practice it's very tricky for you to successfully navigate paying arbitrarily more for a stock than it's currently listed for, and selling it back again for enough to cover the difference. Yes, the price could drop to $28, but it could just as easily drop to $27.73 (or further) and now you're hurting, before even taking into account the potentially hefty commissions involved. Another way to think about it is to recognize that an option transaction is a bet; the buyer is betting a small amount of money that a stock will move in the direction they expect, the seller is betting a large amount of money that the same stock will not. One of you has to lose. And unless you've some reason to be solidly confident in your predictive powers the loser, long term, is quite likely to be you. Now that said, it is possible (particularly when selling puts) to create win-win scenarios for yourself, where you're betting one direction, but you'd be perfectly happy with the alternative(s). Here's an example. Suppose, unrelated to the option chain, you've come to the conclusion that you'd be happy paying $28 for BBY. It's currently (June 2011) at ~$31, so you can't buy it on the open market for a price you'd be happy with. But you could sell a $28 put, promising to buy it at that price should someone want to sell it (presumably, because the price is now below $28). Either the put expires worthless and you pocket a few bucks and you're basically no worse off because the stock is still overpriced by your estimates, or the option is executed, and you receive 100 shares of BBY at a price you previously decided you were willing to pay. Even if the list price is now lower, long term you expect the stock to be worth more than $28. Conceptually, this makes selling a put very similar to being paid to place a limit order to buy the stock itself. Of course, you could be wrong in your estimate (too low, and you now have a position that might not become profitable; too high, and you never get in and instead just watch the stock gain in value), but that is not unique to options - if you're bad at estimating value (which is not to be confused with predicting price movement) you're doomed just about whatever you do.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "f421dbba401128f5f86359abcdc613db",
"text": "1) Yes, both of your scenarios would lead to earning $10 on the transaction, at the strike date. If you purchased both of them (call it Scenario 3), you would make $20. 2) As to why this transaction may not be possible, consider the following: The Call and Put pricing you describe may not be available. What you have actually created is called 'arbitrage' - 2 identical assets can be bought and sold at different prices, leading to a zero-risk gain for the investor. In the real marketplace, if an option to buy asset X in January cost $90, would an option to sell asset X in January provide $110? Without adding additional complexity about the features of asset x or the features of the options, buying a Call option is the same as selling a Put option [well, when selling a Put option you don't have the ability to choose whether the option is exercised, meaning buying options has value that selling options does not, but ignore that for a moment]. That means that you have arranged a marketplace where you would buy a Call option for only $90, but the seller of that same option would somehow receive $110. For added clarity, consider the following: What if, in your example, the future price ended up being $200? Then, you could exercise your call option, buying a share for $90, selling it for $200, making $110 profit. You would not exercise your put option, making your total profit $110. Now consider: What if, in your example, the future price ended up being $10? You would buy for $10, exercise your put option and sell for $110, making a profit of $100. You would not exercise your call option, making your total profit $100. This highlights that if your initial assumptions existed, you would earn money (at least $20, and at most, unlimited based on a skyrocketing price compared to your $90 put option) regardless of the future price. Therefore such a scenario would not exist in the initial pricing of the options. Now perhaps there is an initial fee involved with the options, where the buyer or seller pays extra money up-front, regardless of the future price. That is a different scenario, and gets into the actual nature of options, where investors will arrange multiple simultaneous transactions in order to limit risk and retain reward within a certain band of future prices. As pointed out by @Nick R, this fee would be very significant, for a call option which had a price set below the current price. Typically, options are sold 'out of the money' initially, which means that at the current share price (at the time the option is purchased), executing the option would lose you money. If you purchase an 'in the money' option, the transaction cost initially would by higher than any apparent gain you might have by immediately executing the option. For a more realistic Options example, assume that it costs $15 initially to buy either the Call option, or the Put option. In that case, after buying both options as listed in your scenarios you would earn a profit if the share price exceeded $120 [The $120 sale price less the $90 call option = $30, which is your total fee initially], or dropped below $80 [The $110 Put price less the $80 purchase price = $30]. This type of transaction implies that you expect the price to either swing up, or swing down, but not fall within the band between $80-$120. Perhaps you might do this if there was an upcoming election or other known event, which might be a failure or success, and you think the market has not properly accounted for either scenario in advance. I will leave further discussion on that topic [arranging options of different prices to create specific bands of profitability / loss] to another answer (or other questions which likely already exist on this site, or in fact, other resources), because it gets more complicated after that point, and is outside the root of your question.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bba854ffdfbf0f35c47ae1787697e656",
"text": "One broker told me that I have to simply read the ask size and the bid size, seeing what the market makers are offering. This implies that my order would have to match that price exactly, which is unfortunate because options contract spreads can be WIDE. Also, if my planned position size is larger than the best bid/best ask, then I should break up the order, which is also unfortunate because most brokers charge a lot for options orders.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ffa363ff5c09f42ad29c604cfe28039c",
"text": "The option is exercised. The option is converted into shares. That is an optional condition in closing that contract, hence why they are called options.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ebf74e54b59ea99d8e2245b5c5a37902",
"text": "\"With stocks, you can buy or sell. If you sell first, that's called 'shorting.' As in \"\"I think linkedin is too high, I'm going to short it.\"\" With options, the terminology is different, the normal process is to buy to open/sell to close, but if you were shorting the option itself, you would first sell to open, i.e you are selling a position to start it, effectively selling it short. Eventually, you may close it out, by buying to close. Options trading is not for the amateur. If you plan to trade, study first and be very cautious.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "237b1c1a094558c6992a1cef49690e5c",
"text": "\"Defining parity as \"\"parity is the amount by which an option is in the money\"\", I'd say there may be an arbitrage opportunity. If there's a $50 strike on a stock valued at $60 that I can buy for less than $10, there's an opportunity. Keep in mind, options often show high spreads, my example above might show a bid/ask of $9.75/$10.25, in which case the last trade of $9.50 should be ignored in favor of the actual ask price you'd pay. Mispricing can exist, but in this day and age, is far less likely.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
d65e4301f17fa82e7f0fa6b28d6f369b
|
College student lacking investment experience: How to begin investing money?
|
[
{
"docid": "ee9ec3cf0e095eca0867b554e25a864e",
"text": "\"If you have wage income that is reported on a W2 form, you can contribute the maximum of your wages, what you can afford, or $5500 in a Roth IRA. One advantage of this is that the nominal amounts you contribute can always be removed without tax consequences, so a Roth IRA can be a deep emergency fund (i.e., if the choice is $2000 in cash as emergency fund or $2000 in cash in a 2015 Roth IRA contribution, choice 2 gives you more flexibility and optimistic upside at the risk of not being able to draw on interest/gains until you retire or claim losses on your tax return). If you let April 15 2016 pass by without making a Roth IRA contribution, you lose the 2015 limit forever. If you are presently a student and partially employed, you are most likely in the lowest marginal tax rate you will be in for decades, which utilizes the Roth tax game effectively. If you're estimating \"\"a few hundred\"\", then what you pick as an investment is going to be less important than making the contributions. That is, you can pick any mutual fund that strikes your fancy and be prepared to gain or lose, call it $50/year (or pick a single stock and be prepared to lose it all). At some point, you need to understand your emotions around volatility, and the only tuition for this school is taking a loss and having the presence of mind to examine any panic responses you may have. No reason not to learn this on \"\"a few hundred\"\". While it's not ideal to have losses in a Roth, \"\"a few hundred\"\" is not consequential in the long run. If you're not prepared at this time in your life for the possibility of losing it all (or will need the money within a year or few, as your edit suggests), keep it in cash and try to reduce your expenses to contribute more. Can you contribute another $100? You will have more money at the end of the year than investment choice will likely return.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "b6fe8c780df7d4e66657c512be61c241",
"text": "\"Is investing a good idea with a low amount of money? Yes. I'll take the angle that you CAN invest in penny stocks. There's nothing wrong with that. The (oversimplified) suggestion I would make is to answer the question about your risk aversion. This is the four quadrant (e.g., http://njaes.rutgers.edu:8080/money/riskquiz/) you are introduced to when you first sit down to open your brokerage (stocks) or employer retirement account (401K). Along with a release of liability in the language of \"\"past performance is not an indicator...\"\" (which you will not truly understand until you experience a market crash). The reason I say this is because if you are 100% risk averse, then it is clear which vehicles you want to have in your tool belt; t-bills, CDs, money market, and plain vanilla savings. Absolutely nothing wrong with this. Don't let anyone make you feel otherwise with remarks like \"\"your money is not working for you sitting there\"\". It's extremely important to be absolutely honest with yourself in doing this assessment, too. For example, I thought I was a risk taker except when the market tumbled, I reacted exactly how a knee-jerk investor would. Also, I feel it's not easy to know just how honest you are with yourself as we are humans, and not impartial machines. So the recommendation I would give is to make a strong correlation to casino gambling. In other words, conventional advice is to only take \"\"play money\"\" to the casino. This because you assume you WILL lose it. Then you can enjoy yourself at the casino knowing this is capital that you are okay throwing in the trash. I would strongly caution you to only ever invest capital in the stock market that you characterize as play money. I'm convinced financial advisors, fund managers, friends will disagree. Still, I feel this is the only way you will be completely okay when the market fluctuates -- you won't lose sleep. IF you choose this approach, then you can start investing any time. That five drachma you were going to throw away on lottery tickets? transfer it into your Roth IRA. That twenty yen that you were going to ante in your weekly poker night? transfer it into your index fund. You already got past the investors remorse of (losing) that money. IF you truly accept that amount as play money, then you CAN put it into penny stocks. I'll get lots of criticism here. However, I maintain that once you are truly okay with throwing that cash away (like you would drop it into a slot machine), then it's the same whether you lose it one way or in another investment vehicle.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3bf230205bb1a357e7a52292f2a695eb",
"text": "\"There's several approaches to the stock market. The first thing you need to do is decide which you're going to take. The first is the case of the standard investor saving money for retirement (or some other long-term goal). He already has a job. He's not really interested in another job. He doesn't want to spend thousands of hours doing research. He should buy mutual funds or similar instruments to build diversified holdings all over the world. He's going to have is money invested for years at a time. He won't earn spectacular amazing awesome returns, but he'll earn solid returns. There will be a few years when he loses money, but he'll recover it just by waiting. The second is the case of the day trader. He attempts to understand ultra-short-term movements in stock prices due to news, rumors, and other things which stem from quirks of the market and the people who trade in it. He buys a stock, and when it's up a fraction of a percent half an hour later, sells it. This is very risky, requires a lot of attention and a good amount of money to work with, and you can lose a lot of money too. The modern day-trader also needs to compete with the \"\"high-frequency trading\"\" desks of Wall Street firms, with super-optimized computer networks located a block away from the exchange so that they can make orders faster than the guy two blocks away. I don't recommend this approach at all. The third case is the guy who wants to beat the market. He's got long-term aspirations and vision, but he does a lot more research into individual companies, figures out which are worth buying and which are not, and invests accordingly. (This is how Warren Buffett made it big.) You can make it work, but it's like starting a business: it's a ton of work, requires a good amount of money to get going, and you still risk losing lots of it. The fourth case is the guy who mostly invests in broad market indexes like #1, but has a little money set aside for the stocks he's researched and likes enough to invest in like #3. He's not going to make money like Warren Buffett, but he may get a little bit of an edge on the rest of the market. If he doesn't, and ends up losing money there instead, the rest of his stocks are still chugging along. The last and stupidest way is to treat it all like magic, buying things without understanding them or a clear plan of what you're going to do with them. You risk losing all your money. (You also risk having it stagnate.) Good to see you want to avoid it. :)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8aa5390be2d2d6ec9cad8daaab54faee",
"text": "Buddy I know how a student investment club works, my school had a great one but thanks for the explanation. Doesn't change the fact that a valuation by some college kids is meaningless, but you wouldn't understand that because you're still a 20 year old kid with no industry experience. I love that you're bragging about your college to someone who has already graduated and made it into the industry, shows you really have no accomplishments to speak of.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "06cabc9409ed479bef4f066363863dbb",
"text": "\"Most articles on investing recommend that investors that are just starting out to invest in index stock or bonds funds. This is the easiest way to get rolling and limit risk by investing in bonds and stocks, and not either one of the asset classes alone. When you start to look deeper into investing there are so many options: Small Cap, Large Cap, technical analysis, fundamental analysis, option strategies, and on and on. This can end up being a full time job or chewing into a lot of personal time. It is a great challenge to learn various investment strategies frankly for the average person that works full time it is a huge effort. I would recommend also reading \"\"The Intelligent Asset Allocator\"\" to get a wider perspective on how asset allocation can help grow a portfolio and reduce risk. This book covers a simple process.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bac44a8c730685829aae631e9b51a6dc",
"text": "\"Okay. Savings-in-a-nutshell. So, take at least year's worth of rent - $30k or so, maybe more for additional expenses. That's your core emergency fund for when you lose your job or total a few cars or something. Keep it in a good savings account, maybe a CD ladder - but the point is it's liquid, and you can get it when you need it in case of emergency. Replenish it immediately after using it. You may lose a little cash to inflation, but you need liquidity to protect you from risk. It is worth it. The rest is long-term savings, probably for retirement, or possibly for a down payment on a home. A blended set of stocks and bonds is appropriate, with stocks storing most of it. If saving for retirement, you may want to put the stocks in a tax-deferred account (if only for the reduced paperwork! egads, stocks generate so much!). Having some money (especially bonds) in something like a Roth IRA or a non-tax-advantaged account is also useful as a backup emergency fund, because you can withdraw it without penalties. Take the money out of stocks gradually when you are approaching the time when you use the money. If it's closer than five years, don't use stocks; your money should be mostly-bonds when you're about to use it. (And not 30-year bonds or anything like that either. Those are sensitive to interest rates in the short term. You should have bonds that mature approximately the same time you're going to use them. Keep an eye on that if you're using bond funds, which continually roll over.) That's basically how any savings goal should work. Retirement is a little special because it's sort of like 20 years' worth of savings goals (so you don't want all your savings in bonds at the beginning), and because you can get fancy tax-deferred accounts, but otherwise it's about the same thing. College savings? Likewise. There are tools available to help you with this. An asset allocation calculator can be found from a variety of sources, including most investment firms. You can use a target-date fund for something this if you'd like automation. There are also a couple things like, say, \"\"Vanguard LifeStrategy funds\"\" (from Vanguard) which target other savings goals. You may be able to understand the way these sorts of instruments function more easily than you could other investments. You could do a decent job for yourself by just opening up an account at Vanguard, using their online tool, and pouring your money into the stuff they recommend.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "81dc5a3ab1f76785932744c1f2a511a9",
"text": "\"I get the sense that this is a \"\"the world is unfair; there's no way I can succeed\"\" question, so let's back up a few steps. Income is the starting point to all of this. That could be a job (or jobs), or running your own business. From there, you can do four things with your income: Obviously Spend and Give do not provide a monetary return - they give a return in other ways, such as quality of life, helping others, etc. Save gives you reserves for future expenses, but it does not provide growth. So that just leaves Invest. You seem to be focused on stock market investments, which you are right, take a very long time to grow, although you can get returns of up to 12% depending on how much volatility you're willing to absorb. But there are other ways to invest. You can invest in yourself by getting a degree or other training to improve your income. You can invest by starting a business, which can dramatically increase your income (in fact, this is the most common path to \"\"millionaire\"\" in the US, and probably in other free markets). You can invest by growing your own existing business. You can invest in someone else's business. You can invest in real estate, that can provide both value appreciation and rental income. So yes, \"\"investment\"\" is a key aspect of wealth building, but it is not limited to just stock market investment. You can also look at reducing expenses in order to have more money to invest. Also keep in mind that investment with higher returns come with higher risk (both in terms of volatility and risk of complete loss), and that borrowing money to invest is almost always unwise, since the interest paid directly reduces the return without reducing the risk.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "89d0451472da336c5b36dca90f59adb4",
"text": "Many good sources on YouTube that you can find easily once you know what to look for. Start following the stock market, present value / future value, annuities & perpetuities, bonds, financial ratios, balance sheets and P&L statements, ROI, ROA, ROE, cash flows, net present value and IRR, forecasting, Monte Carlo simulation (heavy on stats but useful in finance), the list goes on. If you can find a cheap textbook, it'll help with the concepts. Investopedia is sometimes useful in learning concepts but not really on application. Khan Academy is a good YouTube channel. The Intelligent Investor is a good foundational book for investing. There are several good case studies on Harvard Business Review to practice with. I've found that case studies are most helpful in learning how to apply concept and think outside the box. Discover how you can apply it to aspects of your everyday life. Finance is a great profession to pursue. Good luck on your studies!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "60c540abcf82bfac279538fd755a87c3",
"text": "\"The advice to \"\"Only invest what you can afford to lose\"\" is good advice. Most people should have several pots of money: Checking to pay your bills; short term savings; emergency fund; college fund; retirement. When you think about investing that is the funds that have along lead time: college and retirement. It is never the money you need to pay your bills. Now when somebody is young, the money they have decided to invest can be in riskier investments. You have time to recover. Over time the transition is made to less risky investments because the recovery time is now limited. For example putting all your college savings for your recent high school graduate into the stock market could have devastating consequences. Your hear this advice \"\"Only invest what you can afford to lose\"\" because too many people ask about hove to maximize the return on the down payment for their house: Example A, Example B. They want to use vehicles designed for long term investing, for short term purposes. Imagine a 10% correction while you are waiting for closing.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5441f74c31fd065e750dc107af1495a4",
"text": "\"This may be a great idea, or a very bad one, or it may simply not be applicable to you, depending on your personal circumstances and interests. The general idea is to avoid passive investments such as stocks and bonds, because they tend to grow by \"\"only\"\" a few percent per year. Instead, invest in things where you will be actively involved in some form. With those, much higher investment returns are common (but also the risk is higher, and you may be tied down and have to limit the traveling you want to do). So here are a few different ways to do that: Get a college degree, but only if you are interested in the field, and it ends up paying you well. If you aren't interested in the field, you won't land the $100k+ jobs later. And if you study early-childhood education, you may love the job, but it won't pay enough to make it a good investment. Of course, it also has to fit with your life plans, but that might be easier than it seems. You want to travel. Have you thought about anthropology, marine biology or archeology? Pick a reputable, hard-to-get-into, academic school rather than a vocation-oriented oe, and make sure that they have at least some research program. That's one way to distinguish between the for-profit schools (who tend to be very expensive and land you in low-paying jobs), and schools that actually lead to a well-paying future. Or if your interest runs more in a different direction: start a business. Your best bet might be to buy a franchise. Many of the fast-food chains, such as McDonalds, will let you buy as long as you have around $300k net worth. Most franchises also require that you are qualified. It may often make sense to buy not just one franchised store, but several in an area. You can increase your income (and your risk) by getting a loan - you can probably buy at least $5 million worth of franchises with your \"\"seed money\"\". BTW, I'm only using McDonalds as an example. Well-known fast food franchises used to be money-making machines, but their popularity may well have peaked. There are franchises in all kinds of industries, though. Some tend to be very short-term (there is a franchise based on selling customer's stuff on ebay), while others can be very long-lived (many real-estate brokerages are actually franchises). Do be careful which ones you buy. Some can be a \"\"license to print money\"\" while others may fail, and there are some fraudsters in the franchising market, out to separate you from your money. Advantage over investing in stocks and bonds: if you choose well, your return on investment can be much higher. That's generally true for any business that you get personally involved in. If you do well, you may well end up retiring a multimillionaire. Drawback: you will be exposed to considerable risk. The investment will be a major chunk of your net worth, and you may have to put all your eggs in none basket. If your business fails, you may lose everything. A third option (but only if you have a real interest in it!): get a commercial driver's license and buy an 18-wheeler truck. I hear that owner-operators can easily make well over $100k, and that's with having to pay off a bank loan. But if you don't love trucker culture, it is likely not worth doing. Overall, you probably get the idea: the principle is to use your funds as seed money to launch something profitable and secure, as well as enjoyable for you.\"",
"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": "8cf516a6018b9748b2cbfb5d09df5214",
"text": "The most important thing is to keep in mind the deadline. If you want to have it count for 2016, you need to open the account and transfer the funds by tax day. Don't wait until the last day to do it, or you could run out of time. Setting up the initial account, and them verifying your information and transferring the money could take a few days. First decide how much of a lump sum you want to invest initially. This will determine some of your options because the mutual fund will have a minimum initial investment. Many of the funds will allow subsequent investments to be smaller. The beauty of a IRA or Roth IRA is that if the fund you want is out of reach for this initial investment in a few years you can transfer the money into another fund or even another fund family without having to worry about tax issues. Now decide on your risk level and you time horizon. Because you said you are student and you want a Roth IRA, it is assumed that you will not need this money for 4+ decades; so you can and should be willing to be a little more risky. As NathanL said an index fund is a great idea. Many also advise an aged based fund. My kids found that when they made their initial investments the age based funds were the only one with a low enough initial investment for their first few years. Then pick a fund family based on the general low fees, and a large mix of options. The best thing is that in a few years as you have more money and more options, you can adjust your choices.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7375b487322935638688af71c2a9a918",
"text": "\"The statement \"\"Finance is something all adults need to deal with but almost nobody learns in school.\"\" hurts me. However I have to disagree, as a finance student, I feel like everyone around me is sound in finance and competition in the finance market is so stiff that I have a hard time even finding a paid internship right now. I think its all about perspective from your circumstances, but back to the question. Personally, I feel that there is no one-size-fits-all financial planning rules. It is very subjective and is absolutely up to an individual regarding his financial goals. The number 1 rule I have of my own is - Do not ever spend what I do not have. Your reflected point is \"\"Always pay off your credit card at the end of each month.\"\", to which I ask, why not spend out of your savings? plan your grocery monies, necessary monthly expenditures, before spending on your \"\"wants\"\" should you have any leftovers. That way, you would not even have to pay credit every month because you don't owe any. Secondly, when you can get the above in check, then you start thinking about saving for the rainy days (i.e. Emergency fund). This is absolutely according to each individual's circumstance and could be regarded as say - 6 months * monthly income. Start saving a portion of your monthly income until you have set up a strong emergency fund you think you will require. After you have done than, and only after, should you start thinking about investments. Personally, health > wealth any time you ask. I always advise my friends/family to secure a minimum health insurance before venturing into investments for returns. You can choose not to and start investing straight away, but should any adverse health conditions hit you, all your returns would be wiped out into paying for treatments unless you are earning disgusting amounts in investment returns. This risk increases when you are handling the bills of your family. When you stick your money into an index ETF, the most powerful tool as a retail investor would be dollar-cost-averaging and I strongly recommend you read up on it. Also, because I am not from the western part of the world, I do not have the cultural mindset that I have to move out and get into a world of debt to live on my own when I reached 18. I have to say I could not be more glad that the culture does not exist in Asian countries. I find that there is absolutely nothing wrong with living with your parents and I still am at age 24. The pressure that culture puts on teenagers is uncalled for and there are no obvious benefits to it, only unmanageable mortgage/rent payments arise from it with the entry level pay that a normal 18 year old could get.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "db1ccbc57a778e7a93f06a6a95ab0dde",
"text": "\"Consultant, I commend you for thinking about your financial future at such an early age. Warren Buffet, arguably the most successful investor ever lived, and the best known student of Ben Graham has a very simple advice for non-professional investors: \"\"Put 10% of the cash in short-term government bonds and 90% in a very low-cost S&P 500 index fund. (I suggest Vanguard’s.)\"\" This quote is from his 2013 letter to shareholders. Source: http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/2013ltr.pdf Buffet's annual letters to shareholders are the wealth of useful and practical wisdom for building one's financial future. The logic behind his advice is that most investors cannot consistently pick stock \"\"winners\"\", additionally, they are not able to predict timing of the market; hence, one has to simply stay in the market, and win over in the long run.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7219d71fd61c6f8af682888a0c103c22",
"text": "\"First, I applaud you for caring. Most people don't! In fact, I was in that category. You bring up several issues and I'll try to address them separately. (1) Getting a financial planner to talk with you. I had the same experience! My belief is that they don't want to admit that they don't know how things work. I even asked if I could pay them an hourly fee to ask questions and review stocks with them. Most declined. You'll find that very few people actually take the time to get trained to evaluate stocks and the stock market as a whole. (See later Investools.com). After looking, however, I did find people who would spend an hour or two with me when we met once a quarter to review my \"\"portfolio\"\"/investments. I later found training that companies offered. I would attend any free training I could get because they actually wanted to spend time and talk and teach investors. Bottom line is: Talking to their clients is the job of a financial planner. If he (or she) is not willing to take this time, it is in your best interest to find someone who will spend that time. (2) Learning about investing! I'm not affiliated with anyone. I'm a software developer and I do my own trading/investments. The opinions I share are my own. When I was 20 years away from retirement, I started learning about the stock market so that I would know how it worked before I retired so that (a) I could influence a change if one was needed, and (b) so I wouldn't have to blindly accept the advice of the \"\"experts\"\" even when the stock market is crashing. I have used Investools.com, and TDAmeritrade's Think-or-Swim platform. I've learned a tremendous amount from the Investools training. I recommend them. But don't expect to learn how to get rich from them or any training you take. The TDA Think-or-swim platform I highly recommend BECAUSE it has a feature called \"\"Paper Money\"\". It lets you trade using the real market but with play money. I highly recommend ANY platform that you can use to trade IN PAPER money! The think-or-swim platform would allow you to invest $30,000 in paper money (you can have as much as you want) into any stock. This would let you see if you can make more money than your current investment advisor. You could invest $10K in one SPY, $10K in DIA and $10K in IWM (these are symbols for the S&P 500, Dow 30, and Small Cap stocks). This is just an example, I'm not suggesting any investment advise! It's important that you actually do this not just write down on a piece of paper or Excel spreadsheet what you were going to do because it's common to \"\"cheat\"\" and change the dates to meet your needs. I have found it incredibly helpful to understand how the market works by trying to do my own paper and now real money investing. I was and you will be surprised to find that many trades lose money during the initial start part of the trade because it's very difficult to buy at the exact right time. An important part of managing your own investments is learning to trade with rules and not get \"\"emotionally involved\"\" in your trades. (3) Return on investment. You were not happy with $12 return. Low returns are a byproduct of the way most investment firms (financial planners) take (diversification). They diversify to take a \"\"hands off\"\" approach toward investment because that approach has been the only approach that they have found that works relatively well in all market conditions. It's not (necessarily) a bad approach. It avoids large losses in down markets (most riskier approaches lose more than the market). The downside is it also avoids the high returns. If the market goes up 15% the investment might only go up 5%. 30K is enough to give to multiple investment firms a try. I gave two different firms $25K each to see how they would invest. The direction was to accept LOTS of risk (with the potential for large losses or large gains). In a year that the market did very well, one lost money, and one made a small gain. It was a learning experience. I, now, have taken the money back and invest it myself. NOTE: I would be happy with a guy who made me 10-15% year over year (in good times and bad) and didn't talk with me, but I haven't found someone who can do that. :-) NOTE 2: Don't believe what you hear from the news about the stock market being up 5% year to date. Do your own analysis. NOTE 3: Investing in \"\"the market\"\" (S&P 500 for example) is a great way to go if you're just starting. Few investment firms can beat \"\"the market\"\" although many try to do so. I too have found it's easier to do that than other approaches I've learned. So, it might be a good long term approach as well. Best wishes to you in your learning about the market and desires to make money with your money. That is what is all about.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "af1e7f772ced48852837068b40ff5770",
"text": "Investments earn income relative to the principal amounts invested. If you do not have much to invest, then the only way to 'get rich' by investing is to take gambles. And those gambles are more likely to fail than succeed. The simplest way for someone without a high amount of 'capital' [funds available to invest] to build wealth, is to work more, and invest in yourself. Go to school, but only for proven career paths. Take self-study courses. Learn and expand your career opportunities. Only once you are stable financially, have minimal debt [or, understand and respect the debt you plan to pay down slowly, which some people choose to do with school and house debt], and are able to begin contributing regularly to investment plans, can you put your financial focus on investing. Until then, any investment gains would pale in comparison to gains from building your career.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
f916c871ecaae75630e5c14ed14a4ec2
|
Are mutual funds safe from defaults?
|
[
{
"docid": "88df300e6b133556974c6289f78c352f",
"text": "The only way for a mutual fund to default is if it inflated the NAV. I.e.: it reports that its investments worth more than they really are. Then, in case of a run on the fund, it may end up defaulting since it won't have the money to redeem shares at the NAV it published. When does it happen? When the fund is mismanaged or is a scam. This happened, for example, to the fund Madoff was managing. This is generally a sign of a Ponzi scheme or embezzlement. How can you ensure the funds you invest in are not affected by this? You'll have to read the fund reports, check the independent auditors' reports and check for clues. Generally, this is the job of the SEC - that's what they do as regulators. But for smaller funds, and private (i.e.: not public) investment companies, SEC may not be posing too much regulations.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3c57466025d8d434473eb16e19950d95",
"text": "There are very strict regulations that requires the assets which a fund buys on behalf of its investors to be kept completely separate from the fund's own assets (which it uses to pay its expenses), except for the published fees. Funds are typically audited regularly to ensure this is the case. So the only way in which a default of the fund could cause a loss of invstor money would be if the fund managers broke the regulations and committed various crimes. I've never heard of this actually happening to a normal mutual fund. There is of course also a default risk when a fund buys bonds or other non-equity securities, and this may sometimes be non-obvious. For example, some ETFs which are nominally based on a stock index don't actually buy stocks; instead they buy or sell options on those stocks, which involves a counterparty risk. The ETF may or may not have rules that limit the exposure to any one counterparty.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3a4108de7a8c8f8819cef2931d529cda",
"text": "There is a measure of protection for investors. It is not the level of protection provided by FDIC or NCUA but it does exist: Securities Investor Protection Corporation What SIPC Protects SIPC protects against the loss of cash and securities – such as stocks and bonds – held by a customer at a financially-troubled SIPC-member brokerage firm. The limit of SIPC protection is $500,000, which includes a $250,000 limit for cash. Most customers of failed brokerage firms when assets are missing from customer accounts are protected. There is no requirement that a customer reside in or be a citizen of the United States. A non-U.S. citizen with an account at a brokerage firm that is a member of SIPC is treated the same as a resident or citizen of the United States with an account at a brokerage firm that is a member of SIPC. SIPC protection is limited. SIPC only protects the custody function of the broker dealer, which means that SIPC works to restore to customers their securities and cash that are in their accounts when the brokerage firm liquidation begins. SIPC does not protect against the decline in value of your securities. SIPC does not protect individuals who are sold worthless stocks and other securities. SIPC does not protect claims against a broker for bad investment advice, or for recommending inappropriate investments. It is important to recognize that SIPC protection is not the same as protection for your cash at a Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) insured banking institution because SIPC does not protect the value of any security. Investments in the stock market are subject to fluctuations in market value. SIPC was not created to protect these risks. That is why SIPC does not bail out investors when the value of their stocks, bonds and other investment falls for any reason. Instead, in a liquidation, SIPC replaces the missing stocks and other securities when it is possible to do so.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "e431c2f9d469ccc33da64dbcf88180e7",
"text": "Short-term to intermediate-term corporate bond funds are available. The bond fund vehicle helps manage the credit risk, while the short terms help manage inflation and interest rate risk. Corporate bond funds will have fewer Treasuries bonds than a general-purpose short-term bond fund: it sounds like you're interested in things further out along the risk curve than a 0.48% return on a 5-year bond, and thus don't care for the Treasuries. Corporate bonds are generally safer than stocks because, in bankruptcy, all your bondholders have to be paid in full before any equity-holders get a penny. Stocks are much more volatile, since they're essentially worth the value of their profits after paying all their debt, taxes, and other expenses. As far as stocks are concerned, they're not very good for the short term at all. One of the stabler stock funds would be something like the Vanguard Equity Income Fund, and it cautions: This fund is designed to provide investors with an above-average level of current income while offering exposure to the stock market. Since the fund typically invests in companies that are dedicated to consistently paying dividends, it may have a higher yield than other Vanguard stock mutual funds. The fund’s emphasis on slower-growing, higher-yielding companies can also mean that its total return may not be as strong in a significant bull market. This income-focused fund may be appropriate for investors who have a long-term investment goal and a tolerance for stock market volatility. Even the large-cap stable companies can have their value fall dramatically in the short term. Look at its price chart; 2008 was brutal. Avoid stocks if you need to spend your money within a couple of years. Whatever you choose, read the prospectus to understand the risks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6216c82a3e886b3a0bbedc9202cbea4a",
"text": "\"I experimented with Lending Club, lending a small amount of money in early 2008. (Nice timing right - the recession was December 2007 to June 2009.) I have a few loans still outstanding, but most have prepaid or defaulted by now. I did not reinvest as payments came in. Based on my experience, one \"\"catch\"\" is lack of liquidity. It's like buying individual bonds rather than a mutual fund. Your money is NOT just tied up for the 3-year loan term, because to get good returns you have to keep reinvesting as people pay off their loans. So you always have some just-reinvested money with the full 3 year term left, and that's how long it would take to get all your money back out. You can't just cash out when you feel like it. They have a trading platform (which I did not try out) if you want your money sooner, but I would guess the spreads are wide and you have to take a hit when you sell loans. Again though I did not try the trading platform. On the upside, the yields did seem fine. I got 19 eventual defaults from 81 loans, but many of the borrowers made a number of payments before defaulting so only part of the money was lost. The lower credit ratings default more often obviously, only one of 19 defaults had the top credit score. (I tried investing across a range of credit ratings.) The interest rates appear to cover the risk of default, at least on average. You can of course have varying luck. I made only a slight profit over the 3 years, but I did not reinvest after the first couple months, and it was during a recession. So the claimed yields look plausible to me if you reinvest. They do get people's credit scores, report nonpayment on people's credit reports, and even send people to collections. Seems like borrowers have a reason to pay the bill. In 2008 I think this was a difference compared to the other peer lending sites, but I don't know if that's still true. Anyway, for what it's worth the site seemed to work fine and \"\"as advertised\"\" for me. I probably will not invest more money there for a couple reasons: However as best I could tell from my experiment, it is a perfectly reasonable place to put a portion of your portfolio you might otherwise invest in something like high-yield bonds or some other sub-investment-grade fixed income. Update: here's a useful NY Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/05/your-money/05money.html\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5790337078c1c0fd24948a1f5458e974",
"text": "Your idea is a good one, but, as usual, the devil is in the details, and implementation might not be as easy as you think. The comments on the question have pointed out your Steps 2 and 4 are not necessarily the best way of doing things, and that perhaps keeping the principal amount invested in the same fund instead of taking it all out and re-investing it in a similar, but different, fund might be better. The other points for you to consider are as follows. How do you identify which of the thousands of conventional mutual funds and ETFs is the average-risk / high-gain mutual fund into which you will place your initial investment? Broadly speaking, most actively managed mutual fund with average risk are likely to give you less-than-average gains over long periods of time. The unfortunate truth, to which many pay only Lipper service, is that X% of actively managed mutual funds in a specific category failed to beat the average gain of all funds in that category, or the corresponding index, e.g. S&P 500 Index for large-stock mutual funds, over the past N years, where X is generally between 70 and 100, and N is 5, 10, 15 etc. Indeed, one of the arguments in favor of investing in a very low-cost index fund is that you are effectively guaranteed the average gain (or loss :-(, don't forget the possibility of loss). This, of course, is also the argument used against investing in index funds. Why invest in boring index funds and settle for average gains (at essentially no risk of not getting the average performance: average performance is close to guaranteed) when you can get much more out of your investments by investing in a fund that is among the (100-X)% funds that had better than average returns? The difficulty is that which funds are X-rated and which non-X-rated (i.e. rated G = good or PG = pretty good), is known only in hindsight whereas what you need is foresight. As everyone will tell you, past performance does not guarantee future results. As someone (John Bogle?) said, when you invest in a mutual fund, you are in the position of a rower in rowboat: you can see where you have been but not where you are going. In summary, implementation of your strategy needs a good crystal ball to look into the future. There is no such things as a guaranteed bond fund. They also have risks though not necessarily the same as in a stock mutual fund. You need to have a Plan B in mind in case your chosen mutual fund takes a longer time than expected to return the 10% gain that you want to use to trigger profit-taking and investment of the gain into a low-risk bond fund, and also maybe a Plan C in case the vagaries of the market cause your chosen mutual fund to have negative return for some time. What is the exit strategy?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5dbae56ad4aca8a1caeb2c6a7ab08472",
"text": "\"Your question is one of semantics. ETFs and mutual funds have many things in common and provide essentially the same service to investors with minimal differences. It's reasonably correct to say \"\"An ETF is a mutual fund that...\"\" and then follow up with some stuff that is not true of a typical mutual fund. You could do the same with, for example, a hedge fund. \"\"A hedge fund is a mutual fund that doesn't comply with most SEC regulations and thus is limited to accredited investors.\"\" As a matter of practice, when people say \"\"mutual fund\"\" they are talking about traditional mutual funds and pretty much never including ETFs. So is an ETF a mutual fund as the word is commonly used? No.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "647740b4ae71f5a6f13b36593cb3f041",
"text": "The default of the country will affect the country obligations and what's tied to it. If you have treasury bonds, for example - they'll get hit. If you have cash currency - it will get hit. If you're invested in the stock market, however, it may plunge, but will recover, and in the long run you won't get hit. If you're invested in foreign countries (through foreign currency or foreign stocks that you hold), then the default of your local government may have less affect there, if at all. What you should not, in my humble opinion, be doing is digging holes in the ground or probably not exchange all your cash for gold (although it is considered a safe anchor in case of monetary crisis, so may be worth considering some diversifying your portfolio with some gold). Splitting between banks might not make any difference at all because the value won't change, unless you think that one of the banks will fail (then just close the account there). The bottom line is that the key is diversifying, and you don't have to be a seasoned investor for that. I'm sure there are mutual funds in Greece, just pick several different funds (from several different companies) that provide diversified investment, and put your money there.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7755f8c87469a7bce12e478865efa8ef",
"text": "When interest rates rise, the price of bonds fall because bonds have a fixed coupon rate, and since the interest rate has risen, the bond's rate is now lower than what you can get on the market, so it's price falls because it's now less valuable. Bonds diversify your portfolio as they are considered safer than stocks and less volatile. However, they also provide less potential for gains. Although diversification is a good idea, for the individual investor it is far too complicated and incurs too much transaction costs, not to mention that rebalancing would have to be done on a regular basis. In your case where you have mutual funds already, it is probably a good idea to keep investing in mutual funds with a theme which you understand the industry's role in the economy today rather than investing in some special bonds which you cannot relate to. The benefit of having a mutual fund is to have a professional manage your money, and that includes diversification as well so that you don't have to do that.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3e502be83fed29fd4641cda992b6c127",
"text": "\"Mutual funds can be relatively low risk and a good starting point. Really it depends on you. What are your goals? This is a pretty open ended question. These can all be low risk and provide some return. Note \"\"Less Knowledge\"\" is never a good qualifier for an investment. Your money is your business and you are entitled to know what your business is up to.\"",
"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": "c1abc18736c5ab5314bf49da7f5ab4ea",
"text": "Without providing direct investment advice, I can tell you that bond most assuredly are not recession-proof. All investments have risk, and each recession will impact asset-classes slightly differently. Before getting started, BONDS are LOANS. You are loaning money. Don't ever think of them as anything but that. Bonds/Loans have two chief risks: default risk and inflation risk. Default risk is the most obvious risk. This is when the person to whom you are loaning, does not pay back. In a recession, this can easily happen if the debtor is a company, and the company goes bankrupt in the recessionary environment. Inflation risk is a more subtle risk, and occurs when the (fixed) interest rate on your loan yields less than the inflation rate. This causes the 'real' value of your investment to depreciate over time. The second risk is most pronounced when the bonds that you own are government bonds, and the recession causes the government to be unable to pay back its debts. In these circumstances, the government may print more money to pay back its creditors, generating inflation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "600627b380e6ff8992b9348e5bac161f",
"text": "There's some risk, but it's quite small: The only catastrophic case I can think of is if the brokerage firm defrauded you about purchasing the assets in the first place; e.g., when you ostensibly put money into a mutual fund, they just pocketed it and displayed a fictitious purchase on their web site. In that case, you'd have no real asset to legally recover. I think the more realistic risks you should be concerned with are: The only major brokerage firm that I'm aware of that accepts liability for theft is Charles Schwab: http://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/nn/legal_compliance/schwabsafe/security_guarantee.html If you're going to diversify for security reasons, be sure to use different passwords, email addresses, and secret question answers on the two accounts.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9a33d5eb9bc725b18b470d8583fd3aa9",
"text": "\"I don't know whether you'd consider buying a single bond instead of a fund. Strips are Treasuries where the coupons have been \"\"stripped\"\" to produce debt instruments with a fixed maturity date. They pay zero interest. Their value comes from the fact that you buy them at a price less than 100 and they are worth exactly 100 at some point in the future. You can buy them with any year/month that you wish. They are backed by the federal government and are considered to have no default risk. Like most bonds the price is actually a percentage and they mature at a 100. The one that expires 9/30/2018 costs 91.60 and returns 100 on the expiration date. The price list is here There's more information about them here First of all, they are still T-bonds (in all but the most legalistic sense) which means they are the safest, most risk-free investment possible. The U.S. federal government has stellar credit and a record of never defaulting. These bonds have no call features, so the timing and distribution of bond payments cannot be altered by any foreseeable occurrence. They are sold at a known - and generally deep - discount off a known face value that can be redeemed at a known date, so buyers know exactly how much they will earn from an investment in STRIPS.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e7efd44b6df5887ee927806d2e802c81",
"text": "\"For instance he is recommending moving money into HYD which seems to have a higher risk at an average return ( for this asset class )ABHFX seems to have a higher return at a lower risk. Often [his recommendations] are on the lower end of best performing funds in the class. Historical Mutual Fund performance has little to no predictive power for future performance so this shouldn't be an immediate disqualification. Some good starting questions for you to evaluate a manager: Does this mean it's a mistake to use UBS (or any bank limited in its fund offerings from other institutions) as the \"\"wealth management\"\" institution? All wealth management institutions have restrictions on possible investments. Obviously, if your relative can't invest in the funds she wants that is an issue. Do these [Morningstar] ratings mean anything at all? This has been studied pretty carefully and the academic consensus appears to be that they have no consistant predictive power. Kräussl and Sandelowsky wrote a particularly comprehensive paper on the subject.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "041245ddb1f9ce5576e6d63afde087e8",
"text": "\"The danger to your savings depends on how much sovereign debt your bank is holding. If the government defaults then the bank - if it is holding a lot of sovereign debt - could be short funds and not able to meet its obligations. I believe default is the best option for the Euro long term but it will be painful in the short term. Yes, historically governments have shut down banks to prevent people from withdrawing their money in times of crisis. See Argentina circa 2001 or US during Great Depression. The government prevented people from withdrawing their money and people could do nothing while their money rapidly lost value. (See the emergency banking act where Title I, Section 4 authorizes the US president:\"\"To make it illegal for a bank to do business during a national emergency (per section 2) without the approval of the President.\"\" FDR declared a banking holiday four days before the act was approved by Congress. This documentary on the crisis in Argentina follows a woman as she tries to withdraw her savings from her bank but the government has prevented her from withdrawing her money.) If the printing press is chosen to avoid default then this will allow banks and governments to meet their obligations. This, however, comes at the cost of a seriously debased euro (i.e. higher prices). The euro could then soon become a hot potato as everyone tries to get rid of them before the ECB prints more. The US dollar could meet the same fate. What can you do to avert these risks? Yes, you could exchange into another currency. Unfortunately the printing presses of most of the major central banks today are in overdrive. This may preserve your savings temporarily. I would purchase some gold or silver coins and keep them in your possession. This isolates you from the banking system and gold and silver have value anywhere you go. The coins are also portable in case things really start to get interesting. Attempt to purchase the coins with cash so there is no record of the purchase. This may not be possible.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a452388558c5efe9cfa6b7e1088836e9",
"text": "\"Give me your money. I will invest it as I see fit. A year later I will return the capital to you, plus half of any profits or losses. This means that if your capital under my management ends up turning a profit, I will keep half of those profits, but if I lose you money, I will cover half those losses. Think about incentives. If you wanted an investment where your losses were only half as bad, but your gains were only half as good, then you could just invest half your assets in a risk-free investment. So if you want this hypothetical instrument because you want a different risk profile, you don't actually need anything new to get it. And what does the fund manager get out of this arrangement? She doesn't get anything you don't: she just gets half your gains, most of which she needs to set aside to be able to pay half your losses. The discrepancy between the gains and losses she gets to keep, which is exactly equal to your gain or loss. She could just invest her own money to get the same thing. But wait -- the fund manager didn't need to provide any capital. She got to play with your money (for free!) and keep half the profits. Not a bad deal, for her, perhaps... Here's the problem: No one cares about your thousands of dollars. The costs of dealing with you: accounting for your share, talking to you on the phone, legal expenses when you get angry, the paperwork when you need to make a withdrawal for some dental work, mailing statements and so on will exceed the returns that could be earned with your thousands of dollars. And then the SEC would probably get involved with all kinds of regulations so you, with your humble means and limited experience, isn't constantly getting screwed over by the big fund. Complying with the SEC is going to cost the fund manager something. The fund manager would have to charge a small \"\"administrative fee\"\" to make it worthwhile. And that's called a mutual fund. But if you have millions of free capital willing to give out, people take notice. Is there an instrument where a bunch of people give a manager capital for free, and then the investors and the manager share in the gains and losses? Yes, hedge funds! And this is why only the rich and powerful can participate in them: only they have enough capital to make this arrangement beneficial for the fund manager.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
9de4bfbaca7acd18b411ec5954f4bc3a
|
How long do you have to live somewhere to be a resident for tax purposes?
|
[
{
"docid": "8831f4e7c58254ff02b0311baf3833f4",
"text": "It's not so much about time but about intent. If your intent is to move there permanently, it would be when you arrive in the state for the purposes of living there (i.e. not from a while before that when you went to check a place out or for an interview). I believe that most (if not all) states expect you to get a Driver's License from that state within 30-days of moving there. Something like a Driver's License or State ID would be proof of your residency. These things vary greatly from state to state, so you'd have to research particular states. Or find someone who's done that already. A bit of searching, specifically for Texas, brought me to this forum thread: If you / he wish to establish residency here -- here being Texas -- get a Texas Driver's License and Voter Registration here. Government issued ID with a Texas address is pretty much bulletproof defense against being found to be a resident of elsewhere. Your battle, if there is one, will not be with Texas, but with your present home of record state and/or local government if there are income taxes associated with having been a resident there during the tax year. Which brings up the other question: You would need to make sure that California does not have some provision that would cause you issues. (This isn't so much a case of income from a company in the state as it about capital gains, but it is still prudent to check.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "801ab8c6ad1c9fc5cf5914e706967413",
"text": "If you are going to be trying clever stuff with taxes in different place, you probably need a professional. Different countries definitely have different laws on the subject. For example (several years ago) the UK considered you absent from the UK for tax purposes from the day you left, provided you were gone for a year, whereas Canada didn't charge you tax as long as you were not in the country for six months in the year. A carefully timed move enabled me to not pay tax at all for six months because I wasn't resident anywhere. Also it was irrelevant whether I intended to stay or not.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "7621f87330797bec2bb8ecc8fa2a2134",
"text": "Having lived in both places, I have to say you can find a higher income in the US for the same job and can live in a small town versus having to live in a big city in Canada to find decent salaries. For similar sized cities, the cost of housing is significantly lower in the US than Canada. That is your biggest factor in cost of living. If you are thinking of NYC or San Francisco, there are no comparable size cities in Canada and you would probably be better off in Canada. My tax preparer was amazed at how much I paid in Capital Gains taxes when I left Canada. Maybe it is different now but I doubt it. The biggest free lunch in the US is a generous capital gains exemption when you sell your primary residence without any lifetime cap or cap on the number of times you can do it. There are rules on how long you have to live in it before selling. For investment real estate, all expenses are deductible in addition to fictional depreciation so with a mortgage you can have positive cash flow and pay no income tax. You can keep doing tax deferred exchanges into bigger and bigger rentals. When you are close to retirement, you can exchange into your ultimate beach home, rent it out a few years, then convert to a primary residence.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1c63acd0b8f3d76f9dd620dc9995123e",
"text": "There are just too many variables here... Will you legally be considered a permanent resident from the moment you move? Will you work from home as a contractor or as an employee? Those are not questions you can answer yourself, they really depend on your circumstances and how the tax authorities will look at them. I strongly encourage you to speak to an advisor. Very generally spoken, at your place of residence you pay taxes for your worldwide income, at the place of your work base (which is not clear if this really would be Turkey) you pay taxes on the income generated there. If it's one and the same country, it's simple. If not, then theoretically you pay twice. However, most countries have double taxation treaties to avoid just that. This usually works so that the taxes paid abroad (in Turkey) would be deducted from your tax debt at your place of residence. But you might want to read the treaty to be sure how this would be in your specific case (all treaties are publicly available), and you should really consider speaking to a professional.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2e2e6106a973d42de10c86d789345266",
"text": "Yes you do. You're under the jurisdiction of at least one country where you're resident, or where you're citizen. You may be under jurisdiction of more than one country. Each country has its own laws about what and how should be taxed and countries have treaties between them to resolve jurisdiction issues and double taxation situations, so you should talk to a tax accountant licensed to provide you with an advice.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "120fcc189300a5059e3e367bf3ac54bb",
"text": "\"If you are a resident of New Zealand for tax purposes, you will be taxed in New Zealand on all of your \"\"worldwide income\"\". This is income derived from New Zealand as well as income derived from all other countries Source: http://www.ird.govt.nz/international/nzwithos/income/overseas-income-index.html Another link that will be of use is this: https://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/international-tax-for-individuals/work-out-your-tax-residency/ This is Australia's rules on if you qualify as a resident for tax purposes. I am not an accountant or a lawyer but my reading of this is you actually have to reside in Australia to be considered a resident - whether or not you have a bank account there doesn't appear to play into it. Additionally, Australia and NZ have a \"\"double taxation agreement\"\", explained here: http://www.ird.govt.nz/yoursituation-nonres/double-tax/ So this should prevent you from being taxed in both places.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cc041b18ffe6b806ba4fbcb0c963b9b0",
"text": "\"The IRS taxes worldwide income of its citizens and green card holders. Generally, for those Americans genuinely living/working overseas the IRS takes the somewhat reasonable position of being in \"\"2nd place\"\" tax-wise. That is, you are expected to pay taxes in the country you are living in, and these taxes can reduce the tax you would have owed in the USA. Unfortunately, all of this has to be documented and tax returns are still required every year. Your European friends may find this quite surprising as I've heard, for instance, that France will not tax you if you go live and work in Germany. A foreign company operating in a foreign country under foreign law is not typically required to give you a W-2, 1099, or any of the forms you are used to. Indeed, you should be paying taxes in the place where you live and work, which is probably somewhat different than the USA. Keep all these records as they may be useful for your USA taxes as well. You are required to total up what you were paid in Euros and convert them to US$. This will go on the income section of a 1040. You should be paying taxes in the EU country where you live. You can also total those up and convert to US$. This may be useful for a foreign tax credit. If you are living in the EU long term, like over 330 days/year or you have your home and family there, then you might qualify for a very large exemption from your income for US tax purposes, called the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion. This is explained in IRS Publication 54. The purpose of this is primarily to avoid double taxation. FBAR is a serious thing. In past years, the FBAR form went to a Financial Crimes unit in Detroit, not the regular IRS address. Also, getting an extension to file taxes does not extend the deadline for the FBAR. Some rich people have paid multi-million dollar fines over FBAR and not paying taxes on foreign accounts. I've heard you can get a $10,000 FBAR penalty for inadvertent, non-willful violations so be sure to send those in and it goes up from there to $250k or half the value of the account, whichever is more. You also need to know about whether you need to do FATCA reporting with your 1040. There are indeed, a lot of obnoxious things you need to know about that came into existence over the years and are still on the law books -- because of the perpetual 'arms race' between the government and would be cheaters, non-payers and their advisors. http://www.irs.gov/publications/p54/ http://americansabroad.org/\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "708b0a0701ed4c6db8ded6937a20599b",
"text": "\"There's no \"\"183 days\"\" rule. As a US citizen you must pay taxes on all your income, where you live is irrelevant.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6b044dd19cb2e923618308a758dc7e38",
"text": "It also depends on where you work. If you move your home and your job then the date you establish residency in the new state is the key date. All income before that date is considered income for state 1, and all income on or after that date is income for state 2. If there is a big difference in income you will want to clearly establish residency because it impacts your wallet. If they had the same rates moving wouldn't impact your wallet, but it would impact each state. So make sure when going from high tax state to low tax state that you register your vehicles, register to vote, get a new drivers license... It becomes more complex if you move your home but not your job. In that case where you work might be the deciding factor. Same states have agreed that where you live is the deciding factor; in other cases it is not. For Virginia, Maryland, and DC you pay based on where you live if the two states involved are DC, MD, VA. But if you Live in Delaware and work in Virginia Virginia wants a cut of your income tax. So before you move you need to research reciprocity for the two states. From Massachusetts information for Nonresident and Part-Year Resident Income, Exemptions, Deductions and Credits Massachusetts gross income includes items of income derived from sources within Massachusetts. This includes income: a few questions later: Massachusetts residents and part-year residents are allowed a credit for taxes due to any other jurisdiction. The credit is available only on income reported and taxed on a Massachusetts return. Nonresidents may not claim the taxes paid to other jurisdiction credit on their Massachusetts Form 1-NR/PY. The credit is allowed for income taxes paid to: The credit is not allowed for: taxes paid to the U.S. government or a foreign country other than Canada; city or local tax; and interest and penalty paid to another jurisdiction. The computation is based on comparing the Massachusetts income tax on income reported to the other jurisdiction to the actual tax paid to the other jurisdiction; the credit is limited to the smaller of these two numbers. The other jurisdiction credit is a line item on the tax form but you must calculate it on the worksheet in the instruction booklet and also enter the credit information on the Schedule OJC. So if you move your house to New Hampshire, but continue to work in Massachusetts you will owe income tax to Massachusetts for that income even after you move and establish residency in New Hampshire.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "47c9c8dbbbfb64b9537ec5a36e9cc724",
"text": "\"What theyre fishing for is whether the money was earned in the U.S. It's essentially an interest shelter, and/or avoiding double taxation. They're saying if you keep income you make outside the US in a bank inside the US, the US thanks you for storing your foreign money here and doesn't tax the interest (but the nation where you earned that income might). There is no question that the AirBNB income is \"\"connected with a US trade or business\"\". So your next question is whether the fraction of interest earned from that income can be broken out, or whether IRS requires you to declare all the interest from that account. Honestly given the amount of tax at stake, it may not be worth your time researching. Now since you seem to be a resident nonresident alien, it seems apparent that whatever economic value you are creating to earn your salary, is being performed in the United States. If this is for an American company and wages paid in USD, no question, that's a US trade or business. But what if it's for a Swedish company running on Swedish servers, serving Swedes and paid in Kroner to a Swedish bank which you then transfer to your US bank? Does it matter if your boots are on sovereign US soil? This is a complex question, and some countries (UK) say \"\"if your boots are in our nation, it is trade/income in our nation\"\"... Others (CA) do not. This is probably a separate question to search or ask. To be clear, the fact that your days as a teacher or trainee do not count toward residency, is a separate question from whether your salary as same counts as US income.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5a1293a666b8079d199978def4663f03",
"text": "Getting the first year right for any rental property is key. It is even more complex when you rent a room, or rent via a service like AirBnB. Get professional tax advice. For you the IRS rules are covered in Tax Topic 415 Renting Residential and Vacation Property and IRS pub 527 Residential Rental Property There is a special rule if you use a dwelling unit as a personal residence and rent it for fewer than 15 days. In this case, do not report any of the rental income and do not deduct any expenses as rental expenses. If you reach that reporting threshold the IRS will now expect you to to have to report the income, and address the items such as depreciation. When you go to sell the house you will again have to address depreciation. All of this adds complexity to your tax situation. The best advice is to make sure that in a tax year you don't cross that threshold. When you have a house that is part personal residence, and part rental property some parts of the tax code become complex. You will have to divide all the expenses (mortgage, property tax, insurance) and split it between the two uses. You will also have to take that rental portion of the property and depreciation it. You will need to determine the value of the property before the split and then determine the value of the rental portion at the time of the split. From then on, you will follow the IRS regulations for depreciation of the rental portion until you either convert it back to non-rental or sell the property. When the property is sold the portion of the sales price will be associated with the rental property, and you will need to determine if the rental property is sold for a profit or a loss. You will also have to recapture the depreciation. It is possible that one portion of the property could show a loss, and the other part of the property a gain depending on house prices over the decades. You can expect that AirBnB will collect tax info and send it to the IRS As a US company, we’re required by US law to collect taxpayer information from hosts who appear to have US-sourced income. Virginia will piggyback onto the IRS rules. Local law must be researched because they may limit what type of rentals are allowed. Local law could be state, or county/city/town. Even zoning regulations could apply. Also check any documents from your Home Owners Association, they may address running a business or renting a property. You may need to adjust your insurance policy regarding having tenants. You may also want to look at insurance to protect you if a renter is injured.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b0c55747bc1f3a76ac6eb4c80269b2d5",
"text": "\"The other answer has mentioned \"\"factual resident\"\", and you have raised the existence of a U.S./Canada tax treaty in your comment, and provided a link to a page about determining residency. I'd like to highlight part of the first link: You are a factual resident of Canada for tax purposes if you keep significant residential ties in Canada while living or travelling outside the country. The term factual resident means that, although you left Canada, you are still considered to be a resident of Canada for income tax purposes. Notes If you have established ties in a country that Canada has a tax treaty with and you are considered to be a resident of that country, but you are otherwise a factual resident of Canada, meaning you maintain significant residential ties with Canada, you may be considered a deemed non-resident of Canada for tax purposes. [...] I'll emphasize that \"\"considered to be a resident of Canada for income tax purposes\"\" means you do need to file Canadian income tax returns. The Notes section does indicate the potential treaty exemption that you mentioned, but it is only a potential exemption. Note the emphasis (theirs, not mine) on the word \"\"may\"\" in the last paragraph above. Please don't assume \"\"may\"\" is necessarily favorable with respect to your situation. The other side of the \"\"may\"\" coin is \"\"may not\"\". The Determining your residency status page you mentioned in your comment says this: If you want the Canada Revenue Agency's opinion on your residency status, complete either Form NR74, Determination of Residency Status (Entering Canada) or Form NR73, Determination of Residency Status (Leaving Canada), whichever applies, and send it to the International and Ottawa Tax Services Office. To get the most accurate opinion, provide as many details as possible on your form. So, given your ties to Canada, I would suggest that until and unless you have obtained an opinion from the Canada Revenue Agency on your tax status, you would be making a potentially unsafe assumption if you yourself elect not to file your Canadian income tax returns based on your own determination. You could end up liable for penalties and interest if you don't file while you are outside of Canada. Tax residency in Canada is not a simple topic. For instances, let's have a look at S5-F1-C1, Determining an Individual’s Residence Status. It's a long page, but here's one interesting piece: 1.44 The Courts have stated that holders of a United States Permanent Residence Card (otherwise referred to as a Green Card) are considered to be resident in the United States for purposes of paragraph 1 of the Residence article of the Canada-U.S. Tax Convention. For further information, see the Federal Court of Appeal's comments in Allchin v R, 2004 FCA 206, 2004 DTC 6468. [...] ... whereas you are in the U.S. on a TN visa, intended to be temporary. So you wouldn't be exempt just on the basis of your visa and the existence of the treaty. The CRA would look at other circumstances. Consider the \"\"Centre of vital interests test\"\": Centre of vital interests test [...] “If the individual has a permanent home in both Contracting States, it is necessary to look at the facts in order to ascertain with which of the two States his personal and economic relations are closer. Thus, regard will be had to his family and social relations, his occupations, his political, cultural or other activities, his place of business, the place from which he administers his property, etc. The circumstances must be examined as a whole, but it is nevertheless obvious that considerations based on the personal acts of the individual must receive special attention. If a person who has a home in one State sets up a second in the other State while retaining the first, the fact that he retains the first in the environment where he has always lived, where he has worked, and where he has his family and possessions, can, together with other elements, go to demonstrate that he has retained his centre of vital interests in the first State.” [emphasis on last sentence is mine] Anyway, I'm acquainted with somebody who left Canada for a few years to work abroad. They assumed that living in the other country for that length of time (>2 years) meant they were non-resident here and so did not have to file. Unfortunately, upon returning to Canada, the CRA deemed them to have been resident all that time based on significant ties maintained, and they subsequently owed many thousands of dollars in back taxes, penalties, and interest. If it were me in a similar situation, I would err on the side of caution and continue to file Canadian income taxes until I got a determination I could count on from the people that make the rules.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "203265ae70c783f4132a649dbd583400",
"text": "When you live in your own rental property, it no longer counts as your 'rental property'. It becomes your own living property and legally you cannot get tax benefits.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "28d9aa347dd6586e63001086f0a889da",
"text": "California is very aggressive when it comes to determining residency. While you have a legitimate defense, I suggest talking with a California-licensed CPA or EA practicing in California, which are experienced in dealing with the FTB residency audits.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "28526f65abdc2985664cffeb477ba4eb",
"text": "\"IRS Pub 554 states (click to read full IRS doc): \"\"Do not file a federal income tax return if you do not meet the filing requirements and are not due a refund. ... If you are a U.S. citizen or resident alien, you must file a return if your gross income for the year was at least the amount shown on the appropriate line in Table 1-1 below. \"\" You may not have wage income, but you will probably have interest, dividend, capital gains, or proceeds from sale of a house (and there is a special note that you must file in this case, even if you enjoy the exclusion for primary residence)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "97311f295ea1deb9e67480d11a99e1bd",
"text": "If you already filed the DC return, you can try and wait with filing the NJ return until you get the answer from DC. You can file an extension request with the NJ division of taxation here. Or, you can file without claiming the credit, and worst case amend later and claim it if DC refuse to refund. I find it highly unlikely that DC will decide that a person staying for a couple of months over the year in hotels will count as a resident.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7ab2b7a9ead93dbd14f80545351f29f7",
"text": "The basis of the home is the cost of land and material. That's it. Your time isn't added to basis. No different than if you spend 1000 hours in a soup kitchen. You deduct miles for your car and expenses you can document but you can't deduct your time. Over 2 years, you could have a gain up to $500K per married couple and pay no tax.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
23650289e2b48129b025cf9ff2ef5ac3
|
Where can I find a definition of psychological barriers with respect to marketable securities?
|
[
{
"docid": "1cfd5c071ece40bdd85ae9c33535821a",
"text": "GuruFocus has an excellent summary of psychological barriers in the markets: http://www.gurufocus.com/news.php?id=88451",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "efb813618f6d3e14b6aa37b49a49211a",
"text": "I will teach you to be rich blog is all about psychological barriers and behavioural change.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a89681bcffbf1b48ff39c8843adcd375",
"text": "\"I think \"\"Psychological Pricing\"\" is a similar phenomenon to what you are looking for. This is where retailers use certain numbers in prices because those prices are more appealing to consumers. Since stocks - and in your case bitcoin - have prices, they too will be more or less appealing at different prices based on psychology alone.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "8fd096c812c0ad78c3fd458f3ed8988e",
"text": "In fact markets are not efficient and participants are not rational. That is why we have booms and busts in markets. Emotions and psychology play a role when investors and/or traders make decisions, sometimes causing them to behave in unpredictable or irrational ways. That is why stocks can be undervalued or overvalued compared to their true value. Also, different market participants may put a different true value on a stock (depending on their methods of analysis and the information they use to base their analysis on). This is why there are always many opportunities to profit (or lose your money) in liquid markets. Doing your research, homework, or analysis can be related to fundamental analysis, technical analysis, or a combination of the two. For example, you could use fundamental analysis to determine what to buy and then use technical analysis to determine when to buy. To me, doing your homework means to get yourself educated, to have a plan, to do your analysis (both FA and TA), to invest or trade according to your plan and to have a risk management strategy in place. Most people are too lazy to do their homework so will pay someone else to do it for them or they will just speculate (on the latest hot tip) and lose most of their money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7664a51de25f2cd352a3584104a914df",
"text": "Those are the three books that were considered fundamental at my university: Investments - Zvi Bodie (Author), Alex Kane (Author), Alan Marcus (Author), Stylianos Perrakis (Author), Peter Ryan (Author) This book covers the basics of financial markets. It explains how markets work, general investing principles, basic risk notions, various types of financial instruments and their characteristics and portfolio management principles. Futures and Options markets - John C. Hull This book goes more in depth into derivatives valuation and the less common / more complex instruments. The Handbook of Fixed Income Securities This books covers fixed income securities. In all cases, they are not specifically math-oriented but they do not shy away from it when it is called for. I have read the first and the other two were recommended by professors / friends now working in financial markets.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "012987ba2771a182c17825ec9343c062",
"text": "I’ll start with what worked for me, to get me hooked. This list is by no means exhaustive. *One Up On Wall Street* by Peter Lynch discusses competitive advantages and staying close to the story of a business. Explores the concept of ‘buy what you know’. He has also written *Beating the Street*. *The Drunkard’s Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives* by Leonard Mlodinow is not dissimilar to *A Random Walk Down Wall Street*, but I preferred this book as it explores the concepts of randomness and survivors bias. *Against the Gods* by Peter Bernstein is a dense book, but in my opinion is the definitive text on the development of numbers, probability theory, and risk management. I absolutely love this book. *The Most Important Thing* by Howard Marks is immensely readable, enjoyable, and looks at value investing for the long run. Howard Marks has been a macro behavioural investor before behavioural investing was a thing. Speaking of behavioural biases, *Thinking, Fast and Slow* by Daniel Kahneman is a spectacular look at how your brain’s quick-trigger responses can often be wrong. On the subject of behaviour and biases, *Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion* by Robert Cialdini is another topic-defining book More books by long term veteran professional investment managers that should be enjoyed: - *The Little Book That (Still) Beats the Market* by Joel Greenblatt - *Beat the Crowd* by Ken Fisher - *Big Money Thinks Small* by Joel Tillinghast - *Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits* by Philip A. Fisher - *The Little Book of Behavioural Investing* by James Montier - *Margin of Safety* by Seth Klarman And I’ll be banned from this forum without mentioning *The Intelligent Investor* by Benjamin Graham. As per some other comments, my personal opinion is that books that describe events or periods of time like *Liars’ Poker* [80s Junk Bonds], *The Big Short* [Financial Crisis], *When Genius Failed* [the LTCM collapse, excellent read by Rogers Lowenstein], *All The Devils Are Here* [by McLean and Nocera, another Financial Crisis book, much better than Lewis’s, IMO] are all educational and quite entertaining, but don’t honestly have much to do with the actual nuts and bolts of the real financial industry. Enjoy!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "86f8b680288b3148d009e292802c9b40",
"text": "Traditionally, dealers and broker-dealers were in contact with the actual producers of a product or issuers of a security, selling it at the exchange on their behalf. Consumers would traditionally be on the buy side, of course. These days, anyone can enter the market on either side. Even if you don't hold the security or product, you could sell it, and take on the risk of having to stock up on it by the delivery date in exchange for cash or other securities. On the other side, if you can't hold the product or security you could still buy it, taking on the risk of having to dispose of it somehow by delivery in exchange for cash or other securities. In either case you (the sell-side) take on risk and provide products/securities/cash. This is most commonly known as market making. Modern literature coins the terms liquidity taker (buy-side) and liquidity provider (sell-side). Even more accurately, risk management literature would use the terms risk-taker (sell-side) and risk spreader or risk reducer (buy side). This is quite illustrative in modern abstract markets. Take a market that allows for no offsetting or hedging because the product in question is abstract or theoretical, e.g. weather trading, volatility trading, inflation trading, etc. There's always one party trying to eliminate dependence on or correlation to the product (the risk reducer, buy-side) and the counterparty taking on their risk (sell-side).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "15b52b86f7b74d9cb9d797fc14f2a66d",
"text": "Good addition. When learning finance and business, /u/msattam, realize the world does not work cleanly like it does in a textbook. You have added complexity, both systemic and human caused. And that there is a very good reason that we must understand agency issues and how to mitigate those risks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c6b369eb3203921bb4621f9398674518",
"text": "While the issuer of the security such as a stock or bond not the short is responsible for the credit risk, the issuer and the short of a derivative is one. In all cases, it is more than likely that a trader is owed securities by an agent such as a broker or exchange or clearinghouse. Legally, only the Options Clearing Corporation clears openly traded options. With stocks and bonds, brokerages can clear with each other if approved. While a trader is expected to fund margin, the legal responsibility is shared by all in the agent chain. Clearinghouses are liable to exchanges. Exchanges are liable to members. Traders are liable to brokerages. Both ways and so on. Clearinghouses are usually ultimately liable for counterparty risk to the long counterparty, and the short counterparty is ultimately liable to the clearinghouse. Clearinghouses are not responsible for the credit risk of stocks and bonds because the issuers are not short those securities on the exchange, thus no margin is required. Credit risk for stocks and bonds is mitigated away from the clearing process.",
"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": "0221b08de55ce6d99cfc7df8255d9b26",
"text": "Hey thanks for your response. The commodity is actually electricity, so definitely not able to store. Would you mind giving me a short summary of your thought process or an example of how you compare liquid markets vs illiquid ones when looking at more traditional commodities? If that is a bit much to ask, as I am sure it could get quite involved do you have any reading recommendations? This little project has sparked an interest.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eea837f2962ad63b6cc13e0c938fd84a",
"text": "Support and resistance only works as a self-fulfilling prophecy. If everyone trading that stock agrees there's a resistance at so-and-so level, and it is on such-and-such scale, then they will trade accordingly and there will really be a support or resistance. So while you can identify them at any time scale (although as a rule the time scale on which you observed them should be similar to the time scale on which you intend to use them), it's no matter unless that's what all the other traders are thinking as well. Especially if there are multiple possible S/P levels for different time scales, there will be no consensus, and the whole system will break down as one cohort ruins the other group's S/P by not playing along and vice versa. But often fundamentals are expected to dominate in the long run, so if you are thinking of trades longer than a year, support and resistance will likely become meaningless regardless. It's not like that many people can hold the same idea for that long anyhow.",
"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": "915530153fe8420174831d635f1a06ce",
"text": "It's about how volatile the instrument is. Brokers are concerned not about you but about potential lawsuits stemming from their perceived inadequate risk management - letting you trade extremely volatile stocks with high leverage. On top of that they run the risk of losing money in scenarios where a trader shorts a stock with all of the funds, the company rises 100% or more by the next day, in which case the trader owes money to the broker. If you look in detail you'll see that many of the companies with high margin requirements are extremely volatile pharmaceutical companies which depend heavily of FDA approvals.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "13492f613d44ac8d043dd5fe1e34290f",
"text": "Historically there weren't really high barriers to get in, but I find nowadays that banks are looking for quant backgrounds (MQF, ME, MFin) even though it isn't really required unless you're working in modeling. Maybe pursuing a master's program would help. Another route considering your BA experience, you could try to get involved in regulatory projects at a bank. It's a bit of a longshot since they tend to use consulting firms. Get involved with that and you'll interact with risk reporting teams and could work from there. Other than that, get a lucky break haha, knowing someone definitely helps.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0ef268dc015520b43687afb038fb8c2c",
"text": "You should check out existing resources like Investopedia for definitions, and ask questions if there is something you do not understand, instead of asking folks to spit out definitions. A good book for you to read might be Wall Street Words",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cf558c2e2343e30252737004eaaee0fe",
"text": "\"Although this has been touched upon in comments, I think the following line from the currently accepted answer shows the biggest issue: There is a clear difference between investing and gambling. The reality is that the difference isn't that clear at all. Tens of comments have been written arguing in both directions and looking around the internet entire essays have been written arguing both positions. The underlying emotion that seems to shape this discussion primarily is whether investing (especially in the stock market) is a form of gambling. People who do invest in this way tend to get relatively emotional whenever someone argues that this is a form of gambling, as gambling is considered a negative thing. The simple reality of human communication is that words can be ambiguous, and the way investors will use the words 'investments' and 'gambles' will differ from the way it is used by gamblers, and once again different from the way it's commonly used. What I definitely think is made clear by all the different discussions however is that there is no single distinctive trait that allows us to differentiate investing and gambling. The result of this is that when you take dictionary definitions for both terms you will likely end up including lottery tickets as a valid form of investment. That still however leaves us with a situation where we have two terms - with a strong overlap - which have a distinctive meaning in communication and the original question whether buying lottery tickets is an investment. Over on investorguide.com there is an absolutely amazing strongly recommended essay which explores countless of different traits in search of a difference between investing and gambling, and they came up with the following two definitions: Investing: \"\"Any activity in which money is put at risk for the purpose of making a profit, and which is characterized by some or most of the following (in approximately descending order of importance): sufficient research has been conducted; the odds are favorable; the behavior is risk-averse; a systematic approach is being taken; emotions such as greed and fear play no role; the activity is ongoing and done as part of a long-term plan; the activity is not motivated solely by entertainment or compulsion; ownership of something tangible is involved; a net positive economic effect results.\"\" Gambling: \"\"Any activity in which money is put at risk for the purpose of making a profit, and which is characterized by some or most of the following (in approximately descending order of importance): little or no research has been conducted; the odds are unfavorable; the behavior is risk-seeking; an unsystematic approach is being taken; emotions such as greed and fear play a role; the activity is a discrete event or series of discrete events not done as part of a long-term plan; the activity is significantly motivated by entertainment or compulsion; ownership of something tangible is not involved; no net economic effect results.\"\" The very interesting thing about those definitions is that they capture very well the way those terms are used by most people, and they even acknowledge that a lot of 'investors' are gambling, and that a few gamblers are 'investing' (read the essay for more on that). And this fits well with the way those two concepts are understood by the public. So in those definitions normally buying a lottery ticket would indeed not be an investment, but if we take for example Vadim's operation example If you have $1000 and need $2000 by next week or else you can't have an operation and you will die (and you can't find anyone to give you a loan). Your optimal strategy is to gamble your $1000, at the best odds you can get, with a possible outcome of $2000. So even if you only have a 1/3 chance of winning and getting that operation, it's still the right bet if you can't find a better one. this can suddenly change the perception and turn 'gambling' into 'high-risk investing'.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ee13d447ca63a0e4424994931d061598",
"text": "https://www.hussmanfunds.com/wmc/wmc171009m.png >The following charts will provide a sense of where the U.S. equity market currently stands. The first chart shows our margin-adjusted CAPE, which as noted above has a correlation of about -0.89 with actual subsequent market returns across U.S. market cycles since the 1920’s. https://www.hussmanfunds.com/wmc/wmc171009.htm It will turn, downside potential is historic.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
ee05e37b2beae6ae460a6a7e0f13cea7
|
How best to grow my small amount of money starting at a young age? [duplicate]
|
[
{
"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": "43e29fa4421236af230cf2f47a04c70e",
"text": "\"I would like to add my accolades in saving $3000, it is an accomplishment that the majority of US households are unable to achieve. source While it is something, in some ways it is hardly anything. Working part time at a entry level job will earn you almost three times this amount per year, and with the same job you can earn about as much in two weeks as this investment is likely to earn, in the market in one year. All this leads to one thing: At your age you should be looking to increase your income. No matter if it is college or a high paying trade, whatever you can do to increase your life time earning potential would be the best investment for this money. I would advocate a more patient approach. Stick the money in the bank until you complete your education enough for an \"\"adult job\"\". Use it, if needed, for training to get that adult job. Get a car, a place of your own, and a sufficient enough wardrobe. Save an emergency fund. Then invest with impunity. Imagine two versions of yourself. One with basic education, a average to below average salary, that uses this money to invest in the stock market. Eventually that money will be needed and it will probably be pulled out of the market at an in opportune time. It might worth less than the original 3K! Now imagine a second version of yourself that has an above average salary due to some good education or training. Perhaps that 3K was used to help provide that education. However, this second version will probably earn 25,000 to 75,000 per year then the first version. Which one do you want to be? Which one do you think will be wealthier? Better educated people not only earn more, they are out of work less. You may want to look at this chart.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "beb115f4b44422283c389edc50a1b8ed",
"text": "Congrats! That's a solid accomplishment for someone who is not even in college yet. I graduated college 3 years ago and I wish I was able to save more in college than I did. The rule of thumb with saving: the earlier the better. My personal portfolio for retirement is comprised of four areas: Roth IRA contributions, 401k contributions, HSA contributions, Stock Market One of the greatest things about the college I attended was its co-op program. I had 3 internships - each were full time positions for 6 months. I strongly recommend, if its available, finding an internship for whatever major you are looking into. It will not only convince you that the career path you chose is what you want to do, but there are added benefits specifically in regards to retirement and savings. In all three of my co-ops I was able to apply 8% of my paycheck to my company's 401k plan. They also had matching available. As a result, my 401k had a pretty substantial savings amount by the time I graduated college. To circle back to your question, I would recommend investing the money into a Roth IRA or the stock market. I personally have yet to invest a significant amount of money in the stock market. Instead, I have been maxing out my retirement for the last three years. That means I'm adding 18k to my 401k, 5.5k to my Roth, and adding ~3k to my HSA (there are limits to each of these and you can find them online). Compounded interest is amazing (I'm just going to leave this here... https://www.moneyunder30.com/power-of-compound-interest).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "67c31d2f35d612cbf8002be1e740d5fd",
"text": "while not stated, if you have any debt at all, use the $3000 to pay it off. That's the best investment in the short term. No risk and guaranteed reward. College can invite all sorts of unexpected expenses and opportunities, so stay liquid, protect working capital.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "af1e7f772ced48852837068b40ff5770",
"text": "Investments earn income relative to the principal amounts invested. If you do not have much to invest, then the only way to 'get rich' by investing is to take gambles. And those gambles are more likely to fail than succeed. The simplest way for someone without a high amount of 'capital' [funds available to invest] to build wealth, is to work more, and invest in yourself. Go to school, but only for proven career paths. Take self-study courses. Learn and expand your career opportunities. Only once you are stable financially, have minimal debt [or, understand and respect the debt you plan to pay down slowly, which some people choose to do with school and house debt], and are able to begin contributing regularly to investment plans, can you put your financial focus on investing. Until then, any investment gains would pale in comparison to gains from building your career.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "159163ada398165908c5f22bd363d270",
"text": "Start as early as possible and you will want to kiss your younger self when you get to retirement age. I know you (and everyone else at that age) thinks that they don't make enough to start saving and leans towards waiting until you get established in your career and start making better money. Don't put it off. Save some money out of each paycheck even if it is only $50. Trust me, as little as you make now, you probably have more disposable income than you will when you make twice as much. Your lifestyle always seems to keep up with your income and you will likely ALWAYS feel like you don't have money left over to save. The longer you wait, the more you are going to have to stuff away to make up for that lost time you could have been compounding your returns as shown in this table (assuming 9.4 percent average gain annually, which has been the average return on the stock market from 1926-2010). I also suggest reading this article when explains it in more detail: Who Wants to be a millionaire?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1d6f220dd1677d35b3bed386d664808f",
"text": "Investing in mutual funds, ETF, etc. won't build a large pool of money. Be an active investor if your nature aligns. For e.g. Invest in buying out a commercial space (on bank finance) like a office space and then rent it out. That would give you better return than a savings account. In few years time, you may be able to pay back your financing and then the total return is your net return. Look for options like this for a multiple growth in your worth.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "198bb468a2b916a466c48eaab959c272",
"text": "\"There are books like, \"\"The Millionaire Mind\"\" that could be of interest when it comes to basics like living below your means, investing what you save, etc. that while it is common sense, it is uncommonly done in the world. Something to consider is how actively do you want your money management to be? Is it something to spend hours on each week or a few hours a year tops? You have lots of choices and decisions to make. I would suggest keeping part of your savings as an emergency fund just in case something happens. As for another part, this is where you could invest in a few different options and see what happens. There would be a couple of different methods I could see for breaking into finance that I'd imagine: IT of a finance company - In this case you'd likely be working on customizations for what the bank, insurance or other kind of financial firm requires. This could be somewhat boring as you are basically a part of the backbone that keeps the company going but not really able to take much of the glory when the company makes a lot of money. Brains of a hedge fund - In this case, you may have to know some trading algorithms and handle updating the code so that the trading activities can be done by a computer with lightning speed. Harder to crack into since these would be the secretive people to find and join in a way.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a65594a18d3dd998b566955e0836c790",
"text": "If you're sure you want to go the high risk route: You could consider hot stocks or even bonds for companies/countries with lower credit ratings and higher risk. I think an underrated cost of investing is the tax penalties that you pay when you win if you aren't using a tax advantaged account. For your speculating account, you might want to open a self-directed IRA so that you can get access to more of the high risk options that you crave without the tax liability if any of those have a big payout. You want your high-growth money to be in a Roth, because it would be a shame to strike it rich while you're young and then have to pay taxes on it when you're older. If you choose not to make these investments in a tax-advantaged account, try to hold your stocks for a year so you only get taxed at capital gains rates instead of as ordinary income. If you choose to work for a startup, buy your stock options as they vest so that if the company goes public or sells privately, you will have owned those stocks long enough to qualify for capital gains. If you want my actual advice about what I think you should do: I would increase your 401k percentage to at least 10% with or without a match, and keep that in low cost index funds while you're young, but moving some of those investments over to bonds as you get closer to retirement and your risk tolerance declines. Assuming you're not in the 25% tax bracket, all of your money should be in a Roth 401k or IRA because you can withdraw it without being taxed when you retire. The more money you put into those accounts now while you are young, the more time it all has to grow. The real risk of chasing the high-risk returns is that when you bet wrong it will set you back far enough that you will lose the advantage that comes from investing the money while you're young. You're going to have up and down years with your self-selected investments, why not just keep plugging money into the S&P which has its ups and downs, but has always trended up over time?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "81dc5a3ab1f76785932744c1f2a511a9",
"text": "\"I get the sense that this is a \"\"the world is unfair; there's no way I can succeed\"\" question, so let's back up a few steps. Income is the starting point to all of this. That could be a job (or jobs), or running your own business. From there, you can do four things with your income: Obviously Spend and Give do not provide a monetary return - they give a return in other ways, such as quality of life, helping others, etc. Save gives you reserves for future expenses, but it does not provide growth. So that just leaves Invest. You seem to be focused on stock market investments, which you are right, take a very long time to grow, although you can get returns of up to 12% depending on how much volatility you're willing to absorb. But there are other ways to invest. You can invest in yourself by getting a degree or other training to improve your income. You can invest by starting a business, which can dramatically increase your income (in fact, this is the most common path to \"\"millionaire\"\" in the US, and probably in other free markets). You can invest by growing your own existing business. You can invest in someone else's business. You can invest in real estate, that can provide both value appreciation and rental income. So yes, \"\"investment\"\" is a key aspect of wealth building, but it is not limited to just stock market investment. You can also look at reducing expenses in order to have more money to invest. Also keep in mind that investment with higher returns come with higher risk (both in terms of volatility and risk of complete loss), and that borrowing money to invest is almost always unwise, since the interest paid directly reduces the return without reducing the risk.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a8fa04eaae270a59d75c5b36c12e036b",
"text": "\"Between \"\"fresh out of college\"\" and \"\"I have no debts, and a support system in place which because of which I can take higher risks.\"\" I would put every penny I could afford in the riskiest investment platform I was willing to. Holding onto money in a bank account is likely to cost you %1-%2 a year depending on what interest rates are and what inflation looks like. Money invested in a market could loose it all for you or you could become an overnight millionaire. Loosing it all would suck but you are young you will bounce back. Losing it slowly to inflation is just silly when you are young. If there is something you know you have to do in the next few years start to save for it but otherwise use the fact that you are young and have a safety net to try to make money.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3968f1cb85779ffc3e09b528b1322831",
"text": "\"Well, I understand this forum is about money but I think you would be far better off if you invest the money in your daughters education or something similar that can bring much more significant future gains. I am a big fan of compound interest and investing in stocks but $700 sitting until she's 21 wont grow into a significant amount. When she's 21, what would you \"\"hope\"\" she'd spend the money on? something valuable like education right? so why don't you take the first step now so she will get a much bigger return than the monitory value. If I were you I'd invest in a home library or something similar.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "db1ccbc57a778e7a93f06a6a95ab0dde",
"text": "\"Consultant, I commend you for thinking about your financial future at such an early age. Warren Buffet, arguably the most successful investor ever lived, and the best known student of Ben Graham has a very simple advice for non-professional investors: \"\"Put 10% of the cash in short-term government bonds and 90% in a very low-cost S&P 500 index fund. (I suggest Vanguard’s.)\"\" This quote is from his 2013 letter to shareholders. Source: http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/2013ltr.pdf Buffet's annual letters to shareholders are the wealth of useful and practical wisdom for building one's financial future. The logic behind his advice is that most investors cannot consistently pick stock \"\"winners\"\", additionally, they are not able to predict timing of the market; hence, one has to simply stay in the market, and win over in the long run.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eb3edd01ffe10ab7f4564f86141ff5e3",
"text": "\"You need to track all of your expenses first, inventarize all of your assets and liabilities, and set financial goals. For example, you need to know your average monthly expenses and exactly what percentages interest each loan charges, and you need to know what to save for (your children, retirement, large purchases, etc). Then you create an emergency fund: keep between 4 to 6 months worth of your monthly expenses in a savings account that you can readily access. Base the size of your emergency fund on your expenses rather than your salary. This also means its size changes over time, for example, it must increase once you have children. You then pay off your loans, starting with the loan charging the highest interest. You do this because e.g. paying off $X of a 7% loan is equivalent to investing $X and getting a guaranteed 7% return. The stock market does generally does not provide guarantees. Starting with the highest interest first is mathematically the most rewarding strategy in the long run. It is not a priori clear whether you should pay off all loans as fast as possible, particularly those with low interest rates, and the mortgage. You need to read up on the subject in order to make an informed decision, this would be too personal advice for us to give. After you've created that emergency fund, and paid of all high interest loans, you can consider investing in vessels that achieve your set financial goals. For example, since you are thinking of having children within five years, you might wish to save for college education. That implies immediately that you should pick an investment vessels that is available after 20 year or so and does not carry too much risk (e.g. perhaps bonds or deposits). These are a few basic advices, and I would recommend to look further on the internet and perhaps read a book on the topic of \"\"personal finance\"\".\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cae39c5b0872f5074bc5027490eb1da5",
"text": "Given that you are starting with a relatively small amount, you want a decent interest rate, and you want flexibility, I would consider fixed deposit laddering strategy. Let's say you have ₹15,000 to start with. Split this in to three components: Purchase all of the above at the same time. 30 days later, you will have the first FD mature. If you need this money, you use it. If you don't need it, purchase another 90-day fixed deposit. If you keep going this way, you will have a deposit mature every 30 days and can choose to use it or renew the fixed deposit. This strategy has some disadvantages to consider: As for interest rates, the length of the fixed deposit in positively related to the interest rate. If you want higher interest rates, elect for longer fixed deposit cycles.For instance, when you become more confident about your financial situation, replace the 30, 60, 90 day cycle with a 6, 12, 18 month cycle The cost of maintaining the short term deposit renewals and new purchases. If your bank does not allow such transactions through on line banking, you might spend more time than you like at a bank or on the phone with the bank You want a monthly dividend but this might not be the case with fixed deposits. It depends on your bank but I believe most Indian banks pay interest every three months",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "30feb5a4ba881b67248e3400ceb0ad70",
"text": "\"What a lovely position to find yourself in! There's a lot of doors open to you now that may not have opened naturally for another decade. If I were in your shoes (benefiting from the hindsight of being 35 now) at 21 I'd look to do the following two things before doing anything else: 1- Put 6 months worth of living expenses in to a savings account - a rainy day fund. 2- If you have a pension, I'd be contributing enough of my salary to get the company match. Then I'd top up that figure to 15% of gross salary into Stocks & Shares ISAs - with a view to them also being retirement funds. Now for what to do with the rest... Some thoughts first... House: - If you don't want to live in it just yet, I'd think twice about buying. You wouldn't want a house to limit your career mobility. Or prove to not fit your lifestyle within 2 years, costing you money to move on. Travel: - Spending it all on travel would be excessive. Impromptu travel tends to be more interesting on a lower budget. That is, meeting people backpacking and riding trains and buses. Putting a resonable amount in an account to act as a natural budget for this might be wise. Wealth Managers: \"\"approx. 12% gain over 6 years so far\"\" equates to about 1.9% annual return. Not even beat inflation over that period - so guessing they had it in ultra-safe \"\"cash\"\" (a guaranteed way to lose money over the long term). Give them the money to 'look after' again? I'd sooner do it myself with a selection of low-cost vehicles and equal or beat their return with far lower costs. DECISIONS: A) If you decided not to use the money for big purchases for at least 4-5 years, then you could look to invest it in equities. As you mentioned, a broad basket of high-yielding shares would allow you to get an income and give opportunity for capital growth. -- The yield income could be used for your travel costs. -- Over a few years, you could fill your ISA allowance and realise any capital gains to stay under the annual exemption. Over 4 years or so, it'd all be tax-free. B) If you do want to get a property sooner, then the best bet would to seek out the best interest rates. Current accounts, fixed rate accounts, etc are offering the best interest rates at the moment. Usual places like MoneySavingExpert and SavingsChampion would help you identify them. -- There's nothing wrong with sitting on this money for a couple of years whilst you fid your way with it. It mightn't earn much but you'd likely keep pace with inflation. And you definitely wouldn't lose it or risk it unnecessarily. C) If you wanted to diversify your investment, you could look to buy-to-let (as the other post suggested). This would require a 25% deposit and likely would cost 10% of rental income to have it managed for you. There's room for the property to rise in value and the rent should cover a mortgage. But it may come with the headache of poor tenants or periods of emptiness - so it's not the buy-and-forget that many people assume. With some effort though, it may provide the best route to making the most of the money. D) Some mixture of all of the above at different stages... Your money, your choices. And a valid choice would be to sit on the cash until you learn more about your options and feel the direction your heart is pointing you. Hope that helps. I'm happy to elaborate if you wish. Chris.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5390f71696cf24ff56cc70ff71c024be",
"text": "Well, a couple things to keep in mind: Even if you have enough to meet the minimum initial amount, you need to have at least that much income in the year you make the contribution. You'll probably be best served saving up in a savings account so that by the time you have an income (and can thus make contributions), you have enough cash to meet the minimum initial contribution.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8f1640e23ad8d51220d1245790777b31",
"text": "First, congratulations on even thinking about investing while you are still young! Before you start investing, I'd suggest you pay off your cc balance if you have any. The logic is simple: if you invest and make say 8% in the market but keep paying 14% on your cc balance, you aren't really saving. Have a good supply of emergency fund that is liquid (high yielding savings bank like a credit union. I can recommend Alliant). Start small with investing. Educate yourself on the markets before getting in. Ignorance can be expensive. Learn about IRA (opening an IRA and investing in the markets have (good)tax implications. I didn't do this when I was young and I regret that now) Learn what is 'wash sales' and 'tax loss harvesting' before putting money in the market. Don't start out by investing in individual stocks. Learn about indexing. What I've give you are pointers. Google (shameless plug: you can read my blog, where I do touch upon most of these topics) for the terms I've mentioned. That'll steer you in the right direction. Good luck and stay prosperous!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "95bb327dabf621795a92207ce1106bb2",
"text": "This post has been wrote in 2014, so if you read this text be aware. At the time, and since France does tax a lot investment, I'd suggest you start a PEA and filling in using the lazy investment portfolio. That means buying European and/or French ETFs & index, and hold them as long as you can. You can fill your PEA (Plan d'Epargne en Action) up to 150.000€ for a period of at least 8 years as long as you fill it with European and French stocks. After the period of 8 years your profit is taxed at only mere 15%, instead of the 33% you see in a raw broker account. Since you are young, I think a 100% stocks is something you can hold on. If you can't sleep at night with 100% stocks, take some bonds up to 25%, even more. Anyway, the younger you start investing, the more ahead you may eventually go.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
a9618c1f8c08a27eef43fbe40933b837
|
How do I build wealth?
|
[
{
"docid": "d88ea6d3db2934d532c3712b7aab4397",
"text": "Another possibility is that a lot of it is bought using borrowed money. Especially if much of your own money is in the stock market, it may be beneficial to take out a loan to buy something compared to selling other assets to raise the same amount of cash. Even going by the likely relatively conservative £200K/year before taxes, you are looking at a very nice house going for perhaps around 3-5 years' worth of pre-tax income. Let's say you have good contacts at the bank and can secure a loan for £500K at 3.5% interest (not at all unreasonable if you make half that before taxes in a single year and purchase something that can be used as collateral for the money borrowed; with a bit of negotiating, I wouldn't be surprised if one could push the interest rate even lower, and stock in a publicly traded company can also trivially be used as collateral). That's less than £1500/month in interest, before any applicable tax effects -- less than 10% of the before-tax income. And like @Victor wrote, I think it's reasonable to say that especially if the company is publicly traded, the CEO makes more than £200K/year. Given an income of £200K/year and assuming 30% taxes on that amount (the marginal tax would likely be higher, and this includes e.g. interest expense deductions), the money left over after taxes and interest payments on a £500K 3.5% debt is still about £10K/month. Even with a pretty rapid amortization schedule and even if the actual tax rate is higher, that leaves quite a bit of money to be socked away in savings and other investments.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7c6f3549be214f03c742df273784cdee",
"text": "Share options. If you get options on £200,000-worth of a company and then its share price increases five-fold then you make £800,000, which is often taxed more favourably than salary.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3a8684858339cf2b2fcef9ec073368bd",
"text": "\"As others have stated, CEO's often make more than 200K, and when they do, they're compensated with stock options and other lucrative bonuses and deals that allow them to build wealth above and beyond the face value of their salary. However, remember that having wealth makes it easier to build further wealth. As Victor pointed out, having wealth allows you to increase your wealth in different kinds of investments. Also, it gives you access to more human capital, e.g. wealth management services at firms like Northern Trust, a greater ability to diversify into investments like hedge funds, more abilities to invest abroad through foreign trusts, etc. Also, you have to realize that wealthier people often pay a lower percentage in taxes than people who earn a salary. In the US, long-term capital gains are taxed at a much lower rate than income, so wealthy individuals who earn much of their money from long-term investments won't pay nearly as high a rate. In my case, my current salary places me at the top of the 25% tax bracket (in the US), but if I earned all of my income through long-term capital gains instead of salary, I would only pay around 15-20% in taxes. Plus, I could afford numerous tax accounting firms to help me find ways to pay fewer taxes. It's not altruism that causes CEOs like Steve Jobs and Mark Zuckerberg to take a $1 salary. This isn't directly related to CEOs, and I'm not leveling accusations of corruption against high net worth individuals, but I remember spending a few months in a small town in a country known for its corruption. The mayor had recently purchased a home worth the equivalent of several million dollars, on his annual civil servant salary of approximately $20K. One of the students asked him how he managed to afford such a sizable property, and he replied \"\"I live very frugally.\"\" This is probably a relatively rare case (I'm sure it depends on the country), but nevertheless, it illustrates another way that some people build wealth.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "88ab9f9eb83e88b5b691d94aa1f7100e",
"text": "Many CEOs I have heard of earn a lot more than 200k. In fact a lot earn more than 1M and then get bonuses as well. Many wealthy people increase there wealth by investing in property, the stock market, businesses and other assets that will produce them good capital growth. Oh yeh, and luck usually has very little to do with their success.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0d4cdd04f8a72d8845bcb0ccb5f675ec",
"text": "\"You got some answers that essentially inform you that CEOs that have £200k written on their paysheet may in fact get much more. I'll take the opposite point of view and talk about people who (according to whatever definition) have a £200k/year income. How can they afford it Guess no 1: not all of them can (in the sense that it is quite possible to end up with negative net worth at £200k/year income - particularly if you immediately want to show off with brand new luxury cars, luxury holidays and a large house in a very representative region). Guess no 2: not all of the £200k/year CEOs are equally visible. There is a trade-off between going for wealth, large house, and luxury car. I deliberately ordered the three points according to increased display of \"\"wealth\"\". However, display of wealth usually comes at a cost (in a very monetary sense). And there are ways to get much display without having much wealth (see below: lease the car, also the mortgage on the house usually isn't displayed on the outside). You also need to take into account how long they are already building up wealth. I guess the typical CEO with £200k/year you're asking about did not just finish school and enter his work life in this position. It would be very interesting to see how income, accumulating wealth (and possibly \"\"displayed wealth\"\") correlate. My guess is that the correlation between income and accumulated wealth isn't that high, and the correlation between displayed and actual wealth is probably even lower. they possess luxury cars, large house and huge savings Are you sure these are the same managers? E.g. the ones with the huge savings are and the ones with the luxury cars? I'm asking particularly about the luxury cars, because such cars loose value very quickly and/or are often not owned by the driver but rather by the bank or leasing company. Which on the other hand offers the more savings-oriented CEO who is not that much interested in having a brand new luxury car the possibility to go for a one-year-old and save the rest. Knowing that, your CEO should be able to buy a one-year-old Mercedes SL 350 / year. Or a new one every 1 1/2 years (without building up savings or buying a house). However, building up wealth will be much faster with the CEO going for the one-year-old as the brand-new car option amounts to loosing ca. £20 - 30k within a year. An even-more-savings-oriented CEO who keeps his existing Mercedes 300 TD for another few years, thinking that this conservative choice of car will be trust-inspiring to the customers. Or goes for the SLK thinking that most people anyways don't know that the K between SL and SLK halves the price... However, if you just want to be seen with the car: after an initial payment of say £8-10k, you can get a decent SLK 350 (not the base model, either) at a monthly rate of ca. 600£/month or less than £7k/year. Note however, that this money does not count towards any kind of wealth, it's just renting a nice car. In other words: If driving the SLK 350 is your absolute goal, you could in theory have that with a net salary of £25k/year (according to your tax calculation, that should be somewhere around £35k / year gross), if you have the savings for the initial payment (being able to make the initial payment may also help convincin the leasing company that you're serious about it and able to pay your rates). There are also huge differences in value between large houses, compare e.g. these 2: And, last but not least, there is a decided one-way component in the timing of priorities here: it is much easier to go and get a luxury car when you have savings than first going for the luxury car and then trying to make up with the savings... I forgot to answer the question in the caption of your question: How do I build wealth By going on to live as if your income were only £50k (as far as that is compatible with your job) - I gather the median gross income in the UK is about £30k, so aiming at £50k leaves you a very comfortable budget for luxury spending. If you want to build up wealth faster, adjust that. In general, if you can manage to withhold much of any income increase from spending, that will help (trivial but powerful truth). From the leasing calculation you can conclude that you basically have no chance to show off your wealth by luxury cars. That is, you'd need to go for luxury cars that are completely incompatible with with building if you want to show your built up wealth by the car: there are too many people who even destroy their existing wealth in order to display luxury. At least if anyone is around who has either a correct idea what luxury cars cost (or don't cost) or will look that up in the internet. Also, people who know such things may also have the idea that the probability that such a car was downright paid (wealth) is small compared to the probability of meeting a leased or (mortgaged) car. Which means, the plan to show off doesn't work out that well with the people you'd want to impress. As for the other people: just a bit of display you can get far cheaper: If you really want to drive the SLK, rent it for an occasion (weekend) rather than for years. I met a sales manager who told me which rental cars they get when important customers from far east are visiting. The rest of the year they drive normal business cars. You may want to choose a rental company that doesn't write their name on the license plate. Apply the same ideas to the decision of buying a house. Think about what you want for yourself, and then look where you can get how much of that for how much money. Oh, and by the way: if I understand correctly, the average UK CEO wage is £120k, not £200k.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5e3c2bf5082767d139d12ff84390b311",
"text": "CEOs are compensated with stocks and options on top of their salary. Most is in the form of stocks and options. You may see them with a fancy car, but they don't necessarily possess the car, house, etc. They merely control it, which is nearly as good. You may lease it, or time share it. It might be owned by the company and provided as a perk. To earn a million, there are 4 ways: a job, self-employed, own a business, and invest. The fastest way is to own a business. The slowest way is a job or self-employed. Investing is medium. To learn more, read Rich Dad's Cashflow Quadrants.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "81dc5a3ab1f76785932744c1f2a511a9",
"text": "\"I get the sense that this is a \"\"the world is unfair; there's no way I can succeed\"\" question, so let's back up a few steps. Income is the starting point to all of this. That could be a job (or jobs), or running your own business. From there, you can do four things with your income: Obviously Spend and Give do not provide a monetary return - they give a return in other ways, such as quality of life, helping others, etc. Save gives you reserves for future expenses, but it does not provide growth. So that just leaves Invest. You seem to be focused on stock market investments, which you are right, take a very long time to grow, although you can get returns of up to 12% depending on how much volatility you're willing to absorb. But there are other ways to invest. You can invest in yourself by getting a degree or other training to improve your income. You can invest by starting a business, which can dramatically increase your income (in fact, this is the most common path to \"\"millionaire\"\" in the US, and probably in other free markets). You can invest by growing your own existing business. You can invest in someone else's business. You can invest in real estate, that can provide both value appreciation and rental income. So yes, \"\"investment\"\" is a key aspect of wealth building, but it is not limited to just stock market investment. You can also look at reducing expenses in order to have more money to invest. Also keep in mind that investment with higher returns come with higher risk (both in terms of volatility and risk of complete loss), and that borrowing money to invest is almost always unwise, since the interest paid directly reduces the return without reducing the risk.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d696be3accd2d8bed9b97bb58476c7ae",
"text": "Don't be too scared of investing in the market. It has ups and downs, but over the long haul you make money in it. You can't jump in and out, just consistently add money to investments that you 1) understand and 2) trust. When I say understand, what I mean is you can follow how the money is generated, either because a company sells products, a government promises to pay back the bond, or compounding interest makes sense. You don't need to worry about the day to day details, but if you don't understand how the money is made, it isn't transparent enough and a danger could be afoot. Here are some basic rules I try (!) to follow The biggest trick is to invest what you can, and do so consistently. You can build wealth by earning more and spending less. I personally find spending less a lot easier, but earning more is pretty easy with some simple investment tools.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "164f357b28487a92dd220457fa1bda24",
"text": "\"I tell you how I started as an investor: read the writings of probably the best investor of the history and become familiarized with it: Warren Buffett. I highly recommend \"\"The Essays of Warren Buffett\"\", where he provides a wise insight on how a company generates value, and his investment philosophy. You won't regret it! And also, specially in finance, don't follow the advice from people that you don't know, like me.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "990d7cea7a0d872a8b50cca148e7d234",
"text": "\"This is a common and good game-plan to learn valuable life skills and build a supplemental income. Eventually, it could become a primary income, and your strategic risk is overall relatively low. If you are diligent and patient, you are likely to succeed, but at a rate that is so slow that the primary beneficiaries of your efforts may be your children and their children. Which is good! It is a bad gameplan for building an \"\"empire.\"\" Why? Because you are not the first person in your town with this idea. Probably not even the first person on the block. And among those people, some will be willing to take far more extravagant risks. Some will be better capitalized to begin with. Some will have institutional history with the market along with all the access and insider information that comes with it. As far as we know, you have none of that. Any market condition that yields a profit for you in this space, will yield a larger one for them. In a downturn, they will be able to absorb larger losses than you. So, if your approach is to build an empire, you need to take on a considerably riskier approach, engage with the market in a more direct and time-consuming way, and be prepared to deal with the consequences if those risks play out the wrong way.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "438b91c98be455e4df5330943498f0be",
"text": "You mean in response to OP? Investors should buy physical gold and silver, and wait out the storm. The US Bond market is negative when you factor in inflation, that's a bubble that's going to burst eventually. Riding the gold horse will keep you high and dry. But if you mean in response to Fearan? I would say that the way to reduce income inequality is to stop all the market distortions and malinvestment due to regulations. The countries with the most income disparity are the ones with the most regulations.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "69cbc69ac62683bd3f6e8483896dcb81",
"text": "\"You can't get started investing. There are preliminary steps that must be taken prior to beginning to invest: Only once these things are complete can you think about investing. Doing so before hand will only likely lose money in the long run. Figure these steps will take about 2.5 years. So you are 2.5 years from investing. Read now: The Total Money Makeover. It is full of inspiring stories of people that were able to turn things around financially. This is good because it is easy to get discouraged and believe all kind of toxic beliefs about money: The little guy can't get ahead, I always will have a car payment, Its too late, etc... They are all false. Part of the book's resources are budgeting forms and hints on budgeting. Read later: John Bogle on Investing and Bogle on Mutual Funds One additional Item: About you calling yourself a \"\"dummy\"\". Building personal wealth is less about knowledge and more about behavior. The reason you don't have a positive net worth is because of how you behaved, not knowledge. Even sticking a small amount in a savings account each paycheck and not spending it would have allowed you to have a positive net worth at this point in your life. Only by changing behavior can you start to build wealth, investing is only a small component.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a5b7a01c6f647e9a59ef22f7f031ff54",
"text": "If you are looking to build wealth, leasing is a bad idea. But so is buying a new car. All cars lose value once you buy them. New cars lose anywhere between 30-60% of their value in the first 4 years of ownership. Buying a good quality, used car is the way to go if you are looking to build wealth. And keeping the car for a while is also desirable. Re-leasing every three years is no way to build wealth. The American Car Payment is probably the biggest factor holding many people back from building wealth. Don't fall into the trap - buy a used car and drive it for as long as you can until the maintenance gets too pricey. Then upgrade to a better used car, etc. If you cannot buy a car outright with cash, you cannot afford it. Period.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3799199cc1a37a3e5988e37f91eb8788",
"text": "\"Well... (in the US, at least) \"\"making investments and building assets\"\" is how you save for retirement. The investments just happen to be in the stock market, and the federal legislature has directed the US version of Inland Revenue Services to give special tax breaks to investments which are not withdrawn until age 59 1/2. I don't know if there are such tax breaks in Pakistan, or what the stock market is like there, so I'm presuming that by saying, \"\"building lucrative assets\"\", your father is referring to buying real estate and/or becoming a trader. Anyway, it's a good thing that you are looking so far ahead in life instead of only thinking of fast cars and pretty girls.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0e184c0cd8d3f7bc4dcbd439d32568f5",
"text": "I realize you're probably looking for methods on the large scale. However, I sell a lot of homes to wealth advisers and was always curious about how they consistently pull in business. The obvious answer is networking, then word of mouth. Do right by your clients and they'll brag to their equally high networth friends. One buddy of mine spends a lot of time taking his clients (and their friends) out to dinners, golfing, and mini-vacations. Surprise, surprise, those friends become clients too. Rinse and repeat. Other than that, hang out at high end bars and other places higher networth people in their 30's and 40's would hang out. Then ABC.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a8c45dfb0a3b8c673dc945c612a14c60",
"text": "In addition to Rocky's answer, and IF you have already saved an adequate emergency fund, then best way to increase your wealth (not your income) is to invest your extra money. If you have no extra money then you need to lower your expenses or work towards getting better income. They aren't really any tricks to this, but there are some tips that may help:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "08b36956c1393a520c26e6e1678bc54b",
"text": "Thanks for including a summary for lurkers in your comment. I didn't realize how quickly I was responding, and I did not know you edited. I appreciate you not letting me look ridiculous to browsers. To change course a little bit, I'd like to talk to the idea that if successful people deserve success, unsuccessful people must deserve their lot also. Outside of money, the biggest thing I think we will leave to our kids is what we have learned about money, nutrition, health, and social interaction. Nothing we know is secret knowledge, but at the same time these are fields that are not taught to competence in school, and plenty of hucksters advertise nonsense that make it difficult to quickly learn what makes sense. If you're a 25 year old guy making 35-40k, and you eat at subway because it is endorsed by the American heart association and you assume it's healthy, and you spend 30% of your pre tax income on a house because your mortgage broker said that's normal and your financial advisor said houses are assets, and you buy what you like on credit cards and pay monthly minimums, and you take out an auto lease or a 6 year loan on a purchase to keep payments low, and you diversify what little you have left into mutual funds and bonds, you are doing two things - you are acting like a totally responsible young adult according to societal norms and people who are supposed to give you advice, and you are totally fucking yourself. You are burdening yourself with debt, you aren't investing in yourself, you're neutering your money's ability to help you live a life you actually want to live, and you are shackling yourself to monthly payments that limit your ability to make choices about what you want and how you want to live. Is that your fault? You followed common wisdom and your trusted advisors. Unless you happen to see a different way, or someone comes along and tells you otherwise, you may never know what opportunities you could've had. I'll even concede that having the opportunity to think differently may be luck. But here is where I have a point of contention. What if you've concluded generational wealth is simply luck by the time you have someone try to show you differently? You may dismiss your opportunity as bullshit, and remained trapped in the standard American day to day wage/debt slavery. This is why I hate these semantics so much - I think they rob people of their opportunities.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bf1771fdc7d94d39168a44bfe92006e8",
"text": "It is one thing to take the advice of some numb-skulls on a web site, it is another thing to take the advice of someone who is really wealthy. For myself, I enjoy a very low interest rate (less than 3%) and am aggressively paying down my mortgage. One night I was contemplating slowing that down, and even the possibility of borrowing more to purchase another rental property. I went to bed and picked up Kevin O'Leary's book(Cold Hard Truth On Men, Women, and Money: 50 Common Money Mistakes and How to Fix Them), which I happened to be reading at the time. The first line I read, went something like: The best investment anyone can make is to pay off their mortgage early. He then did some math with the assumption that the person was making a 3% mortgage payment. Any conflicting advice has to be weighted against what Mr. O'Leary has accomplished in his life. Mark Cuban also has a similar view on debt. From what I heard, 70% of the Forbes richest list would claim that getting out of debt is a critical step to wealth building. My plan is to do that, pay off my home in about 33 (September '16) more weeks and see where I can go from there.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "80fbe8a7696a020cf9b413b76c940fb9",
"text": "1. Read history (Money of the Mind, Lords of Finance, bios of volker/greenspan, Against the Gods, Monetary History of the US, Citibank 1812-1970, If There Were No Losses, Technological Revolutions and Financial Capital) 2. Learn Python 3. Take accounting classes 4. Learn about whatever interests you and figure out how to build a thesis around it. Don't forget step 1.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "adcb7cb80bc15e69a3f853fbeb045fd2",
"text": "Even with a good investment strategy, you cannot expect more than 8-10% per year in average. Reducing this by a 3% inflation ratio leaves you with 5 - 7%, which means 15k$ - 21k$. Consider seriously if you could live from that amount as annual income, longterm. If you think so, there is a second hurdle - the words in average. A good year could increase your capital a bit, but a bad year can devastate it, and you would not have the time to wait for the good years to average it out. For example, if your second year gives you a 10% loss, and you still draw 15k$ (and inflation eats another 3%), you have only 247k$ left effectively, and future years will have to go with 12k$ - 17k$. Imagine a second bad year. As a consequence, you either need to be prepared to go back to work in that situation (tough after being without job for years), or you can live on less to begin with: if you can make it on 10k$ to begin with (and do, even in good years), you have a pretty good chance to get through your life with it. Note that 'make it with x' always includes taxes, health care, etc. - nothing is free. I think it's possible, as people live on 10k$ a year. But you need to be sure you can trust yourself to stay within the limit and not give in and spent more - not easy for many people.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0fe9d39e7b405c0ae005431e91c3633b",
"text": "\"You don't seem to understand wealth. It's not money, really. Wealth is more good stuff to people. It really doesn't matter how it's distributed for it to be wealth. If you just give poor people money, you might actually improve things, like lobotomia might improve brains. Mix it, and it might settle in better order. The economy \"\"grows\"\" because people get more good stuff done than they consume. If you pay people for doing nothing in massive scale, you're just making them consume, but not to make any good stuff. They probably spend the money on something that will make more good stuff to people, that's true. And that's the reason why you might get a way with one time lobotomia, but it's terrible if you are competing with countries who don't do missteps, and every expense they do increases the economy in itself + the effect above. How you should give money away? As an investment to a company that is making a new conquer. Jobs, goods and more competition, all good.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
e08569d3193f11bd91ecbff9d4cd926d
|
How will interest rate changes affect my government bonds ETF?
|
[
{
"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": "2d0a6244ee92298c6ccc80895748690c",
"text": "Lowering of the US credit rating would affect all US bonds. Some institutional investments are required to invest in securities with a certain credit rating (i.e. money markets and some low risk mutual funds). If the credit rating is lowered these institutions would be required to dump their US bond holdings. This could have a serious affect on bond prices. The lower bond prices would drive up yields. If the US credit rating was lowered after you purchased TIPS then the price you could sell your TIPS for would most probably be lower then what you bought them. You would lose money. All US bonds, including TIPS, would be affected by a lower credit rating since the credit rating is suppose to indicate the borrower's ability to repay the debt. This is independent of inflation. TIPS provide no additional benefit over regular bonds in regard to credit rating.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "39d088a91a2089dc380ac875eee0e4b4",
"text": "The Fed sets the overnight borrowing costs by setting its overnight target rate. The markets determine the rates at which the treasury can borrow through the issuance of bonds. The Fed's actions will certainly influence the price of very short term bonds, but the Fed's influence on anything other than very short term bonds in the current environment is very muted. Currently, the most influential factor keeping bond prices high and yields low is the high demand for US treasuries coming from overseas governments and institutions. This is being caused by two factors : sluggish growth in overseas economies and the ongoing strength of the US dollar. With many European government bonds offering negative redemption yields, income investors see US yields as relatively attractive. Those non-US economies which do not have negative bond yields either have near zero yields or large currency risks or both. Political issues such as the survival of the Euro also weigh heavily on market perceptions of the current attractiveness of the US dollar. Italian banks may be about to deliver a shock to the Eurozone, and the Spanish and French banks may not be far behind. Another factor is the continued threat of deflation. Growth is slowing around the world which negatively effects demand. Commodity prices remain depressed. Low growth and recession outside of the US translate into a prolonged period of near zero interest rates elsewhere together with renewed QE programmes in Europe, Japan, and possibly elsewhere. This makes the US look relatively attractive and so there is huge demand for US dollars and bonds. Any significant move in US interest rates risks driving to dollar ever higher which would be very negative for the future earning of US companies which rely on exports and foreign income. All of this makes the market believe that the Fed's hands are tied and low bond yields are here for the foreseeable future. Of course, even in the US growth is relatively slow and vulnerable to a loss of steam following a move in interest rates.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3f97d35bd94c664205c2929914af3cc9",
"text": "Stocks, gold, commodities, and physical real estate will not be affected by currency changes, regardless of whether those changes are fast or slow. All bonds except those that are indexed to inflation will be demolished by sudden, unexpected devaluation. Notice: The above is true if devaluation is the only thing going on but this will not be the case. Unfortunately, if the currency devalued rapidly it would be because something else is happening in the economy or government. How these asset values are affected by that other thing would depend on what the other thing is. In other words, you must tell us what you think will cause devaluation, then we can guess how it might affect stock, real estate, and commodity prices.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "09341e6010c64a265197ec01f49e1ee6",
"text": "As no one has mentioned them I will... The US Treasury issues at least two forms of bonds that tend to always pay some interest even when prevailing rates are zero or negative. The two that I know of are TIPS and I series bonds. Below are links to the descriptions of these bonds: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/indiv/research/indepth/tips/res_tips.htm http://www.treasurydirect.gov/indiv/research/indepth/ibonds/res_ibonds.htm",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9925f51cfc0dc10df8dbc5d97d0bb110",
"text": "\"The bond funds should tell you their duration. My 401(k) has similar choices, and right now, I'm at the short maturity, i.e. under 1 year. The current return is awful, but better than the drop the longer term funds will experience as rates come back up. Not quite mathematically correct, but close enough, \"\"duration\"\" gives you the time-weighted average maturity in a way that tells you how the value responds to a rate change. If a fund has a 10 year duration, a .1% rate rise will cause the fund value to drop 1.0%.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a18872eb383c3f4a1921c01e55538b4c",
"text": "\"I don't have experience with TSP in particular, but they look to be roughly the same as 401(k) loans. If the \"\"G Fund rate\"\" is equal to the yield of government bonds, then your main risk is the risk that yields increase, which means the interest you're paying is less than what you would have earned on the investments. Here are some other things to consider: For any car loan, I would borrow as little as possible with as short a term as possible. To me, the interest savings and additional risks from borrowing from your retirement isn't worth it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3ab2573cad4bde03574e290f5e8ed6ac",
"text": "\"I think this is a good question with no single right answer. For a conservative investor, possible responses to low rates would be: Probably the best response is somewhere in the middle: consider riskier investments for a part of your portfolio, but still hold on to some cash, and in any case do not expect great results in a bad economy. For a more detailed analysis, let's consider the three main asset classes of cash, bonds, and stocks, and how they might preform in a low-interest-rate environment. (By \"\"stocks\"\" I really mean mutual funds that invest in a diversified mixture of stocks, rather than individual stocks, which would be even riskier. You can use mutual funds for bonds too, although diversification is not important for government bonds.) Cash. Advantages: Safe in the short term. Available on short notice for emergencies. Disadvantages: Low returns, and possibly inflation (although you retain the flexibility to move to other investments if inflation increases.) Bonds. Advantages: Somewhat higher returns than cash. Disadvantages: Returns are still rather low, and more vulnerable to inflation. Also the market price will drop temporarily if rates rise. Stocks. Advantages: Better at preserving your purchasing power against inflation in the long term (20 years or more, say.) Returns are likely to be higher than stocks or bonds on average. Disadvantages: Price can fluctuate a lot in the short-to-medium term. Also, expected returns are still less than they would be in better economic times. Although the low rates may change the question a little, the most important thing for an investor is still to be familiar with these basic asset classes. Note that the best risk-adjusted reward might be attained by some mixture of the three.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6e4bbd3e7d72c51119d1690928f018d4",
"text": "\"The federal funds rate is one of the risk-free short-term rates in the economy. We often think of fixed income securities as paying this rate plus some premia associated with risk. For a treasury security, we can think this way: (interest rate) = (fed funds rate) + (term premium) The term premium is a bit extra the bond pays because if you hold a long term bond, you are exposed to interest rate risk, which is the risk that rates will generally rise after you buy, making your bond worth less. The relation is more complex if people have expectations of future rate moves, but this is the general idea. Anyway, generally speaking, longer term bonds are exposed to more interest rate risk, so they pay more, on average. For a corporate bond, we think this way: (interest rate) = (fed funds rate) + (term premium) + (default premium) where the default premium is some extra that the bond must pay to compensate the holder for default risk, which is the risk that the bond defaults or loses value as the company's prospects fall. You can see that corporate and government bonds are affected the same way (approximately, this is all hand-waving) by changes in the fed funds rate. Now, that all refers to the rates on new bonds. After a bond is issued, its value falls if rates rise because new bonds are relatively more attractive. Its value rises if rates on new bonds falls. So if there is an unexpected rise in the fed funds rate and you are holding a bond, you will be sad, especially if it is a long term bond (doesn't matter if it's corporate or government). Ask yourself, though, whether an increase in fed funds will be unexpected at this point. If the increase was expected, it will already be priced in. Are you more of an expert than the folks on wall-street at predicting interest rate changes? If not, it might not make sense to make decisions based on your belief about where rates are going. Just saying. Brick points out that treasuries are tax advantaged. That is, you don't have to pay state income tax on them (but you do pay federal). If you live in a state where this is true, this may matter to you a little bit. They also pay unnaturally little because they are convenient for use as a cash substitute in transactions and margining (\"\"convenience yield\"\"). In general, treasuries just don't pay much. Young folk like you tend to buy corporate bonds instead, so they can make money on the default and term premia.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "56d7c92b9925e7c7aa27486ec83d0f9a",
"text": "Certainly, yes, a zero coupon bond can go down in price. If interest rates rise before your bond matures, the price of the bond will go down – and the longer to maturity, the more it will tend to drop. Depending on when you bought and how much interest rates rise, you can incur a capital loss. The bond is guaranteed to be worth a certain amount at maturity as long as the issuer hasn't defaulted, but before maturity the market price of the bond will fluctuate, primarily based on interest rate movements. In fact, zero coupon bonds are even more interest-rate-sensitive than regular bonds (which have periodic coupon interest payments.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7fd0e843fca80da2dcfa715ff3d71960",
"text": "The US Treasury is not directly/transactionally involved, but can affect the junk bond market by issuing new bonds when rates rise. Since US bonds are considered completely safe, changes in yield will affect low quality debt. For example, if rates rose to levels like 1980, a 12% treasury bond would drive the prices of junk bonds issued today dramatically lower. Another price factor is likelihood of default. Companies with junk credit ratings have lousy balance sheets, so negative economic conditions or tight short term debt markets can result in default for many of these companies. Whether bonds in a fund are new issues or purchased on the secondary market isn't something that is very relevant to the individual investor. The current interest rate environment is factored into the market already via prices of bonds.",
"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": "aae74310dcae02b5b9fd2ec4cda61752",
"text": "Can they change the weights? Yes. Will they? It depends. are ETF's fixed from their inception to their de-listing? It's actually not possible for weights to be fixed, since different assets have different returns. So the weights are constantly changing as long as the market is moving. Usually after a certain period or a substantial market move, fund managers would rebalance and bring the weights back to a certain target. The target weights - what your question is really about - aren't necessarily the same as the initial weights, but often times they are. It depends on the objective of the ETF (which is stated in prospectus). In your example, if the manager drops the weight of the most volatile one, the returns of the ETF and the 5 stocks could be substantially different in the next period. This is not desirable when the ETFs objective is to track performance of those 5 stocks. Most if not all ETFs are passively-managed. The managers don't get paid for active management. So they don't have incentive to adjust the weights if their funds are tracking the benchmarks just fine.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9870fc6c5cb390e8cbeca543fbef2f65",
"text": "Mortgage rates generally consist of two factors: The risk premium is relatively constant for a particular individual / house combination, so most of the changes in your mortgage rate will be associated with changes in the price of money in the world economy at large. Interest rates in the overall economy are usually tied to an interest rate called the Federal Funds rate. The Federal Reserve manipulates the federal funds rate by buying and/or selling bonds until the rate is something they like. So you can usually expect your interest rate to rise or fall depending on the policies of the Federal Reserve. You can predict this in a couple of ways: The way they have described their plans recently indicates that will keep interest rates low for an extended period of time - probably through 2014 or so - and they hope to keep inflation around 2%. Unless inflation is significantly more than 2% between now and then, they are extremely unlikely to change that plan. As such, you should probably not expect mortgage interest rates in general to change more than infinitesimally small amounts until 2014ish. Worry more about your credit score.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2aaca1bc531b6eef0e29db9a819bcf72",
"text": "Bonds can increase in price, if the demand is high and offer solid yield if the demand is low. For instance, Russian bond prices a year ago contracted big in price (ie: fell), but were paying 18% and made a solid buy. Now that the demand has risen, the price is up with the yield for those early investors the same, though newer investors are receiving less yield (about 9ish percent) and paying higher prices. I've rarely seen banks pay more variable interest than short term treasuries and the same holds true for long term CDs and long term treasuries. This isn't to say it's impossible, just rare. Also variable is different than a set term; if you buy a 10 year treasury at 18%, that means you get 18% for 10 years, even if interest rates fall four years later. Think about the people buying 30 year US treasuries during 1980-1985. Yowza. So if you have a very large amount of money you will store it in bonds as its much less likely that the US treasury will go bankrupt than your bank. Less likely? I don't know about your bank, but my bank doesn't owe $19 trillion.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2967b77ae227b3ece809a193dbd635fa",
"text": "\"The most fundamental observation of bond pricing is this: Bond price is inversely proportional to bond yields When bond yields rise, the price of the bond falls. When bond yields fall, the price of the bond rises. Higher rates are \"\"bad\"\" for bonds. If a selloff occurs in the Russian government bond space (i.e. prices are going down), the yield on that bond is going to increase as a consequence.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
54ba8742cbd1f28dc9f7a01b2284d0cf
|
Social Trading Platforms Basically Front Running?
|
[
{
"docid": "87c15b35aead6f8421b9d2b02a58d321",
"text": "I don't think you can really classify it as front running. Technically, the only information, that the alleged front runner in this case has over the followers is the knowledge of the trade itself. Knowledge of the trade may indeed be share price sensitive information (for some high volume traders or those respected and with many followers) but it's not really like they can't know about it before everyone else; parity isn't possible in this case. If an company/organisation (i.e. the social trading platform say) responsible for disseminating the details/log of a trader to a following (or individuals working for said company/organisation), were to act on the trading data before dissemination then THEY would be guilty of front running. The alleged front runner may profit from the following of course, but that's only really occurring due to the publication of information that is share price sensitive, and such information generally has to be published by law (if it is by law so classified) so it's difficult to find too much fault. There has to be a certain amount of consideration on the part of any trader as to who is more the fool, the fool or the fool that follows them?",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "40360b49e289a7118e858513501b2fb8",
"text": "I think this is off topic, but here is a stab: So these are cashless. It could be a way to smooth out the harsh reality of capitalism (I overproduced my product, I have more capacity than I can sell) and I can trade those good to other capitalists who similarly poorly planned production or capacity. Therefore the market for a system like is limited to businesses that do not plan well. Business that plan production or capacity to levels they can already sell for cash do not need a private system to offload goods. Alternatives to such a system include: (I don't know how many businesses are really in this over production / over capacity state. If my assumption that it isn't many is wrong, my answer is garbage.) This is a bartering system with a brokerage. I think we have historically found that common currencies create more trade and economic activity because the value of the note in your pocket, which is the same type of note in my pocket, is common and understood. Exchange rates typically slow down trade. (There are many other reasons to have different currency or notes on a global sale, but the exchange certainly is a hurdle to clear.) This brokerage is essentially adding a new currency (in a grand metaphor). And that new currency is only spendable on their brokerage, which is of limited use to society as a whole, assuming that society as a whole isn't a participating member of that brokerage. I can't really think of why this type of exchange is better than the current system we have now. I wouldn't invest in this as a business, or invest in this as a person looking for opportunity.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d1849bb66104f42c71b3be6293247b9f",
"text": "Is used cmc markets application (via my bank at the time) to gain leveraged exposure to the financial markets, with no tax payable as its classed as gambling. I am sure there are other websites/application offering the same. The results weren't particularly pretty for me, but the concept is sound imo.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "79571581336b183e5fa828207e97a2b2",
"text": "Lacking in any nuance as well... For a while, the trend has been that more generic / flow products are on the downswing for profitability (while some individual traders are still outliers), but the stuff that is not able to be commoditized is actually paying more in many cases. Essentially, follow the money, and look at more than the surface.",
"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": "5dd0a4166cb3aae35d11043336d007af",
"text": "Like I said, I absolutely believe and admit that there are people using ICOs as a vehicle for schemes. That said, there are also individuals like [Brendan Eich](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan_Eich) who are accomplished and trusted individuals participating in the market as well. Brendan is the creator of JavaScript and a cofounder of Mozilla. He also created the [Brave Web Broswe](https://brave.com/) and through that launched an ICO for his cryptocurrency, [Basic Attention Toke (BAT)](https://vimeo.com/209336437) whose ICO gathered [$35MM in under 30 seconds](https://www.coindesk.com/35-million-30-seconds-token-sale-internet-browser-brave-sells/). I want you to read that again: $35MM in 30 seconds given to a proven and renowned technologist who has been an important figure in shaping the web as we know it for him to cut out the middle men, banks, VCs, and everyone else and have the capital needed to focus on building and launching a new project. Is everyone Brendan Eich? Absolutely not, but it is important that a market like this exists so that the Brendan Eich's of the world can venture down these paths to accomplish great things, even if that means suffering through scams. Finally, on the subject of ICOs themselves: are ICOs a bubble? Maybe, but if and when it pops, it will simply clear the way for the value added projects. It is important to note that the majority of ICOs that take place are outside of the US and bar US citizens from participating. Additionally, the majority of project teams within the US that seek to issue an ICO through the proper legal channels are seeking legal counsel to help structure the deals, usually costing anywhere between $100-300K. To answer your question regarding subs, I would suggest following: • /r/CryptoCurrency • /r/ethereum • /r/btc • /r/Bitcoin These are good basic starting points that can help you learn abd branch out from there. Another great resource for news is [Coindesk](https://www.coindesk.com/). Hope this helps and I am happy to discuss further if needed.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eb0b1106505cc2f5eb4c597f84834d88",
"text": "With a short position you make your money (profit) when you buy the stocks back to close the position at a lower price than what you bought them at. As short selling is classed as speculation and not investing and you at no time own any actual assets, you cannot donate any short possition to charity. If you did want to avoid paying tax on the profits you could donate the proceeds of the profits after closing the position and thus get a tax deduction equal to the profits you made. But that raises a new and more important question, why are you trading in the first place if you are afraid to make profits in case you have to pay tax on those profits?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "82f557e3bc6679dec9faab7b6e58cc05",
"text": "Vanguard offers an index fund. Their FTSE Social Index Fund. For more information on it, go here.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "40828f57fcd22be1419564583875d92f",
"text": "There are rules that prevent two of the reactive measures you suggest from occurring. First, on the date of and shortly following an IPO, there is no stock available to borrow for shorting. Second, there are no put options available for purchase. At least, none that are listed, of the sort you probably have in mind. In fact, within a day or two of the LinkedIn IPO, most (all?) of the active equity traders I know were bemoaning the fact that they couldn't yet do exactly what you described i.e. buying puts, or finding shares to sell short. There was a great deal of conviction that LinkedIn shares were overpriced, but scant means available to translate that market assessment into an influence of market value. This does not mean that the Efficient Markets Hypothesis is deficient. Equilibrium is reached quickly enough, once the market is able to clear as usual.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5aab0cecae7099a71bdc68ccaebd454a",
"text": "\"http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/goldman0424.pdf \"\"At the heart of Goldman Sachs‘ sales and trading business is our role as a ―market maker.‖ As a market maker, the firm stands ready, willing and able to buy and sell financial instruments at the initiation of our clients. Goldman Sachs‘ clients expect the firm to do so, regardless of whether the other side of a transaction has been identified or is readily available. \"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "df0f4088f7b0566b209ff366f0393d2f",
"text": "Patrick Byrne (CEO of Overstock.com) ran a somewhat interesting website awhile back called 'Deep Capture' which focused heavily on naked short selling and bear raids. He was called all sorts of names and many 'serious' journalist types brushed his allegations off. His basic argument was that a cabal of hedge funds would simultaneously naked short a specific equity and then a coordinated group of journalists and message board jockeys would disparage the company as loudly and publicly as possible, driving the price down. Naked shorting is supposed to be illegal since you can hold the types of positions like in the linked article about Citigroup where the number of shares sold short actually exceeds the number of shares in existence. The group he named was essentially a who's who of hedge funds and fraudsters and included many names of prominent politically active 'reformed' criminals from the S&L days on Wall St. I can't remember how the cards fell, but the scheme allegedly involved Michael Milliken, Sam Antar (from Crazy Eddie's Fraud), Gary Weiss, Jim Cramer, etc etc. It was a fascinating story. Byrne actually followed through with several lawsuits (one of which was settled after a Rocker Partners paid Byrne $5 million dollars to settle). The 'Deep Capture' site is down, but I [found a decent article](http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/01/wikipedia_and_naked_shorting/print.html) that sums up some of the shenanigans, including a journalist sock-puppeting to edit Wikipedia, repeatedly denying it, being IP-traced to inside the DTCC building (the Wall St. entity responsible for clearing trades, including naked shorts).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "746fadc47e6606d3a1730a15c59391f2",
"text": "I just finished a high frequency trading project. Individuals can do it, but you need a lot of capital. You can get a managed server in Times Square for $1500/month, giving you access to 90% of the US exchanges that matter, their data farms are within 3 milliseconds of distance (latency). You can also get more servers in the same building as the exchanges, if you know where to look ;) thats all I can divulge good luck",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c5cc462f14c7eb5e444e024987746662",
"text": "\"Look at the Calvert Funds. They have a variety of \"\"socially responsible\"\" funds with published selection standards. Beware of mixing personal politics with business.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "520d48b13de1a346dc48497d0fcefbd6",
"text": "Which is what [flash trading](http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0809/flash-trading-wall-streets-latest-scam.aspx) is for. edit: I promise you, you could. You would just need a faster line. I promise that's why the NYSE banned it. However, that still doesn't mitigate the problem of creating your own exchange.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2e7fa2cff773fce251baa01ef94778ef",
"text": "We have custom software written in mostly C# for the long term strategies. Day trading is done on multiple platforms. Currently using ToS scripts for some futures and equities strategies to great success, and sierra charts for a few futures exclusively. I just moved into a position to work with day trading so I'm still learning more about the systems he uses",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a4e35b3720a8602853a14d101d241a70",
"text": "\"I personally think that this is how IPOs are going to work going forward. Company ownership trading will happen behind closed doors, then the hype is built in the limelight way above expectations, then the over valued IPO will drop allowing the backroom deal makers to cash out of the company, The problem isn't social networking, it is \"\"the next big thing\"\" mindset of Wall Street\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
fedcbb3fa9708663ea95269c93896bdf
|
Change In Cash and Cash Equivalents (cash flow) vs Cash And Cash Equivalents (balance sheet)
|
[
{
"docid": "9181a0442098d0d31d1e676242aa7daf",
"text": "\"tl;dr It's a difference between cash and cash equivalents and net cash and cash equivalents. Download the 2016 annual report from http://www.diageo.com/en-us/investor/Pages/financialreports.aspx On page 99 is the Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows at the bottom is a section \"\"Net cash and cash equivalents consist of:\"\" Net cash and cash equivalents consist of: 2016-06-30 2015-06-30 Cash and cash equivalents 1,089 472 Bank overdrafts (280) (90) 809 382 The difference between net cash of 809 million and 382 million is 427 million, matching the \"\"Change in Cash and Cash Equivalents\"\" from Yahoo. I do not know that bank overdrafts mean in this situation, but appears to cause cash to show up on balance sheet without being reflected in the net cash portions of the cash flow statement. And the numbers seem like balances, not year of year changes like the rest of the statement of cash flows. 2015 net CCE 382 2016 cash flow + 427 ---- 2016 net CCE 809 Cash from overdrafts + 280 ---- 2015 balance sheet cash 1,089\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "9a5f2fc0186a9439970d88423060556b",
"text": "I think I understand what I am doing wrong. To provide some clarity, I am trying to determine what the value of a project is to a firm. To do this I am taking FCF, not including interest or principal payments, and discounting back to get an NPV enterprise value. I then back off net debt to get to equity value. I believe what I am doing wrong is that I show that initial $50M as a cash outflow in period 0 and then back it off again when I go from enterprise value to equity value. Does this make any sense? Thanks for your help.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "79f1a5f67ed8cd607f935dae6a14f53f",
"text": "Not quite the usual DCF or valuation question, but more FP&A: any ideas how to bridge cash forecast to financial forecast? To clarify, financial forecast is mostly done on an accrual basis whereas cash is outflows and inflows. Trying to figure out how to have better visibility into cash discrepancies",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "41372fce8481716fd887860e6d3e94db",
"text": "The three places you want to focus on are the income statement, the balance sheet, and cash flow statement. The standard measure for multiple of income is the P/E or price earnings ratio For the balance sheet, the debt to equity or debt to capital (debt+equity) ratio. For cash generation, price to cash flow, or price to free cash flow. (The lower the better, all other things being equal, for all three ratios.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9dc01201aa4269618c5e42e2e8990c96",
"text": "Both are correct depending on what you are really trying to evaluate. If you only want to understand how that particular investment you were taking money in and out of did by itself than you would ignore the cash. You might use this if you were thinking of replacing that particular investment with another but keeping the in/out strategy. If you want to understand how the whole investment strategy worked (both the in/out motion and the choice of investment) than you would definitely want to include the cash component as that is necessary for the strategy and would be your final return if you implemented that strategy. As a side note, neither IRR or CAGR are not great ways to judge investment strategies as they have some odd timing issues and they don't take into account risk.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8ed7d0dd3883b4cfda3a827e5d994464",
"text": "\"The quickest way to approach this question is to first understand that it compares flows vs. levels. Market size is usually stated as an annual or other period figure, e.g. \"\"The market size of refrigerators will be $10mn in 2019.\"\" This is a flow figure. Market capitalization is a level figure at any given point in time, e.g. \"\"The market cap of the company was $20 million at the end of its last fiscal quarter.\"\" Confusion sometimes occurs when levels and flows are used loosely for comparisons. It is common for media to make statements such as \"\"Joe Billionaire is worth more than the GDP of Roselandia.\"\" That is comparing a current level (net worth) with an annual flow (GDP). With this in mind, there are a variety of conditions where a company's equity market value will exceed its market size. The most extreme example is an innovating, development-stage enterprise, say, a biotech company, developing a new market for a new product; the current market size may be nil while the enterprise is worth something greater. The primary reason however for situations where a company's equity market cap is greater than its market size is usually that the financial market expects the enterprise (and oftentimes its market, though this isn't necessary) to grow substantially over time and hence the discounted value of the company may be greater than the current or near future market size. A final example: US annual GDP (which comprises of much more than corporate incomes and profits) for 2014 was about $17.4tn while the nation's total equity market value in 2014 was $25.1tn, both according to the World Bank. That latter figure also doesn't include the trillions of corporate debts these companies have issued so the total market cap of US, Inc. is substantially greater than $25.1tn.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "134a2b54f8d2ddefd07691afbcb16bc6",
"text": "The short answer is that you would want to use the net inflow or net outflow, aka profit or loss. In my experience, you've got a couple different uses for IRR and that may be driving the confusion. Pretty much the same formula, but just coming at it from different angles. Thinking about a stock or mutual fund investment, you could project a scenario with an up-front investment (net outflow) in the first period and then positive returns (dividends, then final sale proceeds, each a net inflow) in subsequent periods. This is a model that more closely follows some of the logic you laid out. Thinking about a business project or investment, you tend to see more complicated and less smooth cashflows. For example, you may have a large up-front capital expenditure in the first period, then have net profit (revenue less ongoing maintenance expense), then another large capital outlay, and so on. In both cases you would want to base your analysis on the net inflow or net outflow in each period. It just depends on the complexity of the cashflows trend as to whether you see a straightforward example (initial payment, then ongoing net inflows), or a less straightforward example with both inflows and outflows. One other thing to note - you would only want to include those costs that are applicable to the project. So you would not want to include the cost of overhead that would exist even if you did not undertake the project.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "c1ec2f503515fb1319f3249a8f839a6f",
"text": "Accounting profits and cash flow are two different things. Say for example that I sell you a widget and you pay me today. I deliver the widget to you in February. In accounting terms, the revenue isn't recorded until Feb even though I have the cash in October. There's also a lot of non-cash items that affect accounting income (depreciation, amortization, etc.) In a small, growing company, cash is the most important thing. Many startups know what their burn rate (how much net cash their out flowing each month) and runway (how many months they can survive with their given burn rate until they are literally out of cash) more intimately than their accounting profit. As for what qualifies as a startup, that's something that is debated in the startup world fairly often. I think the best take is from Paul Graham. http://paulgraham.com/growth.html",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "28e5a864f6bc6bba8050209a3d569d11",
"text": "\"1. That's a really complicated answer. In short, I think we need to make accounting rules much simpler (I say this as an accountant) in combination with financial education in K-12 school. Most adults in this country can't tell you which is a better investment: something that returns 5% monthly or something that returns 10% annually. They don't know that accounting income and cash flow are different things and what they mean. Accounting rules are sometimes ridiculous. Look at the balance sheet of even a moderate size company. What's in \"\"Other Comprehensive Income\"\" and why is that different than net income? Why is it that American Airlines, one of the largest airlines in the world doesn't have a single airplane on their balance sheet? 2. That might be a step in the right direction, but I'm just not sure how effective something like that would be. More comprehensive might be better, but then there's going to be less people that want to take the time.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d9396749268a659ce313b7b2c78795b7",
"text": "The most obvious example would be a situation where a Company is growth constrained, but cash flow positive. It may have enough cash flow to service $10 million of debt, but it needs to build a new facility that will cost $20 million. There is the option to raise debt and equity or just raise equity and move quicker to getting that facility up and running. There are also situations where debt is used to replace equity (i.e. dividend recapitalization or leveraged share redemption).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "86855ce8af084a18f712895f3cfb987b",
"text": "\"Increase in A/R in balance sheet includes the A/R of acquired businesses. Change in A/R in cash flow statement might say \"\"excluding effects of business acquisitions\"\".\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "24fcd3eab5757b282f1b5f2589ff03ef",
"text": "\"I have some money invested on Merrill Edge. 2 days ago I purchased some mutual funds with most of the rest of my money in my account. I logged in today to see how it did, and noticed that there are 3 sections: Priced Investments, Cash & Money Accounts, and Pending Activity. In the Cash & Money section, there shows a negative balance of Cash (let's say -$1,000) and a positive \"\"Money Account Value\"\" (let's say +$1,100). The \"\"Money Account\"\" appears to be made up of $1 shares of something called \"\"ML Direct Deposit Program\"\". However, even though the mutual fund purchase was made 2 days ago, and the shares of the mutual funds are officially in my account, I'm still showing all of my \"\"Money Account\"\" shares ($1000). The balance sheet effectively makes it look like I somehow needed to have \"\"sold\"\" back my money account shares, converted them to cash, and then bought the funds. I'm hoping that isn't the case, and for some reason, there is a multiday lag between me buying stock and money getting deducted from my \"\"Money Account\"\". Hope that all makes sense. TLDR: what's the diff between a Cash account and Money Account that's filled with shares of \"\" ML Direct Deposit Program\"\"? Edit: Today the cash and money account offset by equal values equal to one of my mutual fund purchases.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "47a7b2d97a4726d8b42688c212aecd60",
"text": "You wouldn't know it's value (Enterprise Value) without knowing its cash balance. The equation: EV = Market Cap + Minority Interest + Preferred Stock + Debt - Cash Enterprise Value is the value of the company to ALL shareholders (creditors, preferred stock holders, common stock holders). So, taking on debt could either increase or decrease the EV depending on the cash balance of the company. This will have no effect, directly, on the market cap. It will, however effect the present value of its future cash flows as the WACC will increase due to the new cost of debt (interest payments, higher risk of bankruptcy, less flexibility by management).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1828d0f73127846d23d4eaf92134d5fc",
"text": "Different stakeholders receive cash flows at different times. The easiest way for me to remember is if you're a debt holder vs equity owner on an income statement. Interest payments are made before net income, so debt holders are repaid before any residual cash flows go to equity owners.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cdc14fda39e15aa5537599cf56abf0e0",
"text": "i cannot directly tell from the provided information if it is already included in Net A/R but if there is a balance sheet you can check yourself if the Total Cash Flow matches the difference between cash position year 0&1 and see if it is net or still to be included.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
5de8be4ce0a1b0e686fe23fd4beca071
|
Comparing ETFs following the same index
|
[
{
"docid": "ec247f0c4dd08895e0d66bc032d9b8b1",
"text": "The key two things to consider when looking at similar/identical ETFs is the typical (or 'indicative') spread, and the trading volume and size of the ETF. Just like regular stocks, thinly traded ETF's often have quite large spreads between buy and sell: in the 1.5-2%+ range in some cases. This is a huge drain if you make a lot of transactions and can easily be a much larger concern than a relatively trivial difference in ongoing charges depending on your exact expected trading frequency. Poor spreads are also generally related to a lack of liquidity, and illiquid assets are usually the first to become heavily disconnected from the underlying in cases where the authorized participants (APs) face issues. In general with stock ETFs that trade very liquid markets this has historically not been much of an issue, as the creation/redemption mechanism on these types of assets is pretty robust: it's consequences on typical spread is much more important for the average retail investor. On point #3, no, this would create an arbitrage which an authorized participant would quickly take advantage of. Worth reading up about the creation and redemption mechanism (here is a good place to start) to understand the exact way this happens in ETFs as it's very key to how they work.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "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": "4f888867b198b061e1afe6774f02c704",
"text": "As Ross says, SPX is the index itself. This carries no overheads. It is defined as a capitalization-weighted mixture of the stocks of (about) 500 companies. SPY is an index fund that tries to match the performance of SPX. As an index fund it has several differences from the index:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7cda4e508cbccdc13fb6c2499982293b",
"text": "You are correct about the first two questions. At the time it was last measured those were the percent invested in the Basic Materials sector for the ETF and its benchmark. Note, this ETF will be significantly different from its benchmark as it is an equal-weight index rather than the more common capitalization-weighted index. Meaning that this ETF could have materially different performance from its benchmark. The third column is the average sector weights of all the ETFs in Morningstar's Large Blend category. These are ETFs that generally invest in a broad collection of large U.S. stocks and (weighted?) average of all of them will be generally fairly close to the benchmark.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "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": "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": "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": "43c7802718feab88d1054220636e2c0d",
"text": "Some other suggestions: Index-tracking mutual funds. These have the same exposure as ETFs, but may have different costs; for example, my investment manager (in the UK) charges a transaction fee on ETFs, but not funds, but caps platform fees on ETFs and not funds! Target date funds. If you are saving for a particular date (often retirement, but could also be buying a house, kids going to college, mid-life crisis motorbike purchase, a luxury cruise to see an eclipse, etc), these will automatically rebalance the investment from risk-tolerant (ie equities) to risk-averse (ie fixed income) as the date approaches. You can get reasonably low fees from Vanguard, and i imagine others. Income funds/ETFs, focusing on stocks which are expected to pay a good dividend. The idea is that a consistent dividend helps smooth out volatility in prices, giving you a more consistent return. Historically, that worked pretty well, but given fees and the current low yields, it might not be smart right now. That said Vanguard Equity Income costs 0.17%, and i think yields 2.73%, which isn't bad.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "77709d67eb01b6301a7a4f77c3b801a8",
"text": "\"I went to Morningstar's \"\"Performance\"\" page for FUSEX (Fideltiy's S&P 500 index fund) and used the \"\"compare\"\" tool to compare it with FOSFX and FWWFX, as well as FEMKX (Fidelity Emerging Markets fund). According to the data there, FOSFX outperformed FUSEX in 2012, FEMKX outperformed FUSED in 2010, and FWWFX outperformed FUSEX in both 2010 and 2012. When looking at 10- and 15-year trailing returns, both FEMKX and FWWFX outperformed FUSEX. What does this mean? It means it matters what time period you're looking at. US stocks have been on an almost unbroken increase since early 2009. It's not surprising that if you look at recent returns, international markets will not stack up well. If you go back further, though, you can find periods where international funds outperformed the US; and even within recent years, there have been individual years where international funds won. As for correlation, I guess it depends what you mean by \"\"low\"\". According to this calculator, for instance, FOSFX and FUSEX had a correlation of about 0.84 over the last 15 years. That may seem high, but it's still lower than, say, the 0.91 correlation between FUSEX and FSLCX (Fideltiy Small Cap). It's difficult to find truly low correlations among equity funds, since the interconnectedness of the global economy means that bull and bear markets tend to spread from one country to another. To get lower correlations you need to look at different asset classes (e.g., bonds). So the answer is basically that some of the funds you were already looking at may be the ones you were looking for. The trick is that no category will outperform any other over all periods. That's exactly what volatility means --- it means the same category that overperforms in some periods will underperform in others. If international funds always outperformed, no one would ever buy US funds. Ultimately, if you're trying to decide on investments for yourself, you need to take all this information into account and combine it with your own personal preferences, risk tolerance, etc. Anecdotally, I recently did some simulation-based analyses of Vanguard funds using data from the past 15 years. Over this period, Vanguard's emerging markets fund (VEIEX) comes out far ahead of US funds, and is also the least-correlated with the S&P 500. But, again, this analysis is based only on a particular slice of time.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1004cf6b56fd3977ba674b6a4263bb37",
"text": "You can follow the intra-day NAV of an ETF, for instance SPY, by viewing its .IV (intra-day value) ticker which tracks it's value. http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=spy http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=^SPY-IV Otherwise, each ETF provider will update their NAV after business each day on their own website. https://www.spdrs.com/product/fund.seam?ticker=spy",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "97d2304c009c366add62833f7a2fd500",
"text": "You can check the website for the company that manages the fund. For example, take the iShares Nasdaq Biotechnology ETF (IBB). iShares publishes the complete list of the fund's holdings on their website. This information isn't always easy to find or available, but it's a place to start. For some index funds, you should just be able to look up the index the fund is trying to match. This won't be perfect (take Vanguard's S&P 500 ETF (VOO); the fund holds 503 stocks, while the S&P 500 index is comprised of exactly 500), but once again, it's a place to start. A few more points to keep in mind. Remember that many ETF's, including equity ETF's, will hold a small portion of their assets in cash or cash-equivalent instruments to assist with rebalancing. For index funds, this may not be reflected in the index itself, and it may not show up in the list of holdings. VOO is an example of this. However, that information is usually available in the fund's prospectus or the fund's site. Also, I doubt that many stock ETF's, at least index funds, change their asset allocations all that frequently. The amounts may change slightly, but depending on the size of their holdings in a given stock, it's unlikely that the fund's manager would drop it entirely.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "214445bd7aa7f6195f71f07ccf8b2df9",
"text": "that's just it, though - they are splitting up the 1%! and in most cases, especially vanguard, they are splitting up far less. ETFs don't have 12b-1 fees. explaining why you're experiencing different returns for ETFs will almost certainly involve something other than their expense. again, this is especially true for vanguard. they have the cheapest ETFs around (though i think schwab beats them on a few now). i can only guess at the full compensation structure. betterment likely earns money on cash reserves and securities hypothecation (i guess?). they also charge a small fee from what i understand. finance is very slim these days. i guess i'm wondering what your ultimate question is. if it's the inter corporate compensation structure, above is my best guess. if it's about performance, then we need to compare the ETFs you are looking at. if it's about the fees on funds, i think we covered that! as an advisor, it's my experience that very specific inquiries about fees have a deeper concern. people hear a lot about being overcharged so cost is a very standard place for clients to initially look when trying to compare performance of portfolios or securities.",
"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": "f364a2de6e832ec99014996a345e4136",
"text": "Over the past five years, QFVOX has returned 13.67%, compared to the index fund SPY that has returned 50.39%. SEVAX has lost 23.96%. AKREX has returned 81.82%. In two of your three examples, you would have done much better in an index fund with a very low expense ratio as suggested. While one can never, as you see, make a generalization, in almost every case, most investors will do better, and often much better, with an index fund with a low expense ratio. My source was Google Finance.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5e5d09bd5bf8010c91e56c2f024db447",
"text": "If you want to retire in 7 years at age 35 and only currently have 150k, and you need to ask this question of how to invest your money (risk free), then you will not be retiring at age 35 nor buying your house. It is possible to do (but not risk free - in fact you will need to take quite a bit of risk) but you would need to have a detailed plan about how you would go about to achieve this goal, what assets you would be investing in, and what risk management you would have in place. If you have to ask this question all you have is a goal but no plan. You probably will need to do plenty of research in the types of investment you prefer and develop a plan to take you to your destination. This could take you a year or 10 years, depending on how motivated you are in acheiving your goals.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
e8a7e1d7f1d44d6e368ca6af797cb4ea
|
How do I do double-entry bookkeeping for separately-managed investment accounts?
|
[
{
"docid": "4e2f45c23e571baea4581cfc708711d9",
"text": "\"For any accounts where you have a wish to keep track of dividends, gains and losses, etc., you will have to set up a an account to hold the separately listed securities. It looks like you already know how to do this. Here the trading accounts will help you, especially if you have Finance:Quote set up (to pull security prices from the internet). For the actively-managed accounts, you can just create each managed account and NOT fill it with the separate securities. You can record the changes in that account in summary each month/year as you prefer. So, you might set up your chart of accounts to include these assets: And this income: The actively-managed accounts will each get set up as Type \"\"Stock.\"\" You will create one fake security for each account, which will get your unrealized gains/losses on active accounts showing up in your trading accounts. The fake securities will NOT be pulling prices from the internet. Go to Tools -> Securities Editor -> Add and type in a name such as \"\"Merrill Lynch Brokerage,\"\" a symbol such as \"\"ML1,\"\" and in the \"\"Type\"\" field input something like \"\"Actively Managed.\"\" In your self-managed accounts, you will record dividends and sales as they occur, and your securities will be set to get quotes online. You can follow the general GnuCash guides for this. In your too-many-transactions actively traded accounts, maybe once a month you will gather up your statements and enter the activity in summary to tie the changes in cost basis. I would suggest making each fake \"\"share\"\" equal $1, so if you have a $505 dividend, you buy 505 \"\"shares\"\" with it. So, you might have these transactions for your brokerage account with Merrill Lynch (for example): When you have finished making your period-end summary entries for all the actively-managed accounts, double-check that the share balances of your actively-managed accounts match the cost basis amounts on your statements. Remember that each fake \"\"share\"\" is worth $1 when you enter it. Once the cost basis is tied, you can go into the price editor (Tools -> Price Editor) and enter a new \"\"price\"\" as of the period-end date for each actively-managed account. The price will be \"\"Value of Active Acct at Period-End/Cost of Active Acct at Period-End.\"\" So, if your account was worth $1908 but had a cost basis of $505 on Jan. 31, you would type \"\"1908/505\"\" in the price field and Jan. 31, 2017 in the date field. When you run your reports, you will want to choose the price source as \"\"Nearest in Time\"\" so that GnuCash grabs the correct quotes. This should make your actively-managed accounts have the correct activity in summary in your GnuCash income accounts and let them work well with the Trading Accounts feature.\"",
"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": "29badd6f535491305467294f595b3bd6",
"text": "\"You need one \"\"company file\"\" for each company that you want to track through QuickBooks. Looks like, in your case, that is at least the PM and the PH (as you labeled them in your question). The companies that just hold property and pay utilities might be simple enough that you don't need the full power of QB, in which case you might just track their finances on a spread sheet. Subsidiary companies will probably appear as \"\"assets\"\" of some sort on the books of the parent company. This set-up probably does limit liability at some level, but it's going to create a lot of overhead for your that incurs some expense either in your time or in actual fees paid. You should really consider whether the limitations on liability balance against those costs. (Think ahead to what you're going to do when you have to file taxes on this network of companies, whether you need separate insurance policies for each instead of getting one policy covering multiple properties, etc.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "feea0eff339a0989ce65653ff1c2e360",
"text": "how many transactions per year do you intend? Mixing the funds is an issue for the reasons stated. But. I have a similar situation managing money for others, and the solution was a power of attorney. When I sign into my brokerage account, I see these other accounts and can trade them, but the owners get their own tax reporting.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e3cd89c0d64142d65db6089237dac981",
"text": "How do I account for this in the bookkeeping? Here is an example below: This is how you would accurately depict contributions made by an owner for a business. If you would want to remove money from your company, or pay yourself back, this would be called withdrawals. It would be the inverse of the first journal entry with cash on the credit side and withdrawals on the debited side (as it is an expense). You and your business are not the same thing. You are two different entities. This is why you are taxed as two different entities. When you (the owner) make contributions, it is considered to be the cash of the business. From here you will make these expenses against the business and not yourself. Good luck,",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2e023f96804ea2e2d4da171230689d26",
"text": "I skimmed the answer from mirage007, and it looked correct if you're going to set this up from scratch. Since you said you already have a system for tracking stocks, however, maybe you'd prefer to use that. It should handle almost everything you need: Note that only the last of these actually ties the option and the underlying together in your accounting system. Other than that case, the option behaves in your accounting system as if it were a stock. (It does not behave that way in the market, but you need to manage that risk profile outside of the double-entry accounting system.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3ab074c9108274b749a78047bc2eec8f",
"text": "\"Journal entry into Books of company: 100 dr. expense a/c 1 200 dr. expense a/c 2 300 dr. expanse a/c 3 // cr. your name 600 Each expense actually could be a total if you don´t want to itemise, to save time if you totaled them on a paper. The paper is essentually an invoice. And the recipts are the primary documents. Entry into Your journal: dr. Company name // cr. cash or bank You want the company to settle at any time the balce is totaled for your name in the company books and the company name in your books. They should be equal and the payment reverses it. Or, just partially pay. Company journal: dr. your name // cr. cash or bank your journal: dr. cash or bank // cr. company name Look up \"\"personal accounts\"\" for the reasoning. Here is some thing on personal accounts. https://books.google.com/books?id=LhPMCgAAQBAJ&pg=PT4&dq=%22personal+account%22+double+entry&hl=es-419&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22personal%20account%22%20double%20entry&f=false\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e3ff0e9f98da1ef2abf5cdf90973fb1c",
"text": "\"The bank \"\"credit's\"\" your account for money coming into it. In double entry accounting, you always have a debit and a credit to balance the accounts. As an Example: for $500 that the bank credited to your checking account, you would post a debit to Cash and a Credit to Income Earned. The accounting equation is: Assets = Liabilities + Owner's Equity $500 = $500 Cash is the \"\"Asset\"\" side of the equation, Income is part of Owner's Equity, and so is the Credit side... to make the equation balanced.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3dccc75bc4b29bf2cb80a8c9dff15b95",
"text": "\"My answer is Microsoft Excel. Google \"\"VBA for dummies\"\" (seriously) and find out if your brokerage offers an 'API'. With a brief understanding of coding you can get a spreadsheet that is live connected to your brokers data stream. Say you have a spreadsheet with the 1990 value of each in the first two columns (cells a1 and b1). Maybe this formula could be the third column, it'll tell you how much to buy or sell to rebalance them. then to iterate the rebalance, set both a2 and b2 to =C1 and drag the formula through row 25, one row for each year. It'll probably be a little more work than that, but you get the idea.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fcad8e8e16fb8e86b9784b90ea346cf7",
"text": "The GnuCash manual has a page with examples of opening new accounts. The tl;dr is: use the Equity:Opening Balance to offset your original amounts. The further explanation from the GnuCash page is: As shown earlier with the Assets:Checking account, the starting balances in an account are typically assigned to a special account called Equity:Opening Balance. To start filling in this chart of account, begin by setting the starting balances for the accounts. Assume that there is $1000 in the savings account and $500 charged on the credit card. Open the Assets:Savings account register. Select View from the menu and check to make sure you are in Basic Ledger style. You will view your transactions in the other modes later, but for now let’s enter a basic transaction using the basic default style. From the Assets:Savings account register window, enter a basic 2 account transaction to set your starting balance to $1000, transferred from Equity:Opening Balance. Remember, basic transactions transfer money from a source account to a destination account. Record the transaction (press the Enter key, or click on the Enter icon). From the Assets:Checking account register window, enter a basic 2 account transaction to set your starting balance to $1000, transferred from Equity:Opening Balance. From the Liabilities:Visa account register window, enter a basic 2 account transaction to set your starting balance to $500, transferred from Equity:Opening Balance. This is done by entering the $500 as a charge in the Visa account (or decrease in the Opening Balance account), since it is money you borrowed. Record the transaction (press the Enter key, or click on the Enter icon). You should now have 3 accounts with opening balances set. Assets:Checking, Assets:Savings, and Liabilities:Visa.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9a0fb227580f6297fca125fd4753dab0",
"text": "If you go through the web pages of some online brokers, you will find out that some of them allow you to manage friends/relatives accounts from your account as a trusteer. That should really solve your underlying problem, you will need only one login, etc. (Example: https://www.interactivebrokers.com/ff/en/main.php) If I understand it right it will even allow you to make one trade splitting the cost and returns among the other accounts, but you would have to verify that. Anyways, that will save you a lot of trouble and your broker can probably help you with the legal necessities.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e1208e4de07e5a70118a6b83770ea03e",
"text": "\"If you are using software like QuickBooks (or even just using spreadsheets or tracking this without software) use two Equity accounts, something like \"\"Capital Contributions\"\" and \"\"Capital Distributions\"\" When you write a personal check to the company, the money goes into the company's checking account and also increases the Capital Contribution account in accordance with double-entry accounting practices. When the company has enough retained earnings to pay you back, you use the Capital Distributions equity account and just write yourself a check. You can also make general journal entries every year to zero out or balance your two capital accounts with Retained Earnings, which (I think) is an automatically generated Equity account in QuickBooks. If this sounds too complex, you could also just use a single \"\"Capital Contributions and Distributions\"\" equity account for your contributions and distributions.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2c10de11a5a0c132dd32fd6d66e89194",
"text": "As stated above, the IRA accounts themselves are individual. But if you want to simulate a joint account, the following actions would help: Make sure to setup each account with the other spouse as the beneficiary so that each account goes to any surviving spouse should the unexpected happen. Some brokers (I know TDA does this) allow you to grant access to your account to another login, so that effectively one spouse could make the invest decisions for all your accounts. This is better than simply sharing your username and password, which is against many T&Cs. If you do this in both directions, each spouse has access to all accounts.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "04fc25149b5028e4a34d26e562cedb73",
"text": "\"I have a similar situation -- five different accounts between me and my wife. Just as you and @Alex B describe, I maintain my asset allocation across the combination of all accounts. I also maintain a spreadsheet to track the targets, deviations from the targets, amounts required to get back in balance, and overall performance. I (mostly) don't use mutual funds. I have selected, for each category, 1 or 2 ETFs. Choosing index ETFs with low expense ratios and a brokerage with cheap or free trades keeps expenses low. (My broker offers free ETF trades if you buy off their list as long as you aren't short-term trading; this is great for rebalancing for free 2 or 3 times a year.) Using ETFs also solves the minimum balance problem -- but watch out for commissions. If you pay $10 to buy $500 worth of an ETF, that's an immediate 2% loss; trade a couple of times a year and that ETF has to gain 5% just to break even. One issue that comes up is managing cash and avoiding transaction fees. Say your IRA has all the growth stock funds and your Roth has the bonds. Stocks do well and bonds do poorly, so you sell off some stocks, which creates a bunch of cash in your IRA. Now you want to buy some bonds but you don't have enough cash in your Roth, so you buy the bonds in your IRA. Not a problem at first but if you don't manage it you can end up with small amounts of various funds spread across all of your accounts. If you're not careful you can end up paying two commissions (in two different accounts) to sell off / purchase enough of a category to get back to your targets. Another problem I had is that only one account (401k) is receiving deposits on a regular basis, and that's all going into an S&P 500 index fund. This makes it so that my allocation is off by a fair amount every quarter or so -- too much in large cap equities, not enough of everything else. My solution to this going forward is to \"\"over-rebalance\"\" a couple of times a year: sell enough SPY from my other accounts so that I'm under-allocated in large caps by the amount I expect to add to my 401k over the next 3 months. (So that in six months at my next rebalancing I'm only 3 months over-allocated to large caps -- plus or minus whatever gains/losses there are.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f2001e382087977d58faadeb8485548a",
"text": "I'm not familiar with Gnucash, but I can discuss double-entry bookkeeping in general. I think the typical solution to something like this is to create an Asset account for what this other person owes you. This represents the money that he owes you. It's an Accounts Receivable. Method 1: Do you have/need separate accounts for each company that you are paying for this person? Do you need to record where the money is going? If not, then all you need is: When you pay a bill, you credit (subtract from) Checking and debit (add to) Friend Account. When he pays you, you credit (subtract from) Friend Account and debit (add to) Checking. That is, when you pay a bill for your friend you are turning one asset, cash, into a different kind of asset, receivable. When he pays you, you are doing the reverse. There's no need to create a new account each time you pay a bill. Just keep a rolling balance on this My Friend account. It's like a credit card: you don't get a new card each time you make a purchase, you just add to the balance. When you make a payment, you subtract from the balance. Method 2: If you need to record where the money is going, then you'd have to create accounts for each of the companies that you pay bills to. These would be Expense accounts. Then you'd need to create two accounts for your friend: An Asset account for the money he owes you, and an Income account for the stream of money coming in. So when you pay a bill, you'd credit Checking, debit My Friend Owes Me, credit the company expense account, and debit the Money from My Friend income account. When he repays you, you'd credit My Friend Owes Me and debit Checking. You don't change the income or expense accounts. Method 3: You could enter bills when they're received as a liability and then eliminate the liability when you pay them. This is probably more work than you want to go to.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0cb596c3982679cb59da8ba7d152b20e",
"text": "Proposed solutions 1 and 3 sound like extra work. Is a dual-file system something that you and your wife will be willing to maintain? Having separate files may better reflect your financial structure, but be sure that the expense of added time and overhead is worth it to you in the long run. You could track your own accounts, your wife's accounts, and your joint accounts in the same Money file (solution 2). Getting married can be a simple matter of adding the wife's accounts and recording transfers as money flows into joint accounts. This would make transfers between accounts easy to record and would afford easy reporting of overall income and spending. To maintain a degree of continuity for your own accounts, customize some reports to exclude your wife's accounts and joint accounts. A note about Microsoft Money I think Microsoft Money is fantastic and I have no plans to stop using it despite the fact that Microsoft killed the product line. All Money users should be made aware of the free Sunset version that requires no online activation. Also check out PocketSense, a collection of free Python scripts that can download transactions from some banks directly into Money. I use and highly recommend both.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
7ebcd3e4aeacda837c8e78f1a5c85446
|
Buying shares- Stocks & Shares ISA, or Fund & Share account?
|
[
{
"docid": "52a51f7367d454bf22824007f02cd520",
"text": "The main difference is that the ISA account like a Cash ISA shelters you from TAX - you don't have to worry about Capital Gains TAX. The other account is normal taxable account. With only £500 to invest you will be paying a high % in charges so... To start out I would look at some of the Investment Trust savings schemes where you can save a small amount monthly very cost-effectively - save £50 a month for a year to see how you get on. Some Trusts to look at include Wittan, City Of London and Lowland",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "23d26aa5699d972a72b7ef23a250c54a",
"text": "Your existing shares in their existing ISA(s) do not in any way impact on your future ISA allowances. The only thing that uses up your ISA allowance is you paying new cash into an ISA account. So you can leave your existing shares in their existing ISA(s) and simply open new ISA(s) for future contributions which suit your current plans.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9c86e9d22d6efc89d32749eb6995cce7",
"text": "\"You say: To clarify, my account is with BlackRock and the fund is titled \"\"MID CAP GROWTH EQUITY-CLASS A\"\" if that helps. Not totally sure what that means. You should understand what you're investing in. The fund you have could be a fine investment, or a lousy one. If you don't know, then I don't know. The fund has a prospectus that describes what equities the fund has a position in. It will also explain the charter of the fund, which will explain why it's mid-cap growth rather than small-cap value, for example. You should read that a bit. It's almost a sure thing that your father had to acknowledge that he read it before he purchased the shares! Again: Understand your investments.\"",
"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": "e1712afdad5c21cbba461f9e26c7cb02",
"text": "The main difference between a mutual fund and an ETF are how they are bought and sold (from the investors perspective). An ETF is transacted on the open market. This means you normally can't buy partial shares with your initial investment. Having to transact on the open market also means you pay a market price. The market price is always a little bit different from the Net Asset Value (NAV) of the fund. During market hours, the ETF will trade at a premium/discount to the NAV calculated on the previous day. Morningstar's fund analysis will show a graph of the premium/discount to NAV for an ETF. With a mutual fund on the other hand, your investment goes to a fund company, which then grants you shares while under the hood buying the underlying investments. You pay the NAV price and are allowed to buy partial shares. Usually an ETF has a lower expense ratio, but if that's equal and any initial fees/commissions are equal, I would prefer the mutual fund in order to buy partial shares (so your initial investment will be fully invested) and so you don't have to worry about paying premium to NAV",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a0e05e8086085091d8d3e5c8e254edcf",
"text": "As stated in the comments, Index Funds are the way to go. Stocks have the best return on investment, if you can stomach the volatility, and the diversification index funds bring you is unbeatable, while keeping costs low. You don't need an Individual Savings Account (UK), 401(k) (US) or similar, though they would be helpful to boost investment performance. These are tax advantaged accounts; without them you will have to pay taxes on your investment gains. However, there's still a lot to gain from investing, specially if the alternative is to place them in the vault or similar. Bear in mind that inflation makes your money shrink in real terms. Even a small interest is better than no interest. By best I mean that is safe (regulated by the financial authorities, so your money is safe and insured up to a certain amount) and has reasonable fees (keeping costs low is a must in any scenario). The two main concerns when designing your portfolio are diversification and low TER (Total Expense Ratio). As when we chose broker, our concern is to be as safe as we possibly can (diversification helps with this) and to keep costs at the bare minimum. Some issues might restrict your election or make others seem better. Depending on the country you live and the one of the fund, you might have to pay more taxes on gains/dividends. e.g. The US keeps some of them if your country doesn't have a special treaty with them. Look for W-8Ben and tax withholding for more information. Vanguard and Blackrock offer nice index funds. Morningstar might be a good place for gathering information. Don't trust blindly the 'rating'. Some values are 'not rated' and kick ass the 4 star ones. Again: seek low TER. Not a big fan of this point, but I'm bound to mention it. It can be actually helpful for sorting out tax related issues, which might decide the kind of index fund you pick, and if you find this topic somewhat daunting. You start with a good chunk of money, so it might make even more sense in your scenario to hire someone knowledgeable and trustworthy. I hope this helps to get you started. Best of luck.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8d00dd5afb4e0e6968e4d1bf071575e6",
"text": "\"ETFs purchases are subject to a bid/ask spread, which is the difference between the highest available purchase offer (\"\"bid\"\") and the lowest available sell offer (\"\"ask\"\"). You can read more about this concept here. This cost doesn't exist for mutual funds, which are priced once per day, and buyers and sellers all use the same price for transactions that day. ETFs allow you to trade any time that the market is open. If you're investing for the long term (which means you're not trying to time your buy/sell orders to a particular time of day), and the pricing is otherwise equal between the ETF and the mutual fund (which they are in the case of Vanguard's ETFs and Admiral Shares mutual funds), I would go with the mutual fund because it eliminates any cost associated with bid/ask spread.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c92b620796eec1aea3d8d925390cb015",
"text": "\"Your dec ision is actually rather more complex than it first appears. The problem is that the limits on what you can pay into the HTB ISA might make it less attractive - it will all depend. Currently, you can put £15k/year into a normal ISA (Either Cash, or Stocks and Share or a combination). The HTB ISA only allows £200/month = £2,400/year. Since you can only pay into one Cash ISA in any one year you are going to lose out on the other £12,600 that you could save and grow tax free. Having said that, the 25% contribution by the govt. is extremely attractive and probably outweighs any tax saving. It is not so clear whether you can contribute to a HTB ISA (cash) and put the rest of your allowance into a Stocks and Shares ISA - if you can, you should seriously consider doing so. Yes this exposes you to a riskier investment (shares can go down as well as up etc.) but the benefits can be significant (and the gains are tax free). As said above, the rules are that money you have paid into an ISA in earlier years is separate - you can't pay any more into the \"\"old\"\" one whilst paying into a \"\"new\"\" one but you don't have to do anything with the \"\"old\"\" ISA. But you might WANT to do something since institutions are amazingly mean (underhand) in their treatment of customers. You may well find that the interest rate you get on your \"\"old\"\" ISA becomes less competitive over time. You should (Must) check every year what rate you are getting and whether you can get a better rate in a different ISA - if there is a better rate ISA and if it allows transfers IN, you should arrange to make the trasnfer - you ABSOLUTELY MUST TRANSFER between ISAs - never even think of taking the money out and then trying to pay it in to another ISA, it must be transferred directly between ISAs. So overall, yes, stop paying into the \"\"old\"\" ISA, open a new HTB ISA next year and if you can pay in the maximum do so. But if you can afford to save more, you might be able to open a Stocks and Shares ISA as well and pay into that too (max £15k into the pair in one year). And then do not \"\"forget\"\" about the \"\"old\"\" ISA(s) you will probably need to move all the money you have in the \"\"old\"\" one(s) regualrly into new ISAs to obtain a sensible rate. You might do well to read up on all this a lot more - I strongly recommend the site http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/ which gives a lot of helpful advice about everything to do with money (no I don't have any association with them).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2beabeee5253deb288ef55349de184f8",
"text": "\"A lot of ISA's allow both shares and funds as well as gilts, Hargreaves Lansdown comes to mind as does the Alliance Trust. Some penalise (charging wise) securities vs UT (unit trusts) funds but in that case just go for a low cost IT (Investment Trust) ISA and hold individual shares as well as pooled investments in the Big IT's. I think you might have to be an \"\"approved investor\"\" to buy gilts.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8d86c1fb4374ae63b11e53ce22bac604",
"text": "There are a number of UK banks that offer what passes for reasonable interest on an amount of cash held in their current accounts. I would suggest that you look into these. In the UK the first £1000 of bank or building society interest is paid tax-free for basic rate taxpayers (£500 for higher rate tax-payers) so if your interest income is below these levels then there is no point in investing in a cash ISA as the interest rate is often lower. At the moment Santander-123 bank account pays 1.5% on up to £20000 and Nationwide do 5% on up to £2500. A good source if information on the latest deals is Martin Lewis' Moneysaving Expert Website",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "826957611902dd98805eec54b63208a0",
"text": "\"From April 2017 the plan is that there is now also going to be a \"\"Lifetime ISA\"\" (in addition to the Help to Buy ISA). Assuming those plans do not change, they government will give 25% after each year until you are 50, and the maximum you can put in per year will be £4000. Catches: You can only take the money out for certain \"\"life events\"\", currently: Buying a house below £450000 anywhere in the country (not just London). Passing 60 years of age. If you take it out before or for another reason, you lose the government bonus plus 5%, ie. it currently looks like you will be left with 95% of the total of the money you paid in. You cannot use the bonus payments from this one together with bonus payments from a Help to Buy ISA to buy a home. However you can transfer an existing Help to Buy ISA into this one come 2017. While you are not asking about pensions, it is worth mentioning for other readers that while 25% interest per year sounds great, if you use it for pension purposes, consider that this is after tax, so if you pay mostly 20% tax on your income the difference is not that big (and if your employer matches your contributions up to a point, then it may not be worth it). If you pay a significant amount of tax at 40% or higher, then it may not make sense for pension purposes. Tax bands and the \"\"rates\"\" on this ISA may change, of course. On the other hand, if you intend to use the money for a house/flat purchase in 2 or more years' time, then it would seem like a good option. For you specifically: This \"\"only\"\" covers £4000 per year, ie. not the full amount you talked about, but it is likely a good idea for you to spread things out anyway. That way, if one thing turns out to be not as good as other alternatives it has less impact - it is less likely that all your schemes will turn out to be bad luck. Within the M25 the £450000 limit may restrict you to a small house or flat in 5-10 years time. Again, prices may stall as they seem barely sustainable now. But it is hard to predict (measures like this may help push them upwards :) ). On the plus side, you could then still use the money for pension although I have a hard time seeing governments not adjusting this sort of account between now and your 60th birthday. Like pension funds, there is an element of luck/gambling involved and I think a good strategy is to spread things if you can.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "78908b30e22bc43b4c319314b6d16618",
"text": "a) Go to Money super market and compare all the share dealing accounts and choose one to your liking. b) That depends on one's own circumstances. Nobody can be give you any specific strategies without knowing your financial situation, goals and risk averseness.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "21d0c3dcd64ed588f9aa8af50c2612a9",
"text": "An ISA is a much simpler thing than I suspect you think it is. It is a wrapper or envelope, and the point of it is that HMRC does not care what happens inside the envelope, or even about extractions of funds from the envelope; they only care about insertions of funds into the envelope. It is these insertions that are limited to £15k in a tax year; what happens to the funds once they're inside the envelope is your own business. Some diagrams: Initial investment of £10k. This is an insertion into the envelope and so counts against your £15k/tax year limit. +---------ISA-------+ ----- £10k ---------> | +-------------------+ So now you have this: +---------ISA-------+ | £10k of cash | +-------------------+ Buy fund: +---------ISA-------+ | £10k of ABC | +-------------------+ Fund appreciates. This happens inside the envelope; HMRC don't care: +---------ISA-------+ | £12k of ABC | +-------------------+ Sell fund. This happens inside the envelope; HMRC don't care: +---------ISA-------+ | £12k of cash | +-------------------+ Buy another fund. This happens inside the envelope; HMRC don't care: +---------ISA-----------------+ | £10k of JKL & £2k of cash | +-----------------------------+ Fund appreciates. This happens inside the envelope; HMRC don't care: +---------ISA-----------------+ | £11k of JKL & £2k of cash | +-----------------------------+ Sell fund. This happens inside the envelope; HMRC don't care: +---------ISA-------+ | £13k of cash | +-------------------+ Withdraw funds. This is an extraction from the envelope; HMRC don't care. +---------ISA-------+ <---- £13k --------- | +-------------------+ No capital gains liability, you don't even have to put this on your tax return (if applicable) - your £10k became £13k inside an ISA envelope, so HMRC don't care. Note however that for the rest of that tax year, the most you can insert into an ISA would now be £5k: +---------ISA-------+ ----- £5k ---------> | +-------------------+ even though the ISA is empty. This is because the limit is to the total inserted during the year.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "38209351c883c0ccdec99ec8f3586956",
"text": "\"I agree that you should CONSIDER a shares based dividend income SIPP, however unless you've done self executed trading before, enough to understand and be comfortable with it and know what you're getting into, I would strongly suggest that as you are now near retirement, you have to appreciate that as well as the usual risks associated with markets and their constituent stocks and shares going down as well as up, there is an additional risk that you will achieve sub optimal performance because you are new to the game. I took up self executed trading in 2008 (oh yes, what a great time to learn) and whilst I might have chosen a better time to get into it, and despite being quite successful over all, I have to say it's the hardest thing I've ever done! The biggest reason it'll be hard is emotionally, because this pension pot is all the money you've got to live off until you die right? So, even though you may choose safe quality stocks, when the world economy goes wrong it goes wrong, and your pension pot will still plummet, somewhat at least. Unless you \"\"beat the market\"\", something you should not expect to do if you haven't done it before, taking the rather abysmal FTSE100 as a benchmark (all quality stocks, right? LOL) from last Aprils highs to this months lows, and projecting that performance forwards to the end of March, assuming you get reasonable dividends and draw out £1000 per month, your pot could be worth £164K after one year. Where as with normal / stable / long term market performance (i.e. no horrible devaluation of the market) it could be worth £198K! Going forwards from those 2 hypothetical positions, assuming total market stability for the rest of your life and the same reasonable dividend payouts, this one year of devaluation at the start of your pensions life is enough to reduce the time your pension pot can afford to pay out £1000 per month from 36 years to 24 years. Even if every year after that devaluation is an extra 1% higher return it could still only improve to 30 years. Normally of course, any stocks and shares investment is a long term investment and long term the income should be good, but pensions usually diversify into less and less risky investments as they get close to maturity, holding a certain amount of cash and bonds as well, so in my view a SIPP with stocks and shares should be AT MOST just a part of your strategy, and if you can't watch your pension pot payout term shrink from 26 years to 24 years hold your nerve, then maybe a SIPP with stocks and shares should be a smaller part! When you're dependent on your SIPP for income a market crash could cause you to make bad decisions and lose even more income. All that said now, even with all the new taxes and loss of tax deductible costs, etc, I think your property idea might not be a bad one. It's just diversification at the end of the day, and that's rarely a bad thing. I really DON'T think you should consider it to be a magic bullet though, it's not impossible to get a 10% yield from a property, but usually you won't. I assume you've never done buy to let before, so I would encourage you to set up a spread sheet and model it carefully. If you are realistic then you should find that you have to find really REALLY exceptional properties to get that sort of return, and you won't find them all the time. When you do your spread sheet, make sure you take into account all the one off buying costs, build a ledger effectively, so that you can plot all your costs, income and on going balance, and then see what payouts your model can afford over a reasonable number of years (say 10). Take the sum of those payouts and compare them against the sum you put in to find the whole thing. You must include budget for periodic minor and less frequent larger renovations (your tenants WON'T respect your property like you would, I promise you), land lord insurance (don't omit it unless you maintain capability to access a decent reserve (at least 10-20K say, I mean it, it's happened to me, it cost me 10K once to fix up a place after the damage and negligence of a tenant, and it definitely could have been worse) but I don't really recommend you insuring yourself like this, and taking on the inherent risk), budget for plumber and electrician call out, or for appropriate schemes which include boiler maintenance, etc (basically more insurance). Also consider estate agent fees, which will be either finders fees and/or 10% management fees if you don't manage them yourself. If you manage it yourself, fine, but consider the possibility that at some point someone might have to do that for you... either temporarily or permanently. Budget for a couple of months of vacancy every couple of years is probably prudent. Don't forget you have to pay utilities and council tax when its vacant. For leaseholds don't forget ground rent. You can get a better return on investment by taking out a mortgage (because you make money out of the underlying ROI and the mortgage APR) (this is usually the only way you can approach 10% yield) but don't forget to include the cost of mortgage fees, valuation fees, legal fees, etc, every 2 years (or however long)... and repeat your model to make sure it is viable when interest rates go up a few percent.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cdc8ee4b63ae9ac426fd4dad8942a239",
"text": "Huh, well it's working for me. I've got 3 properties and am a little over 25% of my goal to never work again. How would you suggest one get rich? I assume you have a better plan than he does?",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
56ec5a30c1363e776aab6134bdf1d253
|
How to convince someone they're too risk averse or conservative with investments?
|
[
{
"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": "684805f3daa209b69b7cbee8fd780003",
"text": "Let the man be. If you've tried again and again to convince him, and haven't, maybe he doesn't want to be convinced. It's his money, and he has every right to manage it as he sees fit. You can advise him, but its his call whether he accepts your advice or not, and for what reasons. And suppose you push and push and it gets through? Now either he has more money than he would otherwise, and he's happy he has such a smart friend. Or he loses 30% of his money, and you're trying to tell him that he's going to earn it back in due time, but you can't, because he's not talking to you. Ever. What do you think is the mean benefit to your friendship?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a9db367d49cd183320dfbf646c8f24f3",
"text": "I feel these beliefs can not be changed so easily. Once someone loses their money, how can you convince him? And on what ground can you convince him? Can you give a guarantee that investments will perform at a certain level? There are many people who are happy with low returns but highly safe instruments. They are not concerned with what you earn in the stock market or the realty market. They are happy not losing their money. I known many people who earned decently during the up-rise of the stock market but all profits were squared up in the downturn and it turned to negative. Such people have their own thinking and such thinking is not out of place. After experience with much turmoil, I feel that they are also right to a great extent. Hence I feel if the person is not getting convinced, you should accept it with greatness.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c7fbe267ab43f56a1b8fdfb96d273bf2",
"text": "Introduce him to the concept of Inflation Risk, and demonstrate that being too conservative with your investments might be a very risky strategy as well.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1780c956b6e79156a96d46a6b5e1ce97",
"text": "\"Remind him that, over the long-term, investing in safe-only assets may actually be more risky than investing in stocks. Over the long-term, stocks have always outperformed almost every other asset class, and they are a rather inflation-proof investment. Dollars are not \"\"safe\"\"; due to inflation, currency exchange, etc., they have some volatility just like everything else.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "0bc1ec1dffc69de084d9bb843f03b221",
"text": "\"So here's the sad truth. He might actually be making a return on his investment. Not because it's right or because the system works, but in all these schemes there are a range of people that actually do make money. In addition to that, there is that fact that he \"\"believes\"\" that he is doing a good thing, and is unwilling to discuss it. So, if he is making, even a tiny return, and really believes that he is making a large return, or that that large return is just around the bend, your never going to convince him otherwise. You have two real options; If he will listen, go though and look at money in v.s. money out. If money out is larger then money in, your screwed. Make sure to point out that he should look at real money in (left a bank account) and real money out (deposited to a bank account). Again be prepared for the fact that he is actually making money. Some people in the pyramid will make money, it's just never as much, or as many people as they make it out to be. Don't attack the system, attack other aspects. Try and argue liquidity, or FDIC insurance. Again not trying to show why the system is bad, but why a investment in foo instead may be better. If nothing else, go with diversify. Never put all your money in one spot, even if it's a really good spot. At least in that case he will have some money left over in the end. That said, your friend may not go for it. May just put on blinders, and may just stick finger in ears. Move to option two. Respect his wishes, and set boundaries. \"\"Ok, I hear you, you like system X, I won't bring it up again. Do me a favor, don't you bring it up again either. Let's just leave this with religion and politics.\"\" If he continues to bring it up, then when he does, just point out you agreed not to discuss the issue, and if he continues to push it, rethink your friendship. If you both respect one another, you should be able to respect each others' decisions. If you can't then, sadly, you may need to stop spending time with one another.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "07ff8f6bdf26e89b18a978a60f4e1929",
"text": "\"Mathematically it seems like the expected rate of return, whatever that might be, is the same for both. An aggressive strategy is higher risk and higher reward. A conservative strategy is lower risk and lower reward. That is not true. Roughly, the mathematical analogue of \"\"higher risk and higher reward\"\" is \"\"higher standard deviation and higher mean\"\". In other words, the aggressive strategy does have a higher expected rate of return (higher mean). Its disadvantage is that it has a higher likelihood of incurring intermediate losses (and/or higher magnitude of intermediate losses) on the way. This is classically illustrated with the following chart - from Vanguard. You can see that the average return is greater the riskier the portfolio (i.e., the more allocated to stocks relative to bonds), but this higher average return comes at the price of a greater range of possible returns. With an aggressive portfolio, you take a greater risk of losses at any given moment for a greater chance of gains over a long period. Given this, it should be obvious why the advice is to be aggressive early on. Early in life, you don't care about whether your current position is up or down, because you're not taking the money out. If your portfolio is down, you just leave the money in there until it goes back up again. Later in life, you need to spend the money; you now care about whether your current position is up or down, because you can't afford to wait out a down market and may have to realize a loss by selling. It's important to note that the expected return is always greater for a higher-risk portfolio, as is the expected risk; the expected rate of return doesn't magically change as you age. What changes is your ability to absorb losses to hold out for later gains.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a4dea673d39dae97fa909527a80f3e36",
"text": "\"My feeling is that you're basically agreeing to throw away a bucket of money for a lesson that doesn't have to cost a penny. Like another commenter said, you're putting the cart before the horse. I once asked a similar question to a seasoned investor, though I wasn't in the position to toss my hard-earned cash into the well yet. He told me that the difference between the winners and losers is that the winners don't need the money. I'm not trying to say that there's a \"\"rich keep getting richer ...\"\" component here, while schlubs like me get nada. The real nugget of wisdom he offered was that if anyone wants to do well as investors, we must invest in a way that we're not dependent on the money we have in the market. Instead, manage risk carefully so that you don’t get swept up in the emotional highs and lows. For you, what I applaud is that you're willing to do your research first. And part of that should be anticipating how you will handle the anxiety when you put your money in at the wrong time or get out a little later than you should. What I understand now is that you don’t need to be wealthy to “not need the money.” You just need to invest smartly and leave your emotions out of it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a957e26c9c2338bb6e50c5611c3d019e",
"text": "\"This is always a judgement call based on your own tolerance for risk. Yes, you have a fairly long time horizon and that does mean you can accept more risk/more volatility than someone closer to starting to draw upon those savings, but you're old enough and have enough existing savings that you want to start thinking about reducing the risk a notch. So most folks in your position would not put 100% in stocks, though exactly how much should be moved to bonds is debatable. One traditional rule of thumb for a moderately conservative position is to subtract your age from 100 and keep that percentage of your investments in stock. Websearch for \"\"stock bond age\"\" will find lots of debate about whether and how to modify this rule. I have gone more aggressive myself, and haven't demonstrably hurt myself, but \"\"past results are no guarantee of future performance\"\". A paid financial planning advisor can interview you about your risk tolerance, run some computer models, and recommend a strategy, with some estimate of expected performance and volatility. If you are looking for a semi-rational approach, that may be worth considering, at least as a starting point.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0805a7b927cefad4bf4b37891f454293",
"text": "\"A kid can lose everything he owns in a crap shoot and live. But a senior citizen might not afford medical treatment if interest rates turn and their bonds underperform. In modern portfolio theory, risk/\"\"aggression\"\" is measured by beta and you get more return by increasing risk. Risk-adjusted return is measured by the Sharpe ratio and the efficient frontier shows how much return you get for each level of risk. For simplicity, we will assume that choosing beta is the only investment choice you make. You are buying a house tomorrow all cash, you should set aside that much in liquid assets today. (Return = who cares, Beta = 0) Your kids go to college in 5 years, so you invest funds now with a 5 year investment horizon to produce, with a reasonable level of certainty, the needed cash then. (Beta = low) You wish to leave money in your estate. Invest for the highest return with a horizon of your lifetime. (Return = maximum, Beta = who cares) In other words, you set risk based on how important your expenses are now or later. And your portfolio is a weighted average. On paper, let's say you have sold yourself into indentured servitude. In return you have received a paid-up-front annuity which pays dividends and increases annually. For someone in their twenties: This adds up to a present value of $1 million. When young, the value of lifetime remaining wages is high. It is also low risk, you will probably find a job eventually in any market condition. If your portfolio is significantly smaller than $1 million this means that the low risk of future wages pulls down your beta, and therefore: Youth invest aggressively with available funds because they compensate large, low-risk future earnings to meet their desired risk appetite.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fe0f1c2a8bf6e4fd44a3cfb97431fc68",
"text": "I am a bit at a loss as to how you can read the same book, that inspired Warren Buffet, and take away that trading 600 contracts per month is a way to prosperity. As a fellow engineer I can say with assurance this speculation scheme is doomed to failure. Crossing out the word gamble was a mistake. Instead you should focus on two things. The first is your core business, which is signal processing. Work and strive to be the best you can. Seek out opportunities to increase your income while keeping your costs low. As an engineer you have an opportunity to earn an above average salary with very low costs. Second would be to warehouse some of those earning and let others who are good at other things work for you. You may want to read the Jack Bogle books and seek an asset allocation model. I tend to be more aggressive then he would suggest, but that is a matter of preference. You don't really have the time, when you focus on your core business, to manage 6 trades a month let alone 600. Put your contributions on auto pilot and a surprisingly short time you will have a pile of cash.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2cf6037c68fe46a7914b798417e10e48",
"text": "Something that introduces the vocabulary and treats the reader like an intelligent individual? It's a bit overkill for 'retirement', but Yale has a free online course in Financial Markets. It's very light on math, but does a good job establishing jargon and its history. It covers most of the things you'd buy or sell in financial markets, and is presented by Nobel Prize winner Robert Schiller. This particular series was filmed in 2007, so it also offers a good historical perspective of the start of the subprime collapse. There's a number of high profile guest speakers as well. I would encourage you to think critically about their speeches though. If you research what's happened to them after that lecture, it's quite entertaining: one IPO'd a 'private equity' firm that underperformed the market as a whole, another hedge fund manager bought an airline with a partner firm that was arrested for running a ponzi scheme six months later. The reading list in the syllabus make a pretty good introduction to the field, but keep in mind they're for institutional investors not your 401(k).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "155e0bbfc86158ee56b244c544cba650",
"text": "\"I will solely address your fear because from what I read you fear investing in something that could possibly go down in the future. This is almost identical to market timing, so let's use the SPY as an example. Look at the SPY on Yahoo Finance, specifically in 2011. The market experienced a little bit of a pull back during the year, and some \"\"analysts\"\" claimed that it would fall below 600 (read this). In fact, a co-worker of mine said that he feared buying the S&P 500 in 2011 (as well as in 2010), so he bought gold (compare the two from 2011 to now - to put it bluntly he experienced 50% less gain than I did). Did the S&P 500 ever fall below 600 in that timeframe, or according to the linked analyst (there were plenty of similar predictions then)? No. If you avoid doing something because you're afraid it could drop, technically, you should be just as afraid of it rising (Fear of Losing Everything, FOLE, vs. Fear of Missing Out, FOMO - both are real). That's not to say invest out of fear, but that fear cuts both ways, and generally, we only look at it from one side. Retirement investing should be a boring, automated process where, ideally, we don't try and time the market (though some will try, and like in 2011, fail). If you can't help your fear, you can always approach retirement investing with automated re-balancing where you hold some money in \"\"less risky\"\" forms and others in \"\"higher risk\"\" forms and automate a rebalance every month or quarter.\"",
"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": "592918b1cf6d66a9a86a98c63e2ebbf6",
"text": "\"Another approach would be more personalized, which is to measure the risk of missing your goals, rather than measuring the risk of an investment in some abstract sense. Financial planners do this for example with Monte Carlo simulation software (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Carlo_method). They would put in a goal such as not running out of money before you die, with assumptions such as the longest you might live and how much you'll withdraw every year. You'd also assume an asset allocation. The Monte Carlo simulation then generates random market movements over the time period, considering historical behavior of your asset allocation, and each run of the simulation would either succeed (you are able to support yourself until death) or fail (you run out of money). The risk measure is the percentage of simulation runs that fail. You can do this to plan saving for retirement in addition to planning withdrawals; then your goal would be to have X amount of money in real after-inflation dollars, perhaps, and success is if you end up with it, and failure is if you don't. The great thing about this risk measure is that it's relevant and personal; \"\"10% chance of being impoverished at age 85,\"\" \"\"20% chance of having to work an extra decade because you don't have enough at 65,\"\" these kinds of answers. Which is a lot easier to act on than \"\"the variance is 10\"\" or \"\"the beta is 1.5\"\" - would you rather know your plan has a 90% chance of success, or know that you have a variance of 10? Both numbers are probably just guesses, but at least the \"\"chance of success\"\" measure is actionable and relevant. Some tangential thoughts FWIW:\"",
"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": "91531f9f9d19837f1ed28ee8d8142eb3",
"text": "Be cognizant of your own limitations when approaching this material. I've dealt with lawyers, doctors, engineers and other highly intelligent people from other disciplines, who then try to learn about companies and the stock market. Their own arrogance and assumption that they can just learn anything *quickly* ends up hurting them. It can take years and real classical training of finance to understand this material with any depth. Someone is wrong (a fool) in every trade. There is someone who is going to make money and lose money. Odds are the fool is you.",
"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": "2efaf6dc5bbc5f81622f1fff4ec28c6d",
"text": "Such an offer has negative value, so it's hard to see how it would make sense to accept it. The offer has two components, one part that you gain and one part that you lose. The gain is that half your losses are covered. The cost is that half your profits are lost. For that to be a net benefit to you, you would have to expect that you will gain more from this than you will lose from it. That is, you must expect that the investment has negative value. But if you expect that the investment has negative value, why are you investing? This also doesn't really align incentives between the two parties. The person choosing the investment is not incurring opportunity cost (because they have no funds locked up) while you are. So they have an incentive to be conservative that you do not. For example, say I could make 1% in an ultra low risk CD. The person choosing the investments has an incentive to put me in something that he only expects to make around 0.5% (because he gets to keep half the profits and it costs him nothing). Whereas I'd rather just put the money in a CD (because I get to keep 1% instead just half of 0.5%).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "80b1b71e85c9750a58d2fe8403945c6a",
"text": "It depends on your cost structure and knowledge of the exchanges. It could be optimal to make a manual exchange selection so long as it's cheaper to do so. For brokers with trade fees, this is a lost cause because the cost of the trade is already so high that auto routing will be no cheaper than manual routing. For brokers who charge extra to manually route, this could be a good policy if the exchange chosen has very high rebates. This does not apply to equities because they are so cheap, but there are still a few expensive option exchanges. This all presumes that one's broker shares exchange rebates which nearly all do not. If one has direct access to the exchanges, they are presumably doing this already. To do this effectively, one needs: For anyone trading with brokers without shared rebates or who does not have knowledge of the exchange prices and their liquidities, it's best to auto route.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
dffdd0a8c8369418a32a3070fa026561
|
Where to park money low-risk on interactivebrokers account?
|
[
{
"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": "3569d0d1efd08759ff7184142cfa4a06",
"text": "I would refrain from commenting on market timing strategy, but please don't park extra AUD cash in IB. Park cash in your local bank high interest savings, and get a Margin account at IB. When you want to pull the trigger, use margin loan to buy stocks immediately, then transfer cash from local bank to IB afterwards.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "5551e1d6c53d78ac4f021ce3d5c4c4b4",
"text": "I traded futures for a brief period in school using the BrokersXpress platform (now part of OptionsXpress, which is in turn now part of Charles Schwab). They had a virtual trading platform, and apparently still do, and it was excellent. Since my main account was enabled for futures, this carried over to the virtual account, so I could trade a whole range of futures, options, stocks, etc. I spoke with OptionsXpress, and you don't need to fund your acount to use the virtual trading platform. However, they will cancel your account after an arbitrary period of time if you don't log in every few days. According to their customer service, there is no inactivity fee on your main account if you don't fund it and make no trades. I also used Stock-Trak for a class and despite finding the occasional bug or website performance issue, it provided a good experience. I received a discount because I used it through an educational institution, and customer service was quite good (probably for the same reason), but I don't know if those same benefits would apply to an individual signing up for it. I signed up for top10traders about seven years ago when I was in secondary school, and it's completely free. Unfortunately, you get what you pay for, and the interface was poorly designed and slow. Furthermore, at that time, there were no restrictions that limited the number of shares you could buy to the number of outstanding shares, so you could buy as many as you could afford, even if you exceeded the number that physically existed. While this isn't an issue for large companies, it meant you could earn a killing trading highly illiquid pink sheet stocks because you could purchase billions of shares of companies with only a few thousand shares actually outstanding. I don't know if these issues have been corrected or not, but at the time, I and several other users took advantage of these oversights to rack up hundreds of trillions of dollars in a matter of days, so if you want a realistic simulation, this isn't it. Investopedia also has a stock simulator that I've heard positive things about, although I haven't used it personally.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3244cb5dd6f3993ed5ce0f950901c5ab",
"text": "Other than the possibility of minimal entry price being prohibitively high, there's no reason why you couldn't participate in any global trading whatsoever. Most ETFs, and indeed, stockbrokers allows both accounts opening, and trading via the Internet, without regard to physical location. With that said, I'd strongly advice you to do a proper research, and reality check both on your risk/reward profile, and on the vehicles to invest in. As Fools write, money you'll need in the next 6 months have no place on the stockmarket. Be prepared, that you can indeed loose all of your investment, regardless of the chosen vehicle.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "274f148b0a145f15618ebf92b4b0a936",
"text": "\"You most definitely can invest such an amount profitably, but it makes it even more important to avoid fees, um, at all costs, because fees tend to have a fixed component that will be much worse for you than for someone investing €200k. So: Edit: The above assumes that you actually want to invest in the long run, for modest but relatively certain gains (maybe 5% above inflation) while accepting temporary downswings of up to 30%. If those €2000 are \"\"funny money\"\" that you don't mind losing but would be really excited about maybe getting 100% return in less than 5 years, well, feel free to put them into an individual stock of an obscure small company, but be aware that you'd be gambling, not investing, and you can probably get better quotes playing Roulette.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "174df252db3033dd38bbf830ef5356d5",
"text": "Tell your broker. You can usually opt to have certain positions be FIFO and others LIFO. Definitely possible with Interactive Brokers.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c5bdd92b794541937b4f697a658e0170",
"text": "\"General advice is to keep 6 months worth of income liquid -- in your case, you might want to leave 1 year liquid since, even though your income is stable now, it is not static (i.e., you're not drawing salary from an employer). The rest of it? If you don't plan on using it for any big purchases in the next 5 or so years, invest it. If you don't, you will probably lose money in the long term due to inflation (how's that for a risk? :). There are plenty of options for the risk averse, many of which handily beat inflation, though without knowing your country of residence, it's hard to say. In all likelihood, though, you'll want to invest in index funds -- such as ETFs -- that basically track industries, rather than individual companies. This is basically free portfolio diversity -- they lose money only when an entire sector loses value. Though even with funds of this type, you still want to ensure you purchase multiple different funds that track different industries. Don't just toss all of your funds into an IT index, for example. Before buying, just look at the history of the fund and make sure it has had a general upward trajectory since 2008 (I've bought a few ETFs that remained static...not what we're looking for in an investment!). If the brokerage account you choose doesn't offer commission free trades on any of the funds you want (personally, I use Schwab and their ETF portfolio), try to \"\"buy in bulk.\"\" That way you're not spending so much on trades. There are other considerations (many indexed funds have high management costs, but if you go with ETFs, they don't, and there's the question of dividends, etc), but that is getting into the weeds as far as investing knowledge is concerned. Beyond that, just keep in mind it'll take 1-2 weeks for you to see that money if you need it, and there's obviously no guarantee it'll be there if you do need it for an emergency.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2e963a985a9bfcb61d6590bd0e46d14d",
"text": "Try something like this: http://www.halifax.co.uk/sharedealing/our-accounts/fantasy-trader/ Virtual or fantasy trading is a great way to immerse yourself in that world and not lose your money whilst you make basic mistakes. Once real money is involved, there are some online platforms that are cheaper for lower amount investing than others. This article is a good, recent starting point for you: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/diyinvesting/article-1718291/Pick-best-cheapest-investment-Isa-platform.html Best of luck in the investment casino! (And only risk money you can afford to lose - as with any form of investment, gambling, etc)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3bb6162ba093499fdf62d7ca8942e860",
"text": "Where you can put the money really depends on your risk tolerance. You could take $50k and put it into a good share class municipal and government bond fund that would likely be tax exempt. In a few years span I don't think you're likely to lose much in a tax-managed bond fund but it's certainly possible! Here is a link for Vanguard tax-exempt bond funds by state of residency: https://investor.vanguard.com/mutual-funds/vanguard-mutual-funds-list?assetclass=bond&taxeff=xmpt These funds have returns well exceeding CD's or standard savings accounts. Risk of loss is real, but returns are possible.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f23a77c2c5432db5c7cf786f6e890560",
"text": "I find this site to be really poor for the virtual play portion, especially the options league. After you place a trade, you can't tell what you actually traded. The columns for Exp and type are blank. I have had better luck with OptionsXpress virtual trader. Although they have recently changed their criteria for a non funded accounts and will only keep them active for 90 days. I know the cboe has a paper trading platform but I haven't tried it out yet.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "51a6ba3c5c5b04a242d6415f5793f7b8",
"text": "Does anyone know if there is a way to set up a practice account? I only have index ETFs currently, and would like to play around and get a feel for other stocks/options before putting real money into it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f07032dc0d4e06f537d847062dfa7294",
"text": "\"If you have a big pocket there are quite a few.. not sure if they take us clients though. Vcap, Barclays, Icap, Fixi, Fc Stone, Ikon.. Then there are probably a few banks that have x options also but i don't know if a private investor can trade them. A few im not sure if they have fx options or if they are \"\"good\"\": GFTFOREX, Gain capital, XTB, hmslux, Ifx Markets, Alpari, us.etrade.com Betonmarkets might be something if you are interested in \"\"exotic options\"\" maybe?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0626a96a27ac1db6932091ee4ff8eac2",
"text": "Look at a mixture of low-fee index funds, low-fee bond funds, and CDs. The exact allocation has to be tailored to your appetite for risk. If you only want to park the money with essentially no risk of loss then you need FDIC insured products like CDs or a money market account (as opposed to a money market fund which is not FDIC insured). However as others have said, interest rates are awful now. Since you are in your early 30's, and expect to keep this investment for 10+ years, you can probably tolerate a bit of risk. Also considering speaking to a tax professional to determine the specific tax benefits/drawbacks of one investment strategy (funds and CDs) versus another (e.g. real estate).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6e7f88b56677a917045c41db97d6ced0",
"text": "\"I'd suggest you start by looking at the mutual fund and/or ETF options available via your bank, and see if they have any low-cost funds that invest in high-risk sectors. You can increase your risk (and potential returns) by allocating your assets to riskier sectors rather than by picking individual stocks, and you'll be less likely to make an avoidable mistake. It is possible to do as you suggest and pick individual stocks, but by doing so you may be taking on more risk than you suspect, even unnecessary risk. For instance, if you decide to buy stock in Company A, you know you're taking a risk by investing in just one company. However, without a lot of work and financial expertise, you may not be able to assess how much risk you're taking by investing in Company A specifically, as opposed to Company B. Even if you know that investing in individual stocks is risky, it can be very hard to know how risky those particular individual stocks are, compared to other alternatives. This is doubly true if the investment involves actions more exotic than simply buying and holding an asset like a stock. For instance, you could definitely get plenty of risk by investing in commercial real estate development or complicated options contracts; but a certain amount of work and expertise is required to even understand how to do that, and there is a greater likelihood that you will slip up and make a costly mistake that negates any extra gain, even if the investment itself might have been sound for someone with experience in that area. In other words, you want your risk to really be the risk of the investment, not the \"\"personal\"\" risk that you'll make a mistake in a complicated scheme and lose money because you didn't know what you were doing. (If you do have some expertise in more exotic investments, then maybe you could go this route, but I think most people -- including me -- don't.) On the other hand, you can find mutual funds or ETFs that invest in large economic sectors that are high-risk, but because the investment is diversified within that sector, you need only compare the risk of the sectors. For instance, emerging markets are usually considered one of the highest-risk sectors. But if you restrict your choice to low-cost emerging-market index funds, they are unlikely to differ drastically in risk (at any rate, far less than individual companies). This eliminates the problem mentioned above: when you choose to invest in Emerging Markets Index Fund A, you don't need to worry as much about whether Emerging Markets Index Fund B might have been less risky; most of the risk is in the choice to invest in the emerging markets sector in the first place, and differences between comparable funds in that sector are small by comparison. You could do the same with other targeted sectors that can produce high returns; for instance, there are mutual funds and ETFs that invest specifically in technology stocks. So you could begin by exploring the mutual funds and ETFs available via your existing investment bank, or poke around on Morningstar. Fees will still matter no matter what sector you're in, so pay attention to those. But you can probably find a way to take an aggressive risk position without getting bogged down in the details of individual companies. Also, this will be less work than trying something more exotic, so you're less likely to make a costly mistake due to not understanding the complexities of what you're investing in.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9ed2cb593ee57de5f9f887f837964aa8",
"text": "A CDIC-insured high-interest savings bank account is both safe and liquid (i.e. you can withdraw your money at any time.) At present time, you could earn interest of ~1.35% per year, if you shop around. If you are willing to truly lock in for 2 years minimum, rates go up slightly, but perhaps not enough to warrant loss of liquidity. Look at GIC rates to get an idea. Any other investments – such as mutual funds, stocks, index funds, ETFs, etc. – are generally not consistent with your stated risk objective and time frame. Better returns are generally only possible if you accept the risk of loss of capital, or lock in for longer time periods.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8082d5dbe8ace4746ececb5fbe53dea7",
"text": "Unfortunately the answer is, almost none. Almost everything has a risk of decreasing; but given your short time horizon and presumably given that you want back your principal in full, plus a little bit, you have few choices. (Some of the following may be Canadian specific terms, but hopefully they are generic enough to apply) Savings accounts, money-market funds and the like should be available at any bank. Interest won't pay you much right now, but the money should be safe (I presume Israel has some kind of deposit insurance for normal bank accounts?) Slightly more risky would be a short-to-maturity bond or stripped bond coupon. The entry amount of money for one of these may be more than you have on hand, or the setup fee for an investment account might be more than you want to bother with for a one-off investment. Given that you seem to indicate that you might need access to the money during the time-frame in question, the bank-account option seems to be the only one really available.",
"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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
06f3e25125797d82412f65028bfad2ae
|
What exactly is the profit and loss of a portfolio?
|
[
{
"docid": "11ac7193d83c134cf94524ff5242facc",
"text": "When we 'delta-hedge', we make the value of a portfolio 0. No - you make the risk relative to some underlying 0. The portfolio does have a value, but if whatever underlying you're hedging against changes slightly the value of your portfolio should not change. But, what is the derivative of a portfolio? It's the instantaneous rate of change of the portfolio) relative to some underlying phenomenon. With a portfolio of many stocks, there's not one single factor that drives the value of your portfolio. You have sensitivity to each underlying stock (price and volatility), interest rates, the market as a whole, etc. For simplicity, we might imagine a portfolio that has holdings in .... a call .... a stock .... and a bank account (to borrow and lend money). You will have a delta relative to the stock and a delta relative to the underlying instrument on the option, etc. Those can only be aggregated for each factor (e.g. if the call is an option on the same stock) Theta is the only one you can calculate for the portfolio as a whole - it will be the aggregate theta of all of your positions (since change in time is constant across all investments). All of the others are not aggregatable since they are measuring sensitivities to different phenomena.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "70d63e6d6967e380b926dcbec8186683",
"text": "Variance of a single asset is defined as follows: σ2 = Σi(Xi - μ)2 where Xi's represent all the possible final market values of your asset and μ represents the mean of all such market values. The portfolio's variance is defined as σp2 = Σiwi2σi2 where, σp is the portfolio's variance, and wi stands for the weight of the ith asset. Now, if you include the borrowing in your portfolio, that would classify as technically shorting at the borrowing rate. Thus, this weight would (by the virtue of being negative) increase all other weights. Moreover, the variance of this is likely to be zero (assuming fixed borrowing rates). Thus, weights of risky assets rise and the investor's portfolio's variance will go up. Also see, CML at wikipedia.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "37e2d6eedafa33632362dc3b7976108c",
"text": "The difference is downside risk. Your CD, assuming you are in the US and the CD is purchased from a deposit bank, will be FDIC insured, your $10,000 is definitely coming back to you. Your stock portfolio has no such guarantee and can lose money. Your potential upside is theoretically correlated to the risk that some or all of your money may not be returned to you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7b9eedb32654953aa200daa767763194",
"text": "A long put - you have a small initial cost (the option premium) but profit as the stock goes down. You have no additional risk if the shock rises, even a lot. Short a stock - you gain if the stock drops, but have unlimited risk if it rises, the call mitigates this, by capping that rising stock risk. The profit/loss graph looks similar to the long put when you hold both the short position and the long call. You might consider producing a graph or spreadsheet to compare positions. You can easily sketch put, call, long stock, short stock, and study how combinations of positions can synthetically look like other positions. Often, when a stock has no shares to short, the synthetic short can help you put your stock position in place.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c2d820127fc0e4f738cd3f7504e58d6a",
"text": "\"Financing a portfolio with debt (on margin) leads to higher variance. That's the WHOLE POINT. Let's say it's 50-50. On the downside, with 100% equity, you can never lose more than your whole equity. But if you have assets of 100, of which 50% is equity and 50% is debt, your losses can be greater than 50%, which is to say more than the value of your equity. The reverse is true. You can make money at TWICE the rate if the market goes up. But \"\"you pay your money and you take your chances\"\" (Punch, 1846).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4d14c004981443285c0e14072fc0a322",
"text": "The biggest benefit to having a larger portfolio is relatively reduced transaction costs. If you buy a $830 share of Google at a broker with a $10 commission, the commission is 1.2% of your buy price. If you then sell it for $860, that's another 1.1% gone to commission. Another way to look at it is, of your $30 ($860 - $830) gain you've given up $20 to transaction costs, or 66.67% of the proceeds of your trade went to transaction costs. Now assume you traded 10 shares of Google. Your buy was $8,300 and you sold for $8,600. Your gain is $300 and you spent the same $20 to transact the buy and sell. Now you've only given up 6% of your proceeds ($20 divided by your $300 gain). You could also scale this up to 100 shares or even 1,000 shares. Generally, dividend reinvestment are done with no transaction cost. So you periodically get to bolster your position without losing more to transaction costs. For retail investors transaction costs can be meaningful. When you're wielding a $5,000,000 pot of money you can make your trades on a larger scale giving up relatively less to transaction costs.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4b9b7a9442c2fc7ba68d446c2c09c18b",
"text": "\"You're talking about modern portfolio theory. The wiki article goes into the math. Here's the gist: Modern portfolio theory (MPT) is a theory of finance that attempts to maximize portfolio expected return for a given amount of portfolio risk, or equivalently minimize risk for a given level of expected return, by carefully choosing the proportions of various assets. At the most basic level, you either a) pick a level of risk (standard deviation of your whole portfolio) that you're ok with and find the maximum return you can achieve while not exceeding your risk level, or b) pick a level of expected return that you want and minimize risk (again, the standard deviation of your portfolio). You don't maximize both moments at once. The techniques behind actually solving them in all but the most trivial cases (portfolios of two or three assets are trivial cases) are basically quadratic programming because to be realistic, you might have a portfolio that a) doesn't allow short sales for all instruments, and/or b) has some securities that can't be held in fractional amounts (like ETF's or bonds). Then there isn't a closed form solution and you need computational techniques like mixed integer quadratic programming Plenty of firms and people use these techniques, even in their most basic form. Also your terms are a bit strange: It has correlation table p11, p12, ... pij, pnn for i and j running from 1 to n This is usually called the covariance matrix. I want to maximize 2 variables. Namely the expected return and the additive inverse of the standard deviation of the mixed investments. Like I said above you don't maximize two moments (return and inverse of risk). I realize that you're trying to minimize risk by maximizing \"\"negative risk\"\" so to speak but since risk and return are inherently a tradeoff you can't achieve the best of both worlds. Maybe I should point out that although the above sounds nice, and, theoretically, it's sound, as one of the comments points out, it's harder to apply in practice. For example it's easy to calculate a covariance matrix between the returns of two or more assets, but in the simplest case of modern portfolio theory, the assumption is that those covariances don't change over your time horizon. Also coming up with a realistic measure of your level of risk can be tricky. For example you may be ok with a standard deviation of 20% in the positive direction but only be ok with a standard deviation of 5% in the negative direction. Basically in your head, the distribution of returns you want probably has negative skewness: because on the whole you want more positive returns than negative returns. Like I said this can get complicated because then you start minimizing other forms of risk like value at risk, for example, and then modern portfolio theory doesn't necessarily give you closed form solutions anymore. Any actively managed fund that applies this in practice (since obviously a completely passive fund will just replicate the index and not try to minimize risk or anything like that) will probably be using something like the above, or at least something that's more complicated than the basic undergrad portfolio optimization that I talked about above. We'll quickly get beyond what I know at this rate, so maybe I should stop there.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d36d3ab2aaeb8734fd16cff48398a62a",
"text": "\"He's calculating portfolio variance. The general formula for the variance of a portfolio composed of two securities looks like this: where w_a and w_b are the weights of each stock in the portfolio and the sigmas represent the standard deviation/risk of each asset or portfolio. In the case of perfect positive or negative correlation, applying some algebra to the formula relating covariance to the correlation coefficient (rho, the Greek letter that looks like \"\"p\"\"): tells us that the covariance we need in the original formula is simply the product of the standard deviations and the correlation coefficient (-1 in this case). Combining that result with our original formula yields this calculation: Technically we've calculated the portfolio's variance and not it's standard deviation/risk, but since the square root of 0 is still 0, that doesn't matter. The Wikipedia article on Modern Portfolio Theory has a section that describes the mathematical methods I used above. The entire article is worth a read, however.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b1226b18f17ae68a16316ef098513605",
"text": "Very likely this refers to trading/speculating on leverage, not investing. Of course, as soon as you put leverage into the equation this perfectly makes sense. 2007-2009 for example, if one bought the $SPX at its highs in 2007 at ~$1560.00 - to the lows from 2009 at ~$683.00 - implicating that with only 2:1 leverage a $1560.00 account would have received a margin call. At least here in Europe I can trade index CFD's and other leveraged products. If i trade lets say >50:1 leverage it doesn’t take much to get a margin call and/or position closed by the broker. No doubt, depending on which investments you choose there’s always risk, but currency is a position too. TO answer the question, I find it very unlikely that >90% of investors (referring to stocks) lose money / purchasing power. Anyway, I would not deny that where speculators (not investors) use leverage or try to trade swings, news etc. have a very high risk of losing money (purchasing power).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "44eb02cae8302ba335d2032af7a43460",
"text": "You can only lose your 7%. The idea that a certain security is more volatile than others in your portfolio does not mean that you can lose more than the value of the investment. The one exception is that a short position has unlimited downside, but i dont think there are any straight short mutual funds.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "af1e7597d17b0a48cccebd7e7c4c402a",
"text": "\"Month to date For the month to date (MTD), the price on Feb 28th is $4.58 and the price on March 16th is $4.61 so the return is which can be written more simply as The position is 1000 shares valued at $4580 on Feb 28th, so the profit on the month to date is Calendar year to date For the calendar year to date (YTD), the price on Dec 31st is $4.60 and the price on Feb 28th is $4.58 so the return to Feb 28th is The return from Feb 28th to March 16th is 0.655022 % so the year to date return is or more directly So the 2011 YTD profit on 1000 shares valued at $4600 on Dec 31st is Year to date starting Dec 10th For the year to date starting Dec 10th, the starting value is and the value on Dec 31st is 1000 * $4.60 = $4600 so the return is $4600 / $4510 - 1 = 0.0199557 = 1.99557 % The year to date profit is therefore Note - YTD is often understood to mean calendar year to date. To cover all the bases state both, ie \"\"calendar YTD (2011)\"\" and \"\"YTD starting Dec 10th 2010\"\". Edit further to comment For the calendar year to date, with 200 shares sold on Jan 10th with the share price at $4.58, the return from Dec 31st to Jan 10th is The return from Jan 10th to Feb 28th is The return from Feb 28th to March 16th is The profit on 1000 shares from Dec 31st to Jan 10th is $4600 * -0.00434783 = -$20 The profit on 800 shares from Jan 10th to Feb 28th is zero. The profit on 800 shares from Feb 28th to March 16th is So the year to date profit is $4.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "99f5a86c40bb640dd563d824d274a358",
"text": "The management expense ratio (MER) is the management fee, plus all of the other costs required to run the fund, excluding any trading costs. Here's a pretty good explanation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "005ae68f6b6c32c422f0c8118e17c5a7",
"text": "There is no difference. When dealing with short positions, talking about percentages become very tricky since they no longer add up to 100%. What does the 50% in your example mean? Unless there's some base amount (like total amount of the portfolio, then the percentages are meaningless. What matters when dealing with long and short positions is the net total - meaning if you are long 100 shares on one stock trade and short 50 shares on another, then you are net long 50 shares.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c3659ad6a4c1d4d2f9e0aa0439187186",
"text": "You have got it wrong. The profit or loss for smaller investor or big investor is same in percentage terms.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d4f69ccdb76cbda9b9628b622c45fcca",
"text": "There are two ways that an asset can generate value. One is that the asset generates some revenue (e.g. you buy a house for $100,000 and rent it out for $1,000 per month) and the second way is that the asset appreciates (e.g you buy a house for $100,000, you don't rent it out and 5 years later you sell it for $200,000). Stocks are the same.",
"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 $3,000 of final net short- or long-term losses against other types of income for that year and must carry forward any remaining balance.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
300f27de6cae04323ebaea5475a7cc73
|
Understanding highly compensated employees within 401ks
|
[
{
"docid": "aee2b2e587e167beaf774fe2fa8645c9",
"text": "HCE is defined as being above 120k$ or in the top 20 % of the company. The exact cutoff point might be different for each company. Typically, only the base salary is considered for that, but it's the company's (and 401(k)-plan's) decision. The IRS does not require HCE treatment; the IRS requires that 401(k) plans have a 'fair' distribution of usage between all employees. Very often, employees with lower income save (over-proportionally) less in their 401(k), and there is a line where the 401(k) plan is no longer acceptable to the IRS. HCE is a way for companies to ensure this forced balance; by limiting the amount of 401(k) savings for HCE, the companies ensure that the share of all contributions by below-HCE is appropriate. They will calculate/define the HCE cutoff point so that the required distribution is surely achieved. One of the consequences is that when you move over the HCE cutoff point, you can suddenly save a lot less in your 401(k). Nothing can be done about that. See this IRS page: https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/plan-participant-employee/definitions Highly Compensated Employee - An individual who: Owned more than 5% of the interest in the business at any time during the year or the preceding year, regardless of how much compensation that person earned or received, or For the preceding year, received compensation from the business of more than $115,000 (if the preceding year is 2014; $120,000 if the preceding year is 2015 or 2016), and, if the employer so chooses, was in the top 20% of employees when ranked by compensation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "01a8d67d87bc2e887865b146dfa421d3",
"text": "There are some nuances with HCE definition. To answer your questions. It's compensation as defined by the plan. Usually it's gross comp, but it can exclude things like fringe benefits, overtime pay, commissions, bonuses, etc. The compensation test is also a look-back test, meaning that an EE is determined to be an HCE in the current year if their compensation in the previous year was over the limit. I'm not sure how stock options affect this, but I expect they would be counted. Probably have an ESOP plan at that point too which is a whole other can-o-woms. The 5% owner test applies to the current year and also has a one-year look-back period. If at ANY point, even for a day, an employee was more than 5% owner, they are HCE for that year and next. Yes there is a limit. A company may limit the amount of HCE's to the top 20% of employees by pay like Aganju said. They can also disregard employees that may otherwise have been excluded under the plan using statutory exclusions. Example, they can disregard employees under 21 years and with less than 1 year of service. Hahaha, the IRS does not like to concisely define things. You can look here, that's probably as concise as you'll get. Hope this helps!",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "b104f49adf443934010e70fee6ba78f9",
"text": "4% of 30k ($1,200) is dwarfed by an $18,000 base pay increase. At 48k maxing out IRA will take ~11.5% of gross income, so at current position (30k salary) 401k contributions would likely be limited to the matching portion anyway. The long-term benefit of a deferred tax retirement plan can't fully be known since tax rates can change over time. If rates increase, the benefit can be mitigated. Personally, I only contribute to 401k enough to get full employer matching, and then I prioritize HSA, IRA, after those, some people like to go back to 401k to max, but I prefer other investments. At this low of an income range, the increase in base pay is far too significant to worry over potential differences in tax-deferred vs after tax investments.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2872c54aa6d39f2befbdf243277e0511",
"text": "\"On thing the questioner should do is review the Summary Plan Description (SPD) for the 401(k) plan. This MAY have details on any plan imposed limits on salary deferrals. If the SPD does not have sufficient detail, the questioner should request a complete copy of current plan document and then review this with someone who knows how to read plan documents. The document for a 401(k) plan CAN specify a maximum percentage of compensation that a participant in the 401(k) plan can defer REGARDLESS of the maximum dollar deferral limit in Internal Revenue Code Section 402(g). For example, the document for a 401(k) plan can provide that participants can elect to defer any amount of their compensation (salary) BUT not to exceed ten percent (10%). Thus, someone whose salary is $50,000 per year will effectively be limited to deferring, at most, $5,000. Someone making $150,000 will effectively be limited to deferring, at most, $15,000. This is true regardless of the fact that the 2013 dollar limit on salary deferrals is $17,500. This is also true regardless of whether or not a participant may want to defer more than ten percent (10%) of compensation. This \"\"plan imposed\"\" limit on salary deferral contributions is permissible assuming it is applied in a nondiscriminatory manner. This plan imposed limit is entirely separate from any other rules or restrictions on salary deferral amounts that might be as a result of things like the average deferral percentage test.\"",
"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": "76fdec82f23aeb8c14fab73c29211526",
"text": "\"Your employer could consider procuring benefits via a third party administrator, which provides benefits to and bargains collectively on behalf of multiple small companies. I used to work for a small start-up that did exactly that to improve their benefits across the board, including the 401k. The fees were still higher than buying a Vanguard index or ETF directly, but much better than the 1% you're talking about. In the meantime, here's my non-professional advice from personal experience and hindsight: If you're in a low/medium tax bracket and your 401k sucks, you might be better off to pay the tax up front and invest in a taxable account for the flexibility (assuming you're disciplined enough that you don't need the 401k to protect you from yourself). If you max out a crappy 401k today, you might miss a better opportunity to contribute to a 401k in the future. Big expenses could pop up at exactly the same time you get better investment options. Side note: if not enough employees participate in the 401k, the principals won't be able to take full advantage of it themselves. I think it's called a \"\"nondiscrimination test\"\" to ensure that the plan benefits all employees, not just the owners and management. So voting with your feet might be the best way to spark improvement with your employer. Good luck!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f637d28ed2f20cecce20e34bab4e0cd2",
"text": "The managers of the 401(k) have to make their money somewhere. Either they'll make it from the employer, or from the employees via the expense ratio. If it's the employer setting up the plan, I can bet whose interest he'll be looking after. Regarding your last comment, I'd recommend looking outside your 401(k) for investing. If you get free money from your employer for contributing to your 401(k), that's a plus, but I wouldn't -- actually, I don't -- contribute anything beyond the match. I pay my taxes and I'm done with it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8062fa4da670f6ef56710ff322996e40",
"text": "\"The \"\"Deferral\"\" for the 401k means that you're not collecting your pay immediately, but instead diverting it to a retirement account (Roth 401k in this case). This article defines deferral well: What is the difference between a regular 401(k) deferral (pre-tax) and a Roth 401(k) deferral? Under either a regular 401(k) deferral or a Roth 401(k) deferral, you make a deferral contribution by electing to set aside part of your pay (by either a certain percentage or a certain dollar amount). For a regular 401(k) deferral, the taxable wages on your W-2 are reduced by the deferral contribution; therefore, you pay less current income tax. However, you will eventually pay tax on these contributions and earnings when the plan distributes the regular 401(k) deferrals and earnings to you. The result is that the tax on the regular 401(k) deferrals and earnings is only postponed. A Roth 401(k) deferral is an after-tax contribution, which means you must pay current income tax on the deferral. Since you have already paid tax on the deferral, you won’t pay tax on it again when you receive a distribution of your Roth 401(k) deferral. In addition, if you satisfy cer tain distribution conditions, then you won’t have to pay tax on the earnings either. This means that the distribution of the Roth 401(k) earnings can be tax free not just tax postponed. Traditionally, this deferred compensation typically was directed to a 401k, but now that Roth 401k is another available option, deferred compensation can be directed there as well.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f8ddb50e2148b787850e7151971e34bb",
"text": "Employer matches (even for Roth 401Ks) are put into traditional 401K accounts and are treated as pre-tax income. Traditional 401K plans are tax deferred accounts, meaning you won't owe any taxes on it this year, but will have to pay taxes on it when you take the money out (likely after retirement). 401K contributions (including the match) are reported to the IRS and are entered in box 12 on the W2 form.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "48200c2619731735e1decc0ae5936cd2",
"text": "\"It seems I can make contributions as employee-elective, employer match, or profit sharing; yet they all end up in the same 401k from my money since I'm both the employer and employee in this situation. Correct. What does this mean for my allowed limits for each of the 3 types of contributions? Are all 3 types deductible? \"\"Deductible\"\"? Nothing is deductible. First you need to calculate your \"\"compensation\"\". According to the IRS, it is this: compensation is your “earned income,” which is defined as net earnings from self-employment after deducting both: So assuming (numbers for example, not real numbers) your business netted $30, and $500 is the SE tax (half). You contributed $17.5 (max) for yourself. Your compensation is thus 30-17.5-0.5=12. Your business can contribute up to 25% of that on your behalf, i.e.: $4K. Total that you can contribute in such a scenario is $21.5K. Whatever is contributed to a regular 401k is deferred, i.e.: excluded from income for the current year and taxed when you withdraw it from 401k (not \"\"deducted\"\" - deferred).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0f370bf139ba17fef15ce4b63eea3f6f",
"text": "Read this. https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/one-participant-401k-plans The example makes it very clear.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9a5ee4a4e9b317c00c127ed24f0fa870",
"text": "It's not a 60% raise. He made 60% more than the previous year. There's lots of things that could account for that. One of them is an annual bonus that was larger than his previous annual bonus - the calculation of that bonus was likely negotiated as part of his contract. A large chunk of the gains seems to be between that and stock/option awards. Often stock/option vest differently in the first year than remaining years, and the value changes over time as the stock market moves. If you have options granted with a strike price set based on the closing price of stock the day you start, and you cash them out as you get them, after a year if it's gone up 5% you make a bit. After the second year if it's gone up 10%, you doubled your income from that source even though you didn't receive any more options that year. His salary raise doesn't seem out of line. I've gotten larger raises in my career. Now... suppose all of his compensation was spread out evenly across all of the employees. CAT has a bit over 100K employees. His total compensation was $16M 16M / 100K = $160. You could give every employee $160/yr more for the cost of the CEO's entire compensation package. That comes out at 7-8 cents/hour. If you only do it with his raise and not the one time bonuses and returns from stock/option grants well... $3/employee/yr. The best way to invest in people is to offer training to help them move to higher value jobs. Things like tuition reimbursement programs based on maintaining good performance in classes are solid benefits to offer. Or even job training to those who show aptitude for different classes of work. Maybe some merit based bonus structure - people who come up with good ideas for cutting costs, improving efficiency, etc and work to see them implemented qualify for some sort of bonus based on a percentage of the value of that change. The bigger problem with those types of programs is that collective bargaining agreements tend to forbid any sort of merit based pay. They also make jumping line in seniority impossible - i.e. the union agreement would say that the person most qualified for the extra training is the one who's been in the job the longest. Some of these rules make sense if your goal is that everybody is equal and your idea of fairness is based on avoiding inequality. To justify it, they'll throw up things like the boss's cousin's brother-in-law's ex-wife's son could get preferential treatment if the contract doesn't prevent it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "08272c221245feb74c609aa96ec5c5e3",
"text": "I've never seen anything in any IRS publication that placed limits on the balance of a 401K, only on what you can contribute (and defer from taxes) each year. The way the IRS 'gets theirs' as it were is on the taxes you have to pay (for a traditional IRA anyway) which would not be insubstantial when you start to figure out the required minimum distribution if the balance was 14Mill.. You're required to take out enough to in theory run the thing out of money by your life expectancy.. The IRS has tables for this stuff to give you the exact numbers, but for the sake of a simple example, their number for someone age 70 (single or with a spouse who is not more than 10 years younger) is 27.4.. If we round that to 28 to make the math nice, then you would be forced to withdraw and pay taxes on around $500,000 per year. (So there would be a hefty amount of taxes to be paid out for sure). So a lot of that $500K a year going to pay taxes on your distributions, but then, considering you only contributed 660,000 pre-tax dollars in the first place, what a wonderful problem to have to deal with. Oh don't throw me in THAT briar patch mr fox!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "36a804f76053758e3c670904a4eed573",
"text": "\"typically, your employer will automatically stop making contributions once you hit the 18k$ limit. it is worth noting that employer contributions (e.g. \"\"matching\"\") do not count towards the 18k$ employee pre-tax contribution limit. however, if you have 2 employers during the year their combined payroll deductions might exceed the limit if you do not inform your later employer of the contributions you made at your former employer (or they ignore the info). in which case, you must request a refund of \"\"excess contributions\"\" from one of the plans (your choice). you must report the refund as taxable income on your taxes. if you do not make this request by the time you file your taxes, the tax man will reject your filing and \"\"adjust\"\" your return with more taxes and penalties. sometimes requesting a refund of excess contributions might cause your employer to remove \"\"matching\"\" funds, but i am not clear on the rules behind that. there are some 401k plans that allow \"\"supplemental after-tax contributions\"\" up to the combined employee/employer limit (53k$ in 2015 and 2016). it is a rare feature, and if your company offers it, you probably already know. however, generally it is governed by a separate contribution election that only take effect once you hit the employee pre-tax contribution limit (18k$ in 2015 and 2016). you could ask your hr department to be sure. 401k plans can be changed if there is enough employee demand for a rule change. especially in a small company, simply asking for them to allow dollar based contributions instead of percent based contributions can cause them to change the plan to allow it. similarly, you could request they allow \"\"supplemental after-tax contributions\"\", but that might be a harder change to get.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f2c1b00df06d1bb3490603195f864b2e",
"text": "\"The only way to know the specific explanation in your situation is to ask your employer. Different companies do it differently, and they will have their reasons for that difference. I've asked \"\"But why is it that way?\"\" enough times to feel confident in telling you it's rarely an arbitrary decision. In the case of your employer's policy, I can think of a number of reasons why they would limit match earnings per paycheck: Vesting, in a sense - Much as stock options have vesting requirements where you have to work for a certain amount of time to receive the options, this policy works as a sort of vesting mechanism for your employer matching funds. Without it, you could rapidly accumulate your full annual match amount in a few pay periods at the beginning of the year, and then immediately leave for employment elsewhere. You gain 100% of the annual match for only 1-2 months of work, while the employees who remain there all year work 12 months to gain the same 100%. Dollar Cost Averaging - By purchasing the same investment vehicle at different prices over time, you can reduce the impact of volatility on your earnings. For the same reason that 401k plans usually restrict you to a limited selection of mutual funds - namely, the implicit assumption is that you probably have little to no clue about investing - they also do other strategic things to encourage employees to invest (at least somewhat) wisely. By spacing their matching fund out over time, they encourage you to space your contributions over time, and they thereby indirectly force you to practice a sensible strategy of dollar cost averaging. Dollar Cost Averaging, seen from another angle - Mutual funds are the 18-wheeler trucks of the investment super-highway. They carry a lot of cargo, but they are difficult to start, stop, or steer quickly. For the same reasons that DCA is smart for you, it's also smart for a fund. The money is easier to manage and invest according to the goals of the fund if the investments trickle in over time and there are no sudden radical changes. Imagine if every employer that does matching allowed the full maximum match to be earned on the first paycheck of the year - the mutual funds in 401ks would get big balloons of money in January followed by a drastically lower investment for the rest of the year. And that would create volatility. Plan Administration Fees - Your employer has to pay the company managing the 401k for their services. It is likely that their agreement with the management company requires them to pay on a monthly basis, so it potentially makes things convenient for the accounting people on both ends if there's a steady monthly flow of money in and out. (Whether this point is at all relevant is very much dependent on how your company's agreement is structured, and how well the folks handling payroll and accounting understand it.) The Bottom Line - Your employer (let us hope) makes profits. And they pay expenses. And companies, for a variety of financial reasons, prefer to spread their profits and expenses as evenly over the year as they can. There are a lot of ways they achieve this - for example, a seasonal business might offer an annual payment plan to spread their seasonal revenue over the year. Likewise, the matching funds they are paying to you the employees are coming out of their bottom line. And the company would rather not have the majority of those funds being disbursed in a single quarter. They want a nice, even distribution. So once again it behooves them to create a 401k system that supports that objective. To Sum Up Ultimately, those 401k matching funds are a carrot. And that carrot manipulates you the employee into behaving in a way that is good for your employer, good for your investment management company, and good for your own investment success. Unless you are one of the rare birds who can outperform a dollar-cost-averaged investment in a low-cost index fund, there's very little to chafe at about this arrangement. If you are that rare bird, then your investment earning power likely outstrips the value of your annual matching monies significantly, in which case it isn't even worth thinking about.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a948ca629d5ad936371714b200b5f236",
"text": "if you have a work-sponsored retirement plan A 401k plan counts as a work-sponsored retirement plan. If you are a highly compensated employee (this is $115,000 for 2012), even your 401k contributions are limited. Given that, is there any difference at all between having a traditional IRA and a normal, taxable (non-retirement) investment account? You should consider a Roth IRA if you are making too much for a traditional IRA. When you make even more, then you can't contribute to a Roth, but can only contribute post-tax money to a traditional IRA. Use Form 8606 to keep track of non-deductable contributions over the years. Publication 590 is the official IRS explanation of what is deductable or not.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "60226c4c78a21e8633b978e579059da9",
"text": "I routinely max out my 401k contributions. The company's stupid website actually forces me to make two contributions -- one for the regular contribution, and another for the Catchup Contribution. I routinely adjust my 401k contribution throughout the year -- at the first of the year, I calculate how much to withhold such that I can adjust withholding to 6% of salary more than before, once I hit the SS tax limit. At the first of the year, I ignore bonuses. I re-adjust (if needed) once I know bonuses. I've worked for my company for almost 30 years now.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
9eb87a4d7fa235cd3632f144f8907d18
|
How to handle two K-1 forms from same company?
|
[
{
"docid": "747434105a81d44117295b394b27c1ba",
"text": "Just type in the forms as they are, separately. That would be the easiest way both to enter the data without any mistakes, and ensure that everything matches properly with the IRS reports.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "e61a4d5ca73e5ca4f8b1838c032469c1",
"text": "If you just need to fill out the basic forms. this post is really helpful and translates them to english as well as telling you which forms to fill out. http://www.toytowngermany.com/wiki/ELSTER . it really helped me out the last couple years. this year is of course tricky as i did some consulting back in the US and have to figure out the AUS form vs N AUS or what the deal is. hope it helps",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "420bdfb40a54706409ebf250ca7da92c",
"text": "\"Generally, you pick the State which you're located at, because you'll have to register your LLC there in any case. In your case that would be either Colorado or Oklahoma - register as domestic in one, as foreign in the other. If your concern is anything other than mere convenience/costs - then you need to talk to a lawyer, however most State LLC laws are fairly alike (and modeled after the \"\"Uniform Limited Liability Company Act\"\". Keep in mind that most of the sites talking about \"\"forming LLC out of state\"\" are either sales sites or targeted to foreigners attempting to form a US company. All the cr@p you hear about forming in Delaware/Nevada/Wyoming - is useless and worthless for someone who's a resident of any of the US States. If you're a US resident - you will always have to register in the State you're located at and do the work at, so if you register elsewhere - you just need to register again in your home State. In your case you already span across States, so you'll have to register in two States as it is - why add the costs of registering in a third one?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "821d67b4880b9cbc60185d4405f61476",
"text": "\"You should have separate files for each of the two businesses. The business that transfers money out should \"\"write check\"\" in its QB file. The business that receives money should \"\"make deposit\"\" in its QB file. (In QB you \"\"write check\"\" even when you make the payment by some other means like ACH.) Neither business should have the bank accounts of the other explicitly represented. On each side, you will also need to classify the payment as having originated from / gone to some other account - To know what's correct there, we'd need to know why your transferring the money in the first place and how you otherwise have your books established. I think that's probably beyond the scope of what's on-topic / feasible here. Money into your business from your personal account is probably owner's equity, unless you have something else going on. For example, on the S Corp you should be paying yourself a salary. If you overpay by accident, then you might write a check back to the company from your personal account to correct the mistake. That's not equity - It's probably a \"\"negative expense\"\" in some other account that tracks the salary payments.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a3536cc618e291ed7fa8cd499d035587",
"text": "I'm not sure why you're confusing the two unrelated things. 1040ES is your estimated tax payments. 941 is your corporation's payroll tax report. They have nothing to do with each other. You being the corporation's employee is accidental, and can only help you to avoid 1040ES and use the W2 withholding instead - like any other employee. From the IRS standpoint you're not running a LLC - you're running a corporation, and you're that corporation's employee. While technically you're self-employed, from tax perspective - you're not (to the extent of your corporate salary, at least).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9fcce2e26e6c538a861377e8073e48c7",
"text": "\"Why would you file four K-1s for each partner? You file one K-1 per partner, on which you report the total of income attributed to that partner. It shouldn't and cannot \"\"vary\"\". There's no variables here, the income you report is the income already earned and attributed to that partner. What's there to vary? How you decide the attribution of income is governed by your operating agreement, the IRS only needs the bottom line.\"",
"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": "cecc860897423d6c529366fcac3bc914",
"text": "\"You need to hire a tax professional and have them sort it out for you properly and advise you on how to proceed next. Don't do it yourself, you're way past the stage when you could. You're out of compliance, and you're right - there are penalties that a professional might know how to mitigate, and maybe even negotiate a waiver with the IRS, depending on the circumstances of the case. Be careful of answers like \"\"you don't need to pay anything\"\" that are based on nothing of facts. Based on what you said in the question and in the comments, it actually sounds like you do have to pay something, and you're in trouble with the IRS already. It might be that you misunderstood something in the past (e.g.: you said the business had filed taxes before, but in fact that might never happened and you're confusing \"\"business filed taxes\"\" with \"\"I filed schedule C\"\") or it might be the actual factual representation of things (you did in fact filed a tax return for your business with the IRS, either form 1120 of some kind or 1065). In any case a good licensed (CPA or EA) professional will help you sort it out and educate you on what you need to do in the future.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4384bb6fc4e625759bd324cede2ceccf",
"text": "I think you're making a mistake. If you still want to make this mistake (I'll explain later why I think its a mistake), the resources for you are: IRS.GOV - The IRS official web site, that has all the up-to-date forms and instructions for them, guiding publications and the relevant rules. You might get a bit overwhelmed through. Software programs - TurboTax (Home & Business for a sole propriator or single member LLC, Business for more complicated business), or H&R Block Business (only one version that should cover all) are for your guidance. They provide tips and interactive guidance in filling in all the raw data, and produce all the forms filled for you according to the raw data you entered. I personally prefer TurboTax, I think its interface is nicer and the workflow is more intuitive, but that's my personal preference. I wrote about it in my blog last year. Both also include plug-ins for the state taxes (If I remember correctly, for both the first state is included in the price, if you need more than 1 state - there's extra $30-$40 per state). Your state tax authority web site (Minnesota Department of Revenue in your case). Both Intuit and H&R Block have on-line forums where people answer each others questions while using the software to prepare the taxes, you might find useful information there. As always, Google is your friend. Now, why I think this is a mistake. Mistakes that you make - will be your responsibility. If you use the software - they'll cover the calculation mistakes. But if you write income in a wrong specification or take a wrong deduction that you shouldn't have taken - it will be on your head and you're the one to pay the fines and penalties for that. Missed deductions and credits - CPA's (should) know about all the latest deductions and credits that you or your business might be entitled to. They also (should) know which one got canceled and you shouldn't be continuing taking them if you had before. Expenses - there are plenty of rules of what can be written off as an expense and how. Some things should be written off this year, others over several years, for some depreciation formula should be used, etc etc. Tax programs might help you with that, but again - mistakes are your responsibility. Especially for the first time and for the newly formed business, I think you should use a (good!) CPA. The CPA should take responsibility over your filing. The CPA should provide guarantee that based on the documents you provided, he filled all the necessary forms correctly, and will absorb all the fees and penalties if there's an audit and mistakes were found not because you withheld information from your CPA, but because the CPA made a mistake. That costs money, and that's why the CPA's are more expensive than using a program or preparing yourself. But, the risk is much higher, especially for a new business. And after all - its a business expense.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2a22f54e0e3702d1612e532a77b73e7d",
"text": "You need to redomesticate it. Usually that involves filing Articles of Dissolution with your current jurisdiction of Org and Articles of Incorp or domestication with the new state. Note that there are some states that are not open to redomestication (and Cali always tends to be an oddball). You can probably call up the Secretary of States' offices in both jurisdictions and someone will give you the heads up about what to file. Google search could help. Also a CO lawyer could probably do this for about $1k. Another way around this might be to form a CO LLC and then merge the CA LLC into the surviving CO. In the event of both a redomestication or merger, you want to check your org docs and any and all outside contracts. Redomestication/merger can trigger change of control provisions that may open you up to penalties or termination of those contracts. As always the best legal advice I can give on Reddit would be to find a lawyer for this.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f41ce7e0d2fa9c6ff52ac387f7808299",
"text": "The committee folks told us Did they also give you advice on your medication? Maybe if they told you to take this medicine or that you'd do that? What is it with people taking tax advice from random people? The committee told you that one person should take income belonging to others because they don't know how to explain to you which form to fill. Essentially, they told you to commit a fraud because forms are hard. I now think about the tax implications, that makes me pretty nervous. Rightly so. Am I going to have to pay tax on $3000 of income, even though my actual winning is only $1000? From the IRS standpoint - yes. Can I take in the $3000 as income with $2000 out as expenses to independent contractors somehow? That's the only solution. You'll have to get their W8's, and issue 1099 to each of them for the amounts you're going to pay them. Essentially you volunteered to do what the award committee was supposed to be doing, on your own dime. Note that if you already got the $3K but haven't paid them yet - you'll pay taxes on $3K for the year 2015, but the expense will be for the year 2016. Except guess what: it may land your international students friends in trouble. They're allowed to win prizes. But they're not allowed to work. Being independent contractor is considered work. While I'm sure if USCIS comes knocking, you'll be kind enough to testify on their behalf, the problem might be that the USCIS won't come knocking. They'll just look at their tax returns and deny their visas/extensions. Bottom line, next time ask a professional (EA/CPA licensed in your State) before taking advice from random people who just want the headache of figuring out new forms to go away.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0c509b1b72a4cbf876193786938eb9a1",
"text": "Use one journal entry, and split the expenses into the appropriate accounts. This can happen even if you never mix business and personal on the same receipt: say you order office supplies (which where I live are immediately deductible as an expense) and software or hardware (which must be depreciated because they are assets) on the same order. We have an account called Proprietors Loan which represents money the company is lending to the humans who own it, or that the humans are lending to the company. Were I to pay for my personal lunch on a business credit card, it would go through that account, increasing the amount the company has lent me or decreasing the amount I have lent it. Similarly if I made a business purchase with a personal card it would go through that account in the other direction. Where I live, I can lend my company all the money I want any time, but if the company lends me money there can't be an outstanding balance over the corporate year end. If you make two credit card entries of 5 and 10 when you go to reconcile your accounts it will be harder because you'll have to realize they together match the single 15 line on your statement. Making a single entry (your A option) will make reconciling your statement much easier. And that way, you'll probably reconcile your statements, which is vital to knowing you actually recorded everything.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8f77159e3b4d193b5e3b72e959ddf5cf",
"text": "You don't need to submit a K-1 form to anyone, but you will need to transcribe various entries on the K-1 form that you will receive onto the appropriate lines on your tax return. Broadly speaking, assets received as a bequest from someone are not taxable income to you but any money that was received by your grandmother's estate between the time of death and the time of distribution of the assets (e.g. interest, mutual fund distributions paid in cash, etc) might be passed on to you in full instead of the estate paying income tax on this income and sending you only the remainder. If so, this other money would be taxable income to you. The good news is that if the estate trust distributions include stock, your basis for the stock is the value as of the date of death (nitpickers: I am aware that the estate is allowed to pick a different date for the valuation but I am trying to keep it simple here). That is, if the stock has appreciated, your grandmother never paid capital gains on those unrealized capital gains, and you don't have to pay tax on those capital gains either; your basis is the appreciated value and if and when you sell the stock, you pay tax only on the gain, if any, between the day that Grandma passed away and the day you sell the stock.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "300c2b236171618b127627cb296130ad",
"text": "Through your question and then clarification through the comments, it looks like you have a U.S. LLC with at least two members. If you did not elect some other tax treatment, your LLC will be treated as a partnership by the IRS. The partnership should file a tax return on Form 1065. Then each partner will get a Schedule K-1 from the partnership, which the partner should use to include their respective shares of the partnership income and expenses on their personal Forms 1040. You can also elect to be taxed as an S-Corp or a C-Corp instead of a partnership, but that requires you to file a form explicitly making such election. If you go S-Corp, then you will file a different form for the company, but the procedure is roughly the same - Income gets passed through to the owners via a Schedule K-1. If you go C-Corp, then the owners will pay no tax on their own Form 1040, but the C-Corp itself will pay income tax. As far as whether you should try to spend the money as business expense to avoid paying extra tax - That's highly dependent on your specific situation. I'd think you'd want to get tailored advice for that.",
"title": ""
},
{
"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": "ceaeab175037e48e17fc9caf558c111f",
"text": "I typed my information into both last year, and while they were not exactly the same, they were within $10 of each other. For my simple 2009 taxes they were not different in any meaningful way.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
85a32e90891db5381e980da29f42c08b
|
merging transactions in 8949
|
[
{
"docid": "b5dca99a685e3a33d3939c04c8107c93",
"text": "From the instructions: If you do not need to make any adjustments to the basis or type of gain or loss (short-term or long-term) reported to you on Form 1099-B (or substitute statement) or to your gain or loss for any transactions for which basis has been reported to the IRS (normally reported on Form 8949 with box A checked), you do not have to include those transactions on Form 8949. Instead, you can report summary information for those transactions directly on Schedule D. For more information, see Exception 1, later. However, in case of ESPP and RSU, it is likely that you actually do need to make adjustments. Since 2014, brokers are no longer required to track basis for these, so you better check that the calculations are correct. If the numbers are right and you just summarized instead of reporting each on a separate line, its probably not an issue. As long as the gains reported are correct, no-one will waste their time on you. If you missed several thousand dollars because of incorrect calculations, some might think you were intentionally trying to hide something by aggregating and may come after you.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "406244a3eb0a84e25e7a7adb357086ab",
"text": "\"I believe that your option contracts will become \"\"non-standard\"\" and will be for a combination of ACE stock and cash. The allocation between stock and cash should follow that of the acquisition parameters of the underlying - probably with fractional shares converted to cash. Hence 1 call contract for 100 shares of CB will become 1 call contract for 60 shares of ACE + $6293 cash + a cash correction for the 0.19 fractional share of ACE that you would have had claim to get. The corrections should be 0.19 sh x $62.93/sh.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "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": "140834c0d9da7e19ef949c4216188ff5",
"text": "I wound up asking Mint over email so I'll share the answer I received: Thank you for contacting Mint.com. From my understand you want to know if Mint can transfer data to other Intuit products and vice versa. Let me address your concern based from what I can see on my tools. Upon confirming, while Mint and other Intuit products are under the same company, Mint.com is not yet integrated to other Intuit products. We’d like to thank you though for giving the idea to us. With this, we would know which future enhancements will our customers appreciate. We have forwarded your request/suggestion to our Product and Development team for their review. At this time though, we can't make any guarantee that your request/suggestion will get implemented as we must balance customer demand with resources and business objectives. Oops...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4564883eefc225e8c2d7e3d01ae46a2f",
"text": "It's a covered call. When I want to create a covered call position, I don't need to wait before the stock transaction settles. I enter it as one trade, and they settle at different times.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "954c15a2906ae58f160e91c32a0a1c96",
"text": "I wouldn't get too caught up with this. Doesn't sound like this is even stock reconciliation, more ensuring the cash you've received for dividends & other corporate actions agrees to your expected entitlements and if not raising claims etc.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9f3cb39df08230246dab34f6ec9c3a85",
"text": "They're all in one place. The OCC provides: http://www.optionsclearing.com/webapps/flex-reports",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8bc05a91109205f52534ba5a9306deef",
"text": "\"In the first situation you describe, any intelligent routing algo will send a 1000 lot order to the lit exchange in step 1. Then you get filled 1000@$10. After the fill occurs, the matching engine tells everyone what happened. If the order book consists of 100 orders of 1 lot @ $10, and you place a \"\"buy 100 lots\"\" order, here is what happens: 1. The matching engine receives your order. 2. The matching engine matches your order against the 100 individual orders on the book. 3. The matching engine broadcasts 100 trade notifications. No one has any opportunity to cancel their orders since they only hear of the fill after it happened. The only way someone would have the opportunity to cancel is if there was 500 lots on one exchange and 500 on another. Then someone might observe a trade on exchange #1 and cancel their sell order on exchange #2 in response.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c22272852da2e6c84646ec8f569de306",
"text": "I'd say its time to merge finances!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cd920c83b0a0d569fe18c0c1994d3424",
"text": "Absolutely agree and I strongly support the proposals being thrown around to separate back out banks from their investment / brokerage departments. I also think we should have a minimum transaction time for trades and minimum holding times.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "adb3ef28e9db239dd8129f70c2075cd9",
"text": "The data for ES_F normally is joined on the contract expiry date, i.e. june is joined to the next month on the expiry date. The discrepancy to the real thing in practice might be significant, as seasonal strategies (as we call these) are mined fairly often.",
"title": ""
},
{
"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": "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": "4e2f45c23e571baea4581cfc708711d9",
"text": "\"For any accounts where you have a wish to keep track of dividends, gains and losses, etc., you will have to set up a an account to hold the separately listed securities. It looks like you already know how to do this. Here the trading accounts will help you, especially if you have Finance:Quote set up (to pull security prices from the internet). For the actively-managed accounts, you can just create each managed account and NOT fill it with the separate securities. You can record the changes in that account in summary each month/year as you prefer. So, you might set up your chart of accounts to include these assets: And this income: The actively-managed accounts will each get set up as Type \"\"Stock.\"\" You will create one fake security for each account, which will get your unrealized gains/losses on active accounts showing up in your trading accounts. The fake securities will NOT be pulling prices from the internet. Go to Tools -> Securities Editor -> Add and type in a name such as \"\"Merrill Lynch Brokerage,\"\" a symbol such as \"\"ML1,\"\" and in the \"\"Type\"\" field input something like \"\"Actively Managed.\"\" In your self-managed accounts, you will record dividends and sales as they occur, and your securities will be set to get quotes online. You can follow the general GnuCash guides for this. In your too-many-transactions actively traded accounts, maybe once a month you will gather up your statements and enter the activity in summary to tie the changes in cost basis. I would suggest making each fake \"\"share\"\" equal $1, so if you have a $505 dividend, you buy 505 \"\"shares\"\" with it. So, you might have these transactions for your brokerage account with Merrill Lynch (for example): When you have finished making your period-end summary entries for all the actively-managed accounts, double-check that the share balances of your actively-managed accounts match the cost basis amounts on your statements. Remember that each fake \"\"share\"\" is worth $1 when you enter it. Once the cost basis is tied, you can go into the price editor (Tools -> Price Editor) and enter a new \"\"price\"\" as of the period-end date for each actively-managed account. The price will be \"\"Value of Active Acct at Period-End/Cost of Active Acct at Period-End.\"\" So, if your account was worth $1908 but had a cost basis of $505 on Jan. 31, you would type \"\"1908/505\"\" in the price field and Jan. 31, 2017 in the date field. When you run your reports, you will want to choose the price source as \"\"Nearest in Time\"\" so that GnuCash grabs the correct quotes. This should make your actively-managed accounts have the correct activity in summary in your GnuCash income accounts and let them work well with the Trading Accounts feature.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f1e2b2fb775eb50ea82359cd6eda94ad",
"text": "Perhaps you should use your own tracking software, such as GnuCash, Quicken, Mint, or even Excel. The latter would work given you say you're manually putting in your transactions. There's lots of pre-done spreadsheets for tracking investments if you look around. I'm hoping that a web search gets you help on migrating transaction data, but I've yet to run into any tools to do the export and import beyond a manual effort. Then again, I haven't checked for this lately. Not sure about your other questions, but I'd recommend you edit the question to only contain what you're asking about in the subject.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
531b61ef21e74fb82c67262bc8927fa9
|
Former public employer that we have options in just sold
|
[
{
"docid": "effa41e39c6b1e428b8b06012d137836",
"text": "The deal is expected to close sometime in Q4. The fluctuation though the day is just noise. The price will reflect a discount to the full takeover value, reflecting the risk of the deal falling through. Cashless exercise is a good idea if you don't wish to own any QVC shares.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "4abb0b19a0c5f907b80017b1f1b1ef0d",
"text": "\"Simply put, yes. I bought that call. I was betting the shares would rise in value by Jan 2018, and chose the $130 strike. With a strike nearly a year away, I paid a premium that was all time value as the shares traded at Now the shares are replaced by $128. The time value has gone to zero, and there is no intrinsic \"\"in the money\"\" value. If the shares were bought at $140, the time value stills drops to zero, but the option is closed at $10 in the money. My answer was for a cash deal. In a case where the old shares are replaced by new shares or a combination of shares and money, the options terms are changed to reflect the combination of new assets for old. Update based on disclosure that it's Monsanto we are discussing. Bayer and Monsanto have announced that they signed a definitive agreement under which Bayer will acquire Monsanto for USD 128 per share in an all-cash transaction. Based on Monsanto’s closing share price on May 9, 2016, the day before Bayer’s first written proposal to Monsanto, the offer represents a premium of 44 percent to that price. You can see that the deal has been in the works for some time now. Further research shows they expect the deal to close by \"\"the end of 2017\"\". It's not a done deal. This is why the options are still trading. Now the shares are replaced by $128. The time value has gone to zero, and there is no intrinsic \"\"in the money\"\" value. If the shares were bought at $140, the time value stills drops to zero, but the option is closed at $10 in the money. My answer was for a cash deal. In a case where the old shares are replaced by new shares or a combination of shares and money, the options terms are changed to reflect the combination of new assets for old. Update based on disclosure that it's Monsanto we are discussing. Bayer and Monsanto have announced that they signed a definitive agreement under which Bayer will acquire Monsanto for USD 128 per share in an all-cash transaction. Based on Monsanto’s closing share price on May 9, 2016, the day before Bayer’s first written proposal to Monsanto, the offer represents a premium of 44 percent to that price. You can see that the deal has been in the works for some time now. Further research shows they expect the deal to close by \"\"the end of 2017\"\". It's not a done deal. This is why the options are still trading.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b33667625868aa72db975098d0a594ef",
"text": "I'm afraid you're not going to get any good news here. The US government infused billions of dollars in capital as part of the bankruptcy deal. The old shares have all been cancelled and the only value they might have to you are as losses to offset other gains. I would definitely contact a tax professional to look at your current and previous returns to create a plan that best takes advantage of an awful situation. It breaks my heart to even think about it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4f5e2b5519a30ae098566977ca938227",
"text": "Is my understanding correct? It's actually higher than that - he exercised options for 94,564 shares at $204.16 and sold them for $252.17 for a gain of about $4.5 Million. There's another transaction that's not in your screenshot where he sold the other 7,954 shares for another $2 Million. What do executive directors usually do with such profit? It's part of his compensation - it's anyone's guess what he decided to do with it. Is it understood that such trade profits should be re-invested back to the company? No - that is purely compensation for his position (I'm assuming the stock options were compensation rather then him buying options in the open market). There generally is no expectation that trading profits need to go back into the company. If the company wanted the profits reinvested they wouldn't have distributed the compensation in the first place.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6a8a3c216908f110c3f8039d8e1ba396",
"text": "I've never heard of an employer offering this kind of arrangement before, so my answer assumes there is no special tax treatment that I'm not aware of. Utilizing the clause is probably equivalent to exercising some of your options, selling the shares back to your employer at FMV, and then exercising more options with the proceeds. In this case if you exercise 7500 shares and sell them back at FMV, your proceeds would be 7500 x $5 = $37,500, with which you could exercise the remaining 12,500 options. The tax implications would be (1) short-term capital gains of 7500 x ($5 - $3) = $15,000 and (2) AMT income of 12,500 x ($5 - $3) = $25,000, assuming you don't sell the shares within the calendar year.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b62038a9eb815d630306ea48aa79014e",
"text": "\"Sycamore Partners \"\"saves\"\" brick and mortars from the ultimate death. By going private, these companies do not face the pressure of Wall Street and they can usually be saved and turn around a profit ( The Limited and Talbots are a few saved consumer shops)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "311702bd6331c4f3d930e495eb3b943c",
"text": "Sad to hear. I hope the job market is okay enough in NJ to compensate the mass layoffs. I wonder how much money each casino could save if they invested in rooftop windmill farms. Electricity is their biggest cost or second after employee payroll.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0be785cc82104b96db67210d940236d7",
"text": "Read this- [Out of Control: The Coast-to-Coast Failures of Outsourcing Public Services to For-Profit Corporations](http://www.inthepublicinterest.org/sites/default/files/1213%20Out_of_Control.pdf) Free trade agreements mandate a one way street to privatization of almost all public jobs and publicly procured services because it puts those jobs into play, they can then become bargaining chips in the globalization trading game. For example, US teaching jobs could be traded for national treatment in trade deals like TiSA- They could become valuable in the context of the fact that countries like India have a rapidly growing market and a surplus of people with degrees who speak perfect English. the US pharmaceutical industry might be able to trade access to those contracts for something like the curtailment of Indias policy on making cheap generic drugs. That kind of thing makes the US pharmaceutical industry see red. There has been a longstanding dispute with Australia over Australia's public health care systems' buying of drugs at a discount. The US claims thats prohibited by an FTA. I think its the US's position is that that is unfair discrimination against corporations. Only private for-profit companies are allowed to negotiate discounts. You can probably find more here: http://www.bilaterals.org/?-US-Australia- or here http://www.italaw.com (plug in the word Australia) Privatization is often mostly about looting public resources for some goal that is very much against the public interest! For example, look at the National City Lines fiasco- the reason the US went from having one of the very best to one of the worst public transit systems in the developed world - in only 30 years- is now addicted to oil and gas.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f6f1061862d29930fecfddd11df34c74",
"text": "I've had stock options at two different jobs. If you are not getting a significant ownership stake, but rather just a portion of options as incentive to come work there, I would value them at $0. If you get the same salary and benefits, but no stock options at another company and you like the other company better, I'd go to the other company. I say this because there are so many legal changes that seem to take value from you that you might as well not consider the options in your debate. That being said, the most important question I'd want to know is what incentive does the company have to going public or getting bought? If the company is majority owned by investors, the stock options are likely to be worth something if you wait long enough. You are essentially following someone else's bet. If the company is owned by 2 or 3 individuals who want to make lots of money, they may or may not decide to sell or go public.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d55cbb74ff3bda52e2ca5a1bd0fd6e10",
"text": "Its important that you carefully read the agreement, if you accept the job. The options agreement will usually specify the vesting schedule, the strike price, and the number of options you will have. When you start vesting options, you can choose to buy stock at the strike price. When you do exercise the options, your employer will likely withhold state and federal income tax. The strike price will hopefully be well below the market price. Unlike stock, when your employment ends, you usually are not able to hold on to your options. There's typically a small window of time in which you can exercise your options. You should read this part of the agreement carefully and plan accordingly.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7d62d84853dcd1a2c31e36d5c397c1a6",
"text": "The company may not permit a transfer of these options. If they do permit it, you simply give him the money and he has them issue the options in your name. As a non-public company, they may have a condition where an exiting employee has to buy the shares or let them expire. If non-employees are allowed to own shares, you give him the money to exercise the options and he takes possession of the stock and transfers it to you. Either way, it seems you really need a lawyer to handle this. Whenever this kind of money is in motion, get a lawyer. By the way, the options are his. You mean he must purchase the shares, correct?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "33b4275e9bb59b0589f6cdbf6a6d52fb",
"text": "I just received a transfer offer - Seems to me, they don't care what I do with the proceeds. Options 1 & 2 make that clear.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7fb2ffdbc44f0f39716c4966623450b3",
"text": "\"First, you mentioned your brother-in-law has \"\"$100,000 in stock options (fully vested)\"\". Do you mean his exercise cost would be $100,000, i.e. what he'd need to pay to buy the shares? If so, then what might be the estimated value of the shares acquired? Options having vested doesn't necessarily mean they possess value, merely that they may be exercised. Or did you mean the estimated intrinsic value of those options (estimated value less exercise cost) is $100,000? Speaking from my own experience, I'd like to address just the first part of your question: Have you treated this as you would a serious investment in any other company? That is, have you or your brother-in-law reviewed the company's financial statements for the last few years? Other than hearing from people with a vested interest (quite literally!) to pump up the stock with talk around the office, how do you know the company is: BTW, as an option holder only, your brother-in-law's rights to financial information may be limited. Will the company share these details anyway? Or, if he exercised at least one option to become a bona-fide shareholder, I believe he'd have rights to request the financial statements – but company bylaws vary, and different jurisdictions say different things about what can be restricted. Beyond the financial statements, here are some more things to consider: The worst-case risk you'd need to accept is zero liquidity and complete loss: If there's no eventual buy-out or IPO, the shares may (effectively) be worthless. Even if there is a private market, willing buyers may quickly dry up if company fortunes decline. Contrast this to public stock markets, where there's usually an opportunity to witness deterioration, exit at a loss, and preserve some capital. Of course, with great risk may come great reward. Do your own due diligence and convince yourself through a rigorous analysis — not hopes & dreams — that the investment might be worth the risk.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5ca9adafc2dd1effc7b43af95f937c0c",
"text": "\"This is a great question. I've participated in a deal like that as an employee, and I also know of friends and family who have been involved during a buyout. In short: The updated part of your question is correct: There is no single typical treatment. What happens to unvested restricted stock units (RSUs), unvested employee stock options, etc. varies from case to case. Furthermore, what exactly will happen in your case ought to have been described in the grant documentation which you (hopefully) received when you were issued restricted stock in the first place. Anyway, here are the two cases I've seen happen before: Immediate vesting of all units. Immediate vesting is often the case with RSUs or options that are granted to executives or key employees. The grant documentation usually details the cases that will have immediate vesting. One of the cases is usually a Change in/of Control (CIC or COC) provision, triggered in a buyout. Other immediate vesting cases may be when the key employee is terminated without cause, or dies. The terms vary, and are often negotiated by shrewd key employees. Conversion of the units to a new schedule. If anything is more \"\"typical\"\" of regular employee-level grants, I think this one would be. Generally, such RSU or option grants will be converted, at the deal price, to a new schedule with identical dates and vesting percentages, but a new number of units and dollar amount or strike price, usually so the end result would have been the same as before the deal. I'm also curious if anybody else has been through a buyout, or knows anybody who has been through a buyout, and how they were treated.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "284c486ca2a8ccd6a4b1fab62921e22f",
"text": "Options or Shares vest by date they are granted. It would strike me as odd for anyone to say their shares were given with 4 year vesting, but the clock was pre-started years prior. In my opinion, you have nothing to complain about.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e8df4a19f9fc0bed3f4001f92f69ef45",
"text": "\"You were probably not given stock, but stock options. Those options have a strike price and you can do some more research on them if needed. Lets assume that you were given 5K shares at a strike of 20, and they vest 20% per year. Assume the same thing in your second year and you are going to leave in year three. You would have 2K shares from your year 1 grant, and 1K shares from your year 2 grant, so 2K total. If you leave no more shares would be vested. If you leave you have one of two options: To complicate matters subsequent grants may have different strike prices, so perhaps year two grant is at $22 per share. However, in pre-public companies that is not likely the case. For a bit of history, I worked at a pre-ipo company and we were all going to get rich. I was given generous grants, but decided to leave. I really wanted to buy my options but simply didn't have the money. Shortly after I left the company folded, so the money would have been thrown away anyway. When a company is private the motivate their employees with tales of riches, but they are not required to disclose financial data. This company did a very good job of convincing employees that all was fine, when it wasn't. Also I received options in a publicly traded company. Myself and other employees received options that were \"\"underwater\"\" or worth far less than the strike price. You could let them expire so one did not owe money, but they were worthless. Hopefully that answers your question.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
e4939caab5a0d55fd006a5f3c62403a6
|
If throwing good money after bad is generally a bad idea, is throwing more money after good Ok?
|
[
{
"docid": "b3f3f16ad5415ff2d63b52769fc972dc",
"text": "\"The response to this question will be different depending which of the investment philosophies you are using. Value investors look at the situation the company is in and try to determine what the company is worth and what it will be worth in the future. Then they look at the current stock price and decide whether or not the stock is priced at a good deal or not. If the stock price is priced lower than they believe the company is worth, they would want to buy stock, and if the price rises above what they believe to be the true value, they would sell. These types of investors are not looking at the history or trend of what the price has done in the past, only what the current price is and where they believe the price should be in the future. Technical analysis investors do something different. It is their belief that as stock prices go up and down, they generally follow patterns. By looking at a chart of what a stock price has been in the past, they try to predict where it is headed, and buy or sell based on that prediction. In general, value investors are longer-term investors, and technical analysis investors are short-term investors. The advice you are considering makes a lot of sense if you are using technical analysis. If you have a stock that is trending down, your strategy probably tells you to sell; buying more in the hopes of turning things around would be seen as a mistake. It is like the gambler in Vegas who keeps playing a game he is losing, hoping that his luck changes. However, for the value investor, the historical price of a stock, and even the amount you currently have gained or lost in the stock, are essentially ignored. All that matters is whether or not the stock price is above or below the true value determined by the investor. For him, if the stock price falls and he believes the company still has a high value, it could be a signal to buy more. The above advice doesn't really apply for them. Many investors don't follow either of these strategies. They believe that it is too difficult and risky to try to predict the future price of an individual stock. Instead, they invest in many companies all at once using index mutual funds, believing that the stock market as a whole always heads up over a long time frame. Those investors don't care at all if the prices of stock are going up or down. They simply keep investing each month, and hold until they have another use for the money. The above advice isn't useful for them at all. No matter which kind of investing you are doing, the most important thing is to pick a strategy you believe in and follow the plan without emotion. Emotions can cause investors to make mistakes and start buying when their strategy tells them to sell. Instead of trying to follow fortune cookie advice like \"\"Don't throw good money after bad,\"\" choose an investment strategy, make a plan, test it, and follow it, cautiously (after all, it may be a bad plan). For what it is worth, I am the third type of investor listed above. I don't buy individual stocks, and I don't look at the stock prices when investing more each month. Your description of your own strategy as \"\"buy and hold\"\" suggests you might prefer the same approach.\"",
"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": "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": "382415f3c945cb086cf025a9d8ea6b61",
"text": "The principle behind the advice to not throw good money after bad is better restated in economics terms: sunk costs are sunk and irrelevant to today's decisions. Money lost on a stock is sunk and should not affect our decisions today, one way or the other. Similarly, the stock going up should not affect our decisions today, one way or the other. Any advice other than this is assuming some kind of mispricing or predictability in the market. Mispricings in general cannot be reliably identified and stock returns are not normally predictable. The only valid (efficient markets) reason I know of to allow money you have lost or made on a stock to affect your decision today is the tax implications (you may want to lock in gains if your tax rate is temporarily low or vice versa).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "63ccfa6255f0c7d299882f7550b8cad2",
"text": "To expand a bit on what TripeHound said in the comment section, past performance is not indicative of future performance, which is why the best advice is to ignore if you already own the stock or not. If the stock goes down, but you've done your research and think it will come back, then investing more isn't a bad idea. If the stock is doing well and it will continue to do well, then invest more. Treat investing more into a stock you already own as a new investment and do your research. TL;DR of your question, it's a very case-by-case basis",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c0cd96936a7c8983f9092d9d64ad144b",
"text": "Is investing more money into a stock that you already have a stake, in which has gone up in price a good idea? What you describe here is a good idea when the stock keeps up-trending. The way to do it is say you have originally bought $1000 worth of shares, then the next purchase you buy $500 worth, then $250 worth. It is called pyramiding into your trades. However, this system would not be the best with simply a buy and hold when you keep holding even if the price starts freefalling. You would need to have a trailing stop loss on your initial trade, and then as you buy each additional trade your trailing stop loss would incorporate the additional trade and move to a level where if you get stopped out you will make an overall profit. With each additional trade your trailing stop will move higher and higher for higher protected profits. The whole point behind pyramid trading is to keep buying more of a stock that keeps performing well to increase your profits. However, each additional purchase is half the previous one so that you don't eat too much into existing profits (in the case of the uptrend reversing) and so as to not overcapitalise on the one stock. So you are using part of your existing profits in an attempt to make more profits.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "36924652e1eab2efe3936bc0c4543262",
"text": "\"You should see \"\"Restaurant Impossible\"\" on TV, shows exactly how you'll end up if you take this direction. Bottom line - yes, it is usually bad. There's a race condition there in the hiding: you either learn the ropes as you go, or you run out of money and go bankrupt, whichever comes first. My personal experience shows that things that seem simple from the outside may become very very complex once you're actually inside. As an engineer I know perfectly well that the devil is in the details. As an investor I know not to step into something I don't know how to step out of. If someone sells something - you should give a thought as to why they're selling. Is the restaurant making money? What's the cashflow? Are there underlying issues? What are the development plans in the neighborhood for the foreseeable future? What's the clientele, and what are the trends? What's with the competition? Can you answer these questions? If not - you're not in a position to enter the business.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "37e82a21b361cd418f0442cc0bf9ddbc",
"text": "\"I would undoubtedly sell the investments if they are positive, maybe even a little negative. That's what non-retirement investments are for, building wealth to spend, give, etc. Flipping things may put it in perspective. Would you borrow money or liquidate your emergency fund in order to invest in mutual funds? If you can completely ignore risk then this MAY make sense. Let's say if you could borrow money at 3.75% and had a \"\"guaranteed\"\" investment return of 7.5% and a \"\"guaranteed\"\" source of income (job). But mutual funds (stocks, bonds) aren't even guaranteed to make money and they most definitely can lose and lose big. Also, I hope your job isn't in any way tied to the oil industry. On the other hand, if you take a loan and fall on hard times you can liquidate your mutual funds to get out of the bind, but you are at the mercy of the market and the worth of your investments at that point. So it may come down to whether you want to choose when to spend your investments, when they are up or at some future date when they may be worth much less (or much more).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d91a0fb3d7176d422c9f62acef216adc",
"text": "\"In general, there should be a \"\"liquidity premium\"\" which means that less-liquid stocks should be cheaper. That's because to buy such a stock, you should demand a higher rate of return to compensate for the liquidity risk (the possibility that you won't be able to sell easily). Lower initial price = higher eventual rate of return. That's what's meant when Investopedia says the security would be cheaper (on average). Is liquidity good? It depends. Here's what illiquidity is. Imagine you own a rare piece of art. Say there are 10 people in the world who collect this type of art, and would appreciate what you own. That's an illiquid asset, because when you want to sell, maybe those 10 people aren't buying - maybe they don't want your particular piece, or they all happen to be short on funds. Or maybe worse, only one of them is buying, so they have all the negotiating leverage. You'll have to lower your price if you're really in a hurry to sell. Maybe if you lower your price enough, you can get one of the 10 buyers interested, even if none were initially. An illiquid asset is bad for sellers. Illiquid means there aren't enough buyers for you to get a bidding war going at the time of your choosing. You'll potentially have to wait around for buyers to turn up, or for a stock, maybe you'd have to sell a little bit at a time as buyers want the shares. Illiquid can be bad for buyers, too, if the buyer is for some reason in a hurry; maybe nobody is selling at any given time. But, usually buyers don't have to be in a hurry. An exception may be if you short sell something illiquid (brokers often won't let you do this, btw). In that case you could be a forced buyer and this could be very bad on an illiquid security. If there are only one or two sellers out there, they now have the negotiating leverage and they can ask whatever price they want. Illiquidity is very bad when mixed with margin or short sales because of the potential for forced trades at inopportune times. There are plenty of obscure penny stocks where there might be only one or two trades per day, or fewer. The spread is going to be high on these because the bids at a given time will just be lowball offers from buyers who aren't really all that interested, unless you want to give your stock away, in which case they'll take it. And the asks are going to be from sellers who want to get a decent price, but maybe there aren't really any buyers willing to pay, so the ask is just sitting there with no takers. The bids and asks may be limit orders that have been sitting open for 3 weeks and forgotten about. Contrast with a liquid asset. For example, a popular-model used car in good condition would be a lot more liquid than a rare piece of art, though not nearly as liquid as most stocks. You can probably find several people that want to buy it living nearby, and you're not going to have to drop the price to get a buyer to show up. You might even get those buyers in a bidding war. From illiquid penny stocks, there's a continuum all the way up to the most heavily-traded stocks such as those in the S&P500. With these at a given moment there will be thousands of buyers and sellers, so the spread is going to close down to nearly zero. If you think about it, just statistically, if there are thousands of bids and thousands of asks, then the closest bid-ask pair is going to be close together. That's a narrow spread. While if there are 3 bids and 2 asks on some illiquid penny stock, they might be dollars away from each other, and the number of shares desired might not match up. You can see how liquidity is good in some situations and not in others. An illiquid asset gives you more opportunity to get a good deal because there aren't a lot of other buyers and sellers around and there's some opportunity to \"\"negotiate\"\" within the wide spread. For some assets maybe you can literally negotiate by talking to the other party, though obviously not when trading stocks on an exchange. But an illiquid asset also means you might get a bad deal, especially if you need to sell quickly and the only buyers around are making lowball offers. So the time to buy illiquid assets is when you can take your time on both buying and selling, and will have no reason for a forced trade on a particular timeline. This usually means no debt is involved, since creditors (including your margin broker) can force you to trade. It also means you don't need to spend the money anytime soon, since if you suddenly needed the money you'd have a forced trade on your hands. If you have the time, then you put a price out there that's very good for you, and you wait for someone to show up and give you that price - this is how you get a good deal. One more note, another use of the term liquid is to refer to assets with low or zero volatility, such as money market funds. An asset with a lot of volatility around its intrinsic or true value is effectively illiquid even if there's high trade volume, in that any given point in time might not be a good time to sell, because the price isn't at the right level. Anyway, the general definition of a liquid investment is one that you'd be comfortable cashing out of at a moment's notice. In this sense, most stocks are not all that liquid, despite high trading volume. In different contexts people may use \"\"liquid\"\" in this sense or to mean a low bid-ask spread.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "54b7f5a8f33f6c94d368f633b3820abe",
"text": "\"People have lost money buying houses in good to great neighborhoods. It's a pretty large red flag that you state this so clearly \"\"the neighborhood is pretty bad.\"\" I'd rather buy a bad house in a great neighborhood, and spend my weekends fixing it up, turning sweat equity into real equity. A two year bet? I'd pass. Close to the school, high demand area, and my answer might change. (And, \"\"welcome, stranger\"\")\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "9dbbf05d698cf95766eb371d5b9bdc04",
"text": "\"Insofar as a 52 week high indicates a peak, yes. However, the truth is that \"\"buying low and selling high\"\" means \"\"Act a Fool!\"\" You see, when you buy low, you are perceived to be buying total garbage - throwing your money away and conversely when selling high you are perceived to be a total idiot - selling a winner. That's how people will see you when you are in fact buying low and/or selling high, right? It's those people that (mis)value the asset, right? An asset is worth what the people will pay for it, right? ...And don't forget that holding a loser is MUCH easier than holding a winner. Good luck!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e2900a922d243bb2b0282f4fcec6579b",
"text": "\"no way -- he suggests that if you don't have an edge, no one needs to play the game. He doesn't like the idea of a \"\"lesser bad\"\" way to invest (MPT). If you do decide to get involved in investing, then it's about absolute performance, not relative. He believes that the whole relative performance thing -- beating some arbitrary benchmark -- is just an artificial construct.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "64a0080a7faeef7c5d3b8afb1106f8f2",
"text": "\"If i do this, I would assume I have an equal probability to make a profit or a loss. The \"\"random walk\"\"/EMH theory that you are assuming is debatable. Among many arguments against EMH, one of the more relevant ones is that there are actually winning trading strategies (e.g. momentum models in trending markets) which invalidates EMH. Can I also assume that probabilistically speaking, a trader cannot do worst than random? Say, if I had to guess the roll of a dice, my chance of being correct can't be less than 16.667%. It's only true if the market is truly an independent stochastic process. As mentioned above, there are empirical evidences suggesting that it's not. is it right to say then that it's equally difficult to purposely make a loss then it is to purposely make a profit? The ability to profit is more than just being able to make a right call on which direction the market will be going. Even beginners can have a >50% chance of getting on the right side of the trades. It's the position management that kills most of the PnL.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "82e1f714bcf875df2343789d9907506a",
"text": "\"I think you're confusing risk analysis (that is what you quoted as \"\"Taleb Distribution\"\") with arguments against taking risks altogether. You need to understand that not taking a risk - is by itself a risk. You can lose money by not investing it, because of the very same Taleb Distribution: an unpredictable catastrophic event. Take an example of keeping cash in your house and not investing it anywhere. In the 1998 default of the Russian Federation, people lost money by not investing it. Why? Because had they invested the money - they would have the investments/properties, but since they only had cash - it became worthless overnight. There's no argument for or against investing on its own. The arguments are always related to the investment goals and the risk analysis. You're looking for something that doesn't exist.\"",
"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": "254c336ef13d8ca00921bd8e72ca8e4f",
"text": "\"If you are already invested in a particular stock, I like JoeTaxpayer's answer. Think about it as if you are re-buying the stocks you own every day you decide to keep them and don't set emotional anchor points about what you paid for them or what they might be worth tomorrow. These lead to two major logical fallacies that investor's commonly fall prey to, Loss Aversion and Sunk Cost, both of which can be bad for your portfolio in the long run. To avert these natural tendencies, I suggest having a game plan before you purchase a stock based on on your investment goals for that stock. For example a combination of one or more of the following: I'm investing for the long term and I expect this stock to appreciate and will hold it until (specific event/time) at which point I will (sell it all/sell it gradually over a fixed time period) right around the time I need the money. I'm going to bail on this stock if it falls more than X % from my purchase price. I'm going to cash out (all/half/some) of this investment if it gains more than x % from my purchase price to lock in my returns. The important thing is to arrive at a strategy before you are invested and are likely to be more emotional than rational. Otherwise, it can be very hard to sell a \"\"hot\"\" stock that has suddenly jumped in price 25% because \"\"it has momentum\"\" (gambler's fallacy). Conversely it can be hard to sell a stock when it drops by 25% because \"\"I know it will bounce back eventually\"\" (Sunk Cost/Loss Aversion Fallacy). Also, remember that there is opportunity cost from sticking with a losing investment because your brain is saying \"\"I really haven't lost money until I give up and sell it.\"\" When logically you should be thinking, \"\"If I move my money to a more promising investment I could get a better return than I am likely to on what I'm holding.\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5d7736255f034e29a930b7eab8d3047c",
"text": "\"Forecasts of stock market direction are not reliable, so you shouldn't be putting much weight on them. Long term, you can expect to do better in stocks, but obtaining this better expected return has the danger of \"\"buying in\"\" to the market at a particularly bad moment, leading to a substantially lower return. So mitigate that risk while moving in a big piece of cash by \"\"dollar cost averaging\"\". An example would be to divide your cash hoard (conceptually) into say six pieces, and invest each piece in the index fund two months apart. After a year you will have invested the whole sum at about the average of the index for the year.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d53aa0d57c2fafd3da989ed9df7e6763",
"text": "\"It's not necessarily bad but it can cause the stock price to become a lot more volatile. Depends on which side of the bet you're on ;) Suppose a hedge fund manager thinks a company is poorly run. He may buy a ton of shares so that he can get rid of the current CEO and replace it with his/her own. For the hedge fund and others long on the stock, this is good. Those who are trading options or using some short-term strategies could get screwed because of the sudden volatility. My next point is related to the above. What is the intrinsic value of a stock? The current price of a stock is the equilibrium of all investor's perception of the stock's value. Professionals make up a value for a stock using models such as DCF. Once they do so they trade based on what they believe the value of the stock is. You might calculate a stock is worth 70 and I believe it's 80 so the stock price is going to fluctuate a bit but it should keep within that range (assuming we're the only investors). Then comes a hedge fund manager, say Carl Icahn, and discloses a stake in our stock. \"\"Wow, the stock must be really valuable!\"\" Everyone starts buying this stock so up it goes to 90, simply because the guy who seems to know what he's doing bought it. The point here is that now it's not trading based on intrinsic value, now it's purely psychological. Ie. it's now a momentum stock, which you have no idea when it'll crash. Look at Tesla, Netflix, or just google momentum stocks. All the big crashes in stock prices happen when these big funds unload their stocks. A surge in supply will cut the price. The problem is you can't predict when some fund manager will decide to sell some stake of his. Tying everything together is liquidity. The more liquid a stock is, the easier it is to obtain and the less volatile it is. The more people playing the game, with not too big shares of stock, the faster the price will converge to some equilibrium and with less volatility. Institutional investors take away liquidity.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b3c5e662fd37d2b6cc36b0c5b2233bb1",
"text": "The type of day trading you have described is a form of gambling. As with any type of gambling, sometimes you win. Doesn't mean you are good at it or will win next time. As long as you clearly understand that you are doing it for fun, I think your current strategy is fine. If bankruptcy is on the table, you need to stop now.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6c3402dd0d189413abfe4f770d824778",
"text": "So far we have a case for yes and no. I believe the correct answer is... maybe. You mention that most of your expenses are in dollars which is definitely correct, but there is an important complication that I will try to simplify greatly here. Many of the goods you buy are priced on the international market (a good example is oil) or are made from combinations of these goods. When the dollar is strong the price of oil is low but when the dollar is weak the price of oil is high. However, when you buy stuff like services (think a back massage) then you pay the person in dollars and the person you are paying just wants dollars so the strength of the dollar doesn't really matter. Most people's expenses are a mix of things that are priced internationally and locally with a bias toward local expenses. If they also have a mix of investments some of which are international and depend on the strength of the dollar and some are domestic and do not, then they don't have to worry much about the strength/weakness of the dollar later when they sell their investments and buy what they want. If the dollar is weak than the international goods will be more expensive, but at the same time international part of their portfolio will be worth more. If you plan on retiring in a different country or have 100% of your investments in emerging market stocks than it is worth thinking about either currency hedging or changing your investment mix. However, for many people a good mix of domestic and international investments covers much of the risk that their currency will weaken while offering the benefits of diversification. The best part is you don't need to guess if the dollar will get stronger or weaker. tl;dr: If you want your portfolio to not depend on currency moves then hedge. If you want your retirement to not depend on currency moves then have a good mix of local and unhedged international investments.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
56522c87d61010620ff7a6c66a67c03b
|
Source of income: from dividends vs sale of principal or security
|
[
{
"docid": "d3758f89694c049210e7beac9efa2c3a",
"text": "The trend in ETFs is total return: where the ETF automatically reinvests dividends. This philosophy is undoubtedly influenced by that trend. The rich and retired receive nearly all income from interest, dividends, and capital gains; therefore, one who receives income exclusively from dividends and capital gains must fund by withdrawing dividends and/or liquidating holdings. For a total return ETF, the situation is even more limiting: income can only be funded by liquidation. The expected profit is lost for the dividend as well as liquidating since the dividend can merely be converted back into securities new or pre-existing. In this regard, dividends and investments are equal. One who withdraws dividends and liquidates holdings should be careful not to liquidate faster than the rate of growth.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4fb1a5e99230c501515c7bc122565527",
"text": "\"Some people have this notion that withdrawing dividends from savings is somehow okay but withdrawing principal is not. Note, this notion. Would someone please explain the \"\"mistake\"\" on P214 and why it's a mistake? Because there may be times where withdrawing principal may be a good idea as one could sell off something that has gained enough that in re-balancing the portfolio there are capital gains that could be used for withdrawing in retirement. How and why does the sale of financial instrument equate to the receipt of dividends? In either case, one has cash equivalents that could be withdrawn. If you take the dividends in cash or sell a security to raise cash, you have cash. Thus, it doesn't matter what origin it has. If I sell a financial instrument that later appreciates in value, then this profit opportunity is lost. In the case of a dividend, I'd still possess the financial security and benefit from the stock's appreciation? One could argue that the in the case of a dividend, by not buying more of the instrument you are missing out on a profit opportunity as well. Thus, are you out to make the maximum profit overall or do you have reason for taking the cash instead of increasing your holding?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c225f0d51cc196dd2a9a93844144f5cb",
"text": "All that it is saying is that if you withdraw money from your account it doesn't matter whether it has come from dividends or capital gains, it is still a withdrawal. Of course you can only withdraw a capital gain if you sell part of the assets. You would only do this if it was the right time for you to sell the asset.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "388d68c4bbd62a93432eb56c917bba4e",
"text": "The sentence you quoted does not apply in the case where you sell the stock at a loss. In that case, you recognize zero ordinary income, and a capital loss (opposite of a gain) for the loss. Reference: http://efs.fidelity.com/support/sps/article/article2.html",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b75f0705566b077e94ec8e033f33d09e",
"text": "Inflows to the US equity market can come from a variety of sources; for instance: You were paid a year-end bonus and decided to invest it in US equities instead of foreign equities, bonds, savings or debt reduction. You sold foreign equities, bonds, or other non-US equities and decided to invest in US equities. You decided a better use of cash in a savings account, CD or money market fund, was to invest in US equities. If for every buyer, there's a seller, doesn't that also mean that there were $25B in outflows in the same time period? Not necessarily. Generally, the mentions we see of inflows and outflows are net; that is, the gross investment in US equities, minus gross sales of US equities equals net inflows or outflows. The mere fact that I sold my position in, say, Caterpillar, doesn't mean that I had to re-invest in US equities. I may have bought a bond or a CD or a house. Because of fluctuations in existing stocks market value, bankruptcies and new issues, US equities never are and never will be a zero-sum game.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "24edd62c7ed2bda08884eda0e9dcf42b",
"text": "\"In the US, and in most other countries, dividends are considered income when paid, and capital gains/losses are considered income/loss when realized. This is called, in accounting, \"\"recognition\"\". We recognize income when cash reaches our pocket, for tax purposes. So for dividends - it is when they're paid, and for gains - when you actually sell. Assuming the price of that fund never changes, you have this math do to when you sell: Of course, the capital loss/gain may change by the time you actually sell and realize it, but assuming the only price change is due to the dividends payout - it's a wash.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "829ff126b899af4b65aa225ce89badc3",
"text": "Lets just get to the point...Ordinary income (gains) earned from S-Corp operations (i.e. income earned after all expenses for providing services or selling products) is passed through to the owners/shareholders and taxed at the owner's personal tax rate. Separately, if an S-Corp earns capital gains (i.e. the S-Corp buys and sells stock, earns dividends from investments, etc), those gains are passed through to the owners and taxed at a capital gains rate Capital gains are not the same as ordinary income (gains). Don't get the two confused, they are as different for S-Corp taxation as they are for personal taxation. In some cases an exception occurs, but only when the S-Corp was formally a C-Corp and the C-Corp had non-distributed earnings or losses. This is a separate issue whereas the undistributed C-Corp gains/losses are treated differently than the S-Corp gains/losses. It takes years of college coursework and work experience to grasp the vast arena of tax. It should not be so complex, but it is this complex. It is not within the scope of the non-tax professional to make sense of this stuff. The CPA exams, although very difficult and thorough, only scrape the surface of tax and accounting. I hope this provides some perspective on any questions regarding business tax for S-Corps and any other entity type. Hire a good CPA... if you can find one.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d193462c2812d839a5c8e4ab18f9b52d",
"text": "The benefit is not in taxes. When you sell a portion of your stock, you no longer have a portion of your stock. When you get a dividend, you still have a portion of your stock. Dividends are distributed from the net profits of a company and as such usually don't affect its growth/earning potential much (although there may be cases when they do). So while the price takes a temporary dip due to the distribution, you're likely to get the same dividends again next year, if the company continues being similarly profitable. If you sell a portion of your stock, at some point you'll end up with no more stocks to sell.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "3b7fd84cef86ec642912dd0ad4a815e3",
"text": "\"Most (if not all states) in the US are only interested in source income. If you worked in that state they want to tax it. Many states have reciprocity agreements with neighboring states to exempt income earned when a person works in lets say Virginia, but lives in a state that touches Virginia. Most states don't consider interest and dividends for individuals as source income. They don't care where the bank or mutual fund branch is located, or headquartered.If it is interest from a business they will allocate it to the state where the business is located. If you may ask you to allocate the funds between two states if you move during the year, but most people will just divide the interest and dividends based on the number of days in each state unless there is a way to directly allocate the funds to a particular state. Consider this: Where is the money when it is in a bank with multiple branches? The money is only electronic, and your actual \"\"$'s\"\" may be in a federal reserve branch. Pension funds are invested in projects all over the US.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f1816281f79c09983869981674d6ff07",
"text": "Dividends and interest are counted under operations for the purpose of this tweet. This is pretty much entirely a non-story. I'm not sure exactly how they're dividing it up, but it looks like they're only counting stock appreciation as capital gains and counting things revenue from sales (from their subsidiaries as well) under operating income. This is just from a quick glance over their statement of earning, but that's what it looks like to me.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "92388431b9fc8ad3f676a1f056912571",
"text": "Let's say two companies make 5% profit every year. Company A pays 5% dividend every year, but company B pays no dividend but grows its business by 5%. (And both spend the money needed to keep the business up-to-date, that's before profits are calculated). You are right that with company B, the company will grow. So if you had $1000 shares in each company, after 20 years company A has given you $1000 in dividends and is worth $1000, while company B has given you no dividends, but is worth a lot more than $2000, $2653 if my calculation is right. Which looks a lot better than company A. However, company A has paid $50 every year, and if you put that money into a savings account giving 5% interest, you would make exactly the same money either way.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "34bbcb90aefee6b1b90f85ab10a1b6d5",
"text": "While there are many very good and detailed answers to this question, there is one key term from finance that none of them used and that is Net Present Value. While this is a term generally associate with debt and assets, it also can be applied to the valuation models of a company's share price. The price of the share of a stock in a company represents the Net Present Value of all future cash flows of that company divided by the total number of shares outstanding. This is also the reason behind why the payment of dividends will cause the share price valuation to be less than its valuation if the company did not pay a dividend. That/those future outflows are factored into the NPV calculation, actually performed or implied, and results in a current valuation that is less than it would have been had that capital been retained. Unlike with a fixed income security, or even a variable rate debenture, it is difficult to predict what the future cashflows of a company will be, and how investors chose to value things as intangible as brand recognition, market penetration, and executive competence are often far more subjective that using 10 year libor rates to plug into a present value calculation for a floating rate bond of similar tenor. Opinion enters into the calculus and this is why you end up having a greater degree of price variance than you see in the fixed income markets. You have had situations where companies such as Amazon.com, Google, and Facebook had highly valued shares before they they ever posted a profit. That is because the analysis of the value of their intellectual properties or business models would, overtime provide a future value that was equivalent to their stock price at that time.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "ec3d14f8d9e15d3aab6f98d3a9cf46fd",
"text": "If you are tax-resident in the US, then you must report income from sources within and without the United States. Your foreign income generally must be reported to the IRS. You will generally be eligible for a credit for foreign income taxes paid, via Form 1116. The question of the stock transfer is more complicated, but revolves around the beneficial owner. If the stocks are yours but held by your brother, it is possible that you are the beneficial owner and you will have to report any income. There is no tax for bringing the money into the US. As a US tax resident, you are already subject to income tax on the gain from the sale in India. However, if the investment is held by a separate entity in India, which is not a US domestic entity or tax resident, then there is a separate analysis. Paying a dividend to you of the sale proceeds (or part of the proceeds) would be taxable. Your sale of the entity containing the investments would be taxable. There are look-through provisions if the entity is insufficiently foreign (de facto US, such as a Subpart-F CFC). There are ways to structure that transaction that are not taxable, such as making it a bona fide loan (which is enforceable and you must pay back on reasonable terms). But if you are holding property directly, not through a foreign separate entity, then the sale triggers US tax; the transfer into the US is not meaningful for your taxes, except for reporting foreign accounts. Please review Publication 519 for general information on taxation of resident aliens.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b48723be4cfd22c056c3bd1f60c6f2b5",
"text": "Remember that long term appreciation has tax advantages over short-term dividends. If you buy shares of a company, never earn any dividends, and then sell the stock for a profit in 20 years, you've essentially deferred all of the capital gains taxes (and thus your money has compounded faster) for a 20 year period. For this reason, I tend to favor non-dividend stocks, because I want to maximize my long-term gain. Another example, in estate planning, is something called a step-up basis:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "187da176de28134ca36a1b9726d3e13a",
"text": "The shareholders have a claim on the profits, but they may prefer that claim to be exercised in ways other than dividend payments. For example, they may want the company to invest all of its profits in growth, or they may want it to buy back shares to increase the value of the remaining shares, especially since dividends are generally taxed as income while an increase in the share price is generally taxed as a capital gain, and capital gains are often taxed at a lower rate than income.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "10d8658ae1f278bd82771c88cacf32fa",
"text": "The ultimate reason to own stock is to receive cash or cash equivalents from the underlying security. You can argue that you make money when stock is valued higher by the market, but the valuation should (though clearly not necessarily is) be based on the expected payout of the underlying security. There are only three ways money can be returned to the shareholder: As you can see, if you don't ask for dividends, you are basically asking for one of the top two too occur - which happens in the future at the end of the company's life as an independent entity. If you think about the time value of money, money in the hand now as dividends can be worth more than the ultimate appreciation of liquidation or acquisition value. Add in uncertainty as a factor for ultimate value, and my feeling is that dividends are underpaid in today's markets.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
a8385b6723fcf3926a2ec6a619186796
|
What is a good rental yield?
|
[
{
"docid": "f000814393145523bb955e8c305cd035",
"text": "\"I've never heard of rent quoted per week. Are you in the US? In general, after the down payment, one would hope to take the rent, and be able to pay the mortgage, tax, insurance, and then have enough left each year to at least have a bit of emergency money for repairs. If one can start by actually pocketing more than this each year, that's ideal, but to start with a rental, and only make money \"\"after taxes\"\" is cutting it too close in my opinion. The 19 to 1 \"\"P/E\"\" appears too high, when I followed such things I recall 12 or under being the target. Of course rates were higher, and that number rises with very low rates. In your example, a $320K mortgage at 4% is $1527/mo. $400/wk does not cut it.\"",
"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": ""
},
{
"docid": "0b74ae43593376c509c0450f1ca4c0e7",
"text": "A good quick filter to see if a property is worth looking at is if the total rent for the property for the year is equal to 10% of the price of the property. For example, if the property is valued at $400,000 then the rent collected should be $40,000 for the entire year. Which is $3,333.33 per month. If the property does not bring in at least 10% per year then it is not likely all the payments can be covered on the property. It's more likely to be sinking money into it to keep it afloat. You would be exactly right, as you have to figure in insurance, utilities, taxes, maintenance/repair, mortgage payments, (new roof, new furnace, etc), drywall, paint, etc. Also as a good rule of thumb, expect a vacancy rate of at least 10% (or 1 month) per year as a precaution. If you have money sitting around, look into Real Estate Investment Trusts. IIRC, the average dividend was north of 10% last year. That is all money that comes back to you. I'm not sure what the tax implications are in Australia, however in Canada dividends are taxed very favourably. No mortgage, property tax, tenants to find, or maintenance either.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9bf6f4f6b37e19854675b9535de8de01",
"text": "\"Historically that 'divide by 1000' rule of thumb is what many people in Australia have thought of as normal, and yes, it's about a 5.2% gross yield. Net of expenses, perhaps 3-4%, without allowing for interest. If you're comparing this to shares, I think the right comparison is to the dividend yield, not to the overall PE. A dividend yield of about 3-5% is also about typical: if you look at the Vanguard Index Australian Shares Fund as a proxy for the ASX the yield last year was about 4%. Obviously a 4% return is not very competitive with a term deposit. But with both shares and housing you can hope for some capital growth in addition to the income yield. If you get 4% rental yield plus 5% growth it is more attractive. Is it \"\"good\"\" to buy at what people have historically thought was \"\"normal\"\"? Perhaps you are better off looking around, or sitting out, until you find a much better price than normal. \"\"Is 5% actually historically normal?\"\" deserves a longer answer.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3fb2e6453f1e28c62ac5bd5e2fc02dae",
"text": "The rule of thumb I have always heard and what we rent our rental house at is 1% per month at the minimum (in the US). The rent has to cover the mortgage, the property taxes, the homeowners insurance, your income taxes (on the rent), the maintenance of the property and the times when the property is vacant. Even at 1% per month that doesn't leave a whole lot of profit compared to what you put in. I have no idea why anybody would buy a rental property in Australia if all they could get is 5% per year before expenses. They couldn't possibly be making money in that investment, not to mention the aggravations of getting late night phone calls because something broke in the rental house. No way I would make that investment.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "faafc603fc4fdc218a969f17936f5d17",
"text": "Our two rentals have yielded 8.5% over the past two years (averaged). That is net, after taxes, maintenance, management, vacancy, insurance, interest. I am only interested in cash flow - expenses / original investment. If you aren't achieving at least 4.5-5% net on your original investment you probably could invest elsewhere and earn a better return on a similar risk profile.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5c414e5cc9408b5328cdf86fdad68798",
"text": "I would just like to point out that the actual return should be compared to your down payment, not the property price. After all, you didn't pay $400K for that property, right? You probably paid only 20%, so you're collecting $20K/year on a $80K investment, which works out to 25%. Even if you're only breaking even, your equity is still growing, thanks to your tenants. If you're also living in one of the units, then you're saving rent, which frees up cash flow. Your increased savings, combined with the contributions of your tenants will put you on a very fast track. In a few years you should have enough to buy a second property. :)",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "470fb0038dad4dcaeae56f7574442cb8",
"text": "This is not an answer to all of your questions but merely an eleaboration on one of your comments: Are there any other areas in the UK that would return rental yields much above 10% net? Shares. I could withdraw the money and buy shares for the dividend income, but it is hard to choose shares that yield more than about 6% and they are volatile. I wrote a post about using shares to invest a pension pot. http://www.sspf.co.uk/blog/016/ You may find it of some interest. Of course, the investing would take place within the pension 'wrapper' so you'd only be paying tax on the income taken out each year. The other alternatives you mention suggest paying for the expertise and time of an IFA would be a very economical decision. £1,000 to best use £150,000 seems a bargain to me. Some of the avenues you mention seem very risky from my understanding so someone to determine your tolerances and propose a holistic solution is a good path forward. Best wishes!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4b4f9539a0ce475ef2340aa59fc3d7e6",
"text": "Whether it is better to buy or to rent depends on several factors. Most of them are fairly uncertain, but calculations can be made to see how they play out in the long-term for insight into their impact. The results below are made on the basis that both the buyer and the tenant spend the same amount, in this case $1,480.03 per month. The buyer pays his mortgage and when it's all paid for he switches to investing $1,480.03 per month at the fund deposit rate. Meanwhile the tenant pays rent and invests whatever remains from $1,480.03 per month at the fund deposit rate. The amount $1,480.03 is set by the mortgage case and used by buyer and tenant for equal comparison. Taking some hopefully not too unrealistic rate estimates, these are the calculation inputs:- (All percentages are expressed as effective annual rates) Plot of buyer's and tenant's accumulated assets over time The simulation extends for twice the term of the mortgage. If the investment fund can return 7% and a $900 rental is comparable to a $300,000 house then there isn't much of a compelling case either way. Lowering the expected fund return shows a different picture. Sticking with the 5.0% fund return, lowering the rent brings the tenant's asset accumulation closer to the buyer's. If there is a particular set of inputs you would like to see plotted I'm sure I could add another example to this post. There is also an interactive version of the calculation which you can find via this page. However, unlike the examples above which include a deposit and grant, it just explores the simple case of a 100% mortgage. The aim is just to see how rate variations affect asset value over time.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6c76302619f2810cce4b6c9bfd5d8412",
"text": "Yield is almost always the mean rate of return. Then 1.65% yield means that you will see that rate of return inclusive of any coupons. The way I like think of is that yield is the discount rate used to value the instrument at market value. DONT CONFUSE THE COUPON RATE WITH YIELD. Those are two completely separate things.",
"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": "52d2669e7b9531556d89fd5c4944a25b",
"text": "\"The value of getting into the landlord business -- or any other business -- depends on circumstances at the time. How much will it cost you to buy the property? How much can you reasonably expect to collect in rent? How easy or difficult is it to find a tenant? Etc. I owned a rental property for about ten years and I lost a bundle of money on it. Things people often don't consider when calculating likely rental income are: There will be times when you have no tenant. Someone moves out and you don't always find a new tenant right away. Maintenance. There's always something that the tenant expects you to fix. Tenants aren't likely to take as good a care of the property as someone who owned it would. And while a homeowner might fix little things himself, like a broken light switch or doorknob, the tenant expects the landlord to fix such things. If you live nearby and have the time and ability to do minor maintenance, this may be no big deal. If you have to call a professional, this can get very expensive very quickly. Like for example, I once had a tenant complain that the water heater wasn't working. I called a plumber. He found that the knob on the water heater was set to \"\"low\"\". So he turned it up. He charged me, I think it was $200. I can't really complain about the charge. He had to drive to the property, figure out that that was all the problem was, turn the knob, and then verify that that really solved the problem. Tenants don't always pay the rent on time, or at all. I had several tenants who apparently saw the rent as something optional, to be paid if they had money left over that they couldn't think of anything better to do with. You may get bad tenants who destroy the place. I had one tenant who did $10,000 worth of damage. That include six inches deep of trash all over the house that had to be cleared out, rotting food all over, excrement smeared on walls, holes in the walls, and many things broken. I thought it was disgusting just to have to go in to clean it up, I can't imagine living like that, but whatever. Depending on the laws in your area, it may be very difficult to kick out a bad tenant. In my case, I had to evict two tenants, and it took about three months each time to go through the legal process. On the slip side, the big advantage to owning real estate is that once you pay it off, you own it and can continue to collect rent. And as most currencies in the world are subject to inflation, the rent you can charge will normally go up while your mortgage payments are constant.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e5f4ab2a01fac462e9288e0ff4883245",
"text": "I am sorry to say, you are asking the wrong question. If I own a rental that I bought with cash, I have zero mortgage. The guy I sell it to uses a hard money lender (charging a high rate) and finances 100%. All of this means nothing to the prospective tenant. In general, one would look at the rent to buy ratio in the area, and decide whether homes are selling for a price that makes it profitable to buy and then rent out. In your situation, I understand you are looking to decide on a rent based on your costs. That ship has sailed. You own already. You need to look in the area and find out what your house will rent for. And that number will tell you whether you can afford to treat it as a rental or would be better off selling. Keep in mind - you don't list a country, but if you are in US, part of a rental property is that you 'must' depreciate it each year. This is a tax thing. You reduce your cost basis each year and that amount is a loss against income from the rental or might be used against your ordinary income. But, when you sell, your basis is lower by this amount and you will be taxed on the difference from your basis to the sale price. Edit: After reading OP's updated question, let me answer this way. There are experts who suggest that a rental property should have a high enough rent so that 50% of rent covers expenses. This doesn't include the mortgage. e.g. $1500 rent, $750 goes to taxes, insurance, maintenance, repairs, etc. the remaining $750 can be applied to the mortgage, and what remains is cash profit. No one can give you more than a vague idea of what to look for, because you haven't shared the numbers. What are your taxes? Insurance? Annual costs for landscaping/snow plowing? Then take every item that has a limited life, and divide the cost by its lifetime. e.g. $12,000 roof over 20 years is $600. Do this for painting, and every appliance. Then allow a 10% vacancy rate. If you cover all of this and the mortgage, it may be worth keeping. Since you have zero equity, time is on your side, the price may rise, and hopefully, the monthly payments chip away at the loan.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "63992ab475c060121e8878774c7589c3",
"text": "A 20% dividend yield in most companies would make me very suspicious. Most dividend yields are in the 2-3% range right now and a 20% yield would make me worry that the company was in trouble, the stock price had crashed and the dividend was going to be cut, the company was going to go out of business or both.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "88d77a3dd754aefdfb72b4a009b8c5e4",
"text": "\"Started to post this as a comment, but I think it's actually a legitimate answer: Running a rental property is neither speculation nor investment, but a business, just as if you were renting cars or tools or anything else. That puts it in an entirely different category. The property may gain or lose value, but you don't know which or how much until you're ready to terminate the business... so, like your own house, it really isn't a liquid asset; it's closer to being inventory. Meanwhile, like inventory, you need to \"\"restock\"\" it on a fairly regular basis by maintaining it, finding tenants, and so on. And how much it returns depends strongly on how much effort you put into it in terms of selecting the right location and product in the first place, and in how you market yourself against all the other businesses offering near-equivalent product, and how you differentiate the product, and so on. I think approaching it from that angle -- deciding whether you really want to be a business owner or keep all your money in more abstract investments, then deciding what businesses are interesting to you and running the numbers to see what they're likely to return as income, THEN making up your mind whether real estate is the winner from that group -- is likely to produce better decisions. Among other things, it helps you remember to focus on ALL the costs of the business. When doing the math, don't forget that income from the business is taxed at income rates, not investment rates. And don't forget that you're making a bet on the future of that neighborhood as well as the future of that house; changes in demographics or housing stock or business climate could all affect what rents you can charge as well as the value of the property, and not necessarily in the same direction. It may absolutely be the right place to put some of your money. It may not. Explore all the possible outcomes before making the bet, and decide whether you're willing to do the work needed to influence which ones are more likely.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "41dd51abeb0546afc075005553f9f663",
"text": "> The paper, which is yet to be published, found that a 10 percent increase in Airbnb listings can create an average 0.39 percent increase in rents and an average 0.64 percent increase in home prices, the Wall Street Journal reported. In the long term, rents and property value go up at the same rate. So if they're saying that one is almost double the other, the margin of error here could be very large.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "70895340e89e2ed79c06404366e1c4f7",
"text": "\"Probably the most important thing in evaluating a dividend yield is to compare it to ITSELF (in the past). If the dividend yield is higher than it has been in the past, the stock may be cheap. If it is lower, the stock may be expensive. Just about every stock has a \"\"normal\"\" yield for itself. (It's zero for non-dividend paying stocks.) This is based on the stock's perceived quality, growth potential, and other factors. So a utility that normally yields 5% and is now paying 3% is probably expensive (the price in the denominator is too high), while a growth stock that normally yields 2% and is now yielding 3% (e.g. Intel or McDonald'sl), may be cheap.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "20740f5842204ad615cd3309fc8cd602",
"text": "Will buying a flat which generates $250 rent per month be a good decision? Whether investing in real estate is a good decision or not depends on many things, including the current and future supply/demand for rental units in your particular area. There are many questions on this site about this topic, and another answer to this question which already addresses many risks associated with owning property (though there are also benefits to consider). I just want to focus on this point you raised: I personally think yes, because rent adjusts with inflation and the rise in the price of the property is another benefit. Could this help me become financially independent in the long run since inflation is getting adjusted in it? In my opinion, the fact that rental income general adjusts with 'inflation' is a hedge against some types of economic risk, not an absolute increase in value. First, consider buying a house to live in, instead of to rent: If you pay off your mortgage before your retire, then you have reduced your cost of accommodations to only utilities, property taxes, and repairs. This gives you a (relatively) known, fixed requirement of cash outflows. If the value of property goes up by the time you retire - it doesn't cost you anything extra, because you already own your house. If the value of property goes down by the time you retire, then you don't save anything, because you already own your house. If you instead rent your whole life, and save money each month (instead of paying off a mortgage), then when you retire, you will have a larger amount of savings which you can use to pay your monthly rental costs each month. By the time you retire, your cost of accommodations will be the market price for rent at that time. If the value of property goes up by the time you retire - you will have to pay more on rent. If the value of property goes down by the time you retire, you will save money on rent. You will have larger savings, but your cash outflow will be a little bit less certain, because you don't know what the market price for rent will be. You can see that, because you need to put a roof over your own head, just by existing you bear risk of the cost of property rising. So, buying your own home can be a hedge against that risk. This is called a 'natural hedge', where two competing risks can mitigate each-other just by existing. This doesn't mean buying a house is always the right thing to do, it is just one piece of the puzzle to comparing the two alternatives [see many other threads on buying vs renting on this site, or on google]. Now, consider buying a house to rent out to other people: In the extreme scenario, assume that you do everything you can to buy as much property as possible. Maybe by the time you retire, you own a small apartment building with 11 units, where you live in one of them (as an example), and you have no other savings. Before, owning your own home was, among other pros and cons, a natural hedge against the risk of your own personal cost of accommodations going up. But now, the risk of your many rental units is far greater than the risk of your own personal accommodations. That is, if rent goes up by $100 after you retire, your rental income goes up by $1,000, and your personal cost of accommodations only goes up by $100. If rent goes down by $50 after you retire, your rental income goes down by $500, and your personal cost of accommodations only goes down by $50. You can see that only investing in rental properties puts you at great risk of fluctuations in the rental market. This risk is larger than if you simply bought your own home, because at least in that case, you are guaranteeing your cost of accommodations, which you know you will need to pay one way or another. This is why most investment advice suggests that you diversify your investment portfolio. That means buying some stocks, some bonds, etc.. If you invest to heavily in a single thing, then you bear huge risks for that particular market. In the case of property, each investment is so large that you are often 'undiversified' if you invest heavily in it (you can't just buy a house $100 at a time, like you could a stock or bond). Of course, my above examples are very simplified. I am only trying to suggest the underlying principle, not the full complexities of the real estate market. Note also that there are many types of investments which typically adjust with inflation / cost of living; real estate is only one of them.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "36c896602ab0b1ab640cf2312e3bbe9c",
"text": "I'd recommend you use an online tax calculator to see the effect it will have. To your comment with @littleadv, there's FMV, agreed, but there's also a rate below that. One that's a bit lower than FMV, but it's a discount for a tenant who will handle certain things on their own. I had an arm's length tenant, who was below FMV, I literally never met him. But, our agreement through a realtor, was that for any repairs, I was not required to arrange or meet repairmen. FMV is not a fixed number, but a bit of a range. If this is your first rental, you need to be aware of the requirement to take depreciation. Simply put, you separate your cost into land and house. The house value gets depreciated by 1/27.5 (i.e. you divide the value by 27.5 and that's taken as depreciation each year. You may break even on cash flow, the rent paying the mortgage, property tax, etc, but the depreciation might still produce a loss. This isn't optional. It flows to your tax return, and is limited to $25K/yr. Further, if your adjusted gross income is over $100K, the allowed loss is phased out over the next $50K of income. i.e. each $1000 of AGI reduces the allowed loss by $500. The losses you can't take are carried forward, until you use them to offset profit each year, or sell the property. If you offer numbers, you'll get a more detailed answer, but this is the general overview. In general, if you are paying tax, you are doing well, running a profit even after depreciation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d424b29f29d724e29c526bee6f6ce5bf",
"text": "The yield on Div Data is showing 20% ((3.77/Current Price)*100)) because that only accounts for last years dividend. If you look at the left column, the 52 week dividend yield is the same as google(1.6%). This is calculated taking an average of n number of years. The data is slightly off as one of those sites would have used an extra year.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1ee88fd98cd2abe4b12e83221dbe5fa1",
"text": "One lender's explanation of getting permission to rent out. The implication is that it is straightforward with a 1% extra interest to pay. However, there is no guarantee that permission would be given, so there might be a risk. http://www.nationwide.co.uk/support/support-articles/manage-your-account/letting-your-property/letting-your-property-overview Definitely renting out a property with a residential mortgage is not a good idea.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0019555ef274c2e193d32f3d80809eb6",
"text": "I would not hold any company stock for the company that provides your income. This is a too many eggs in one basket kind of problem. With a discounted stock purchase plan, I would buy the shares at a 10% discount and immediately resell for a profit. If the company prevents you from immediately reselling, I don't know if I would invest. The risk is too great that you'll see your job lost and your 401k/investments emptied due to a single cause.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
533084d85ccca594c0019fd29b698b26
|
Turning 30 and making the right decision with my savings and purchasing home
|
[
{
"docid": "886e10a51f92d7a079ec4b39db998528",
"text": "\"I love the idea of #1, keep that going. I don't think #2 is very realistic. Given the short time frame putting money at risk for a higher yield may not work in your favor. If it was me, I'd stick to a \"\"high interest\"\" savings account (around 1%). I don't mind #3 either, however, I'd be socking whatever you could to mortgage principle so you can get out of PMI sooner rather than later. That would be my top priority. Given the status of interest rates, you may end up saving money in the long run. I doubt it, but you may. If you choose to go with #3, don't settle for a house that you really don't like. Get something that you want. Who knows it may take you a year or so to find something!\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "7856213a10310d10734defe41d41f977",
"text": "Congratulations on your bonus may many more come your way. I am having a bit of trouble following your numbers but it seems you are considering PMI for the life of your loan. Once you get below 20% loan to value, you can petition the mortgage company to remove the PMI (with conventional loans; VA and FHA have lifetime PMI). If it was me, I'd do one of two things. Both involve paying off the student loan now. The savings from the student loan payment will assist you in helping you meet one of the two goals below. Also both involve getting a 15 year fixed. The first would be to buy the house now, and work like crazy to get rid of the PMI. My goal would be to get rid of this within 18 months. The second would be to save up enough cash for the 20% down and then buy the house. You'd miss out on the house you are looking at, which is kind of heartbreaking. Who is to say that a better home does not come along at the same price? My goal would be to have the downpayment in 9 months, and really try to have it in 6 months. Being an old guy that has experience how much of a virtue patience is, I'd recommend the second option.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e3114d45827cfc2ab35bae84dc5fce87",
"text": "\"I'm in the \"\"big mortgage\"\" camp. Or, to put this another way - what would you be happier to have in 15 years? A house that is worth $300,000, or $50,000 of equity in a house and $225,000 in the bank? I would much rather have the latter; it gives me so many more options. (the numbers are rough; you can figure it out yourself based on the current interest rate you can get on investments vs the cost of mortgage interest (which may be less if you can deduct the mortgage interest)).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "dbd2e54664eee4c21ecf47902bbe8fe1",
"text": "Assuming a good credit score with no issues like bankruptcy they look at 2 ratios: housing related debts and non-housing debts. For you the housing debts are: principal and interest ($1986/month), property taxes ($490/month), Home Insurance ($120/month) and HOA fee ($120/month). Add these up ($2716/month). You want this to be below 28% of your gross, though some lenders use 33%. For you 109K/year is 9083/month or 29.9%. The 20% down payment saves you the PMI payments. Note that the deductions for interest and taxes already hidden in the ratio limits, so don't try to reduce the monthly impact by a expected deduction. Many lenders will require you to give them the money from taxes and insurance each month, they will forward the funds to the government of insurance policy when the bills are due. The 2nd ratio is for the non-housing debts, which you claim to be zero. That should be less than 10%. If they insist on keeping you below 28% you might need a lower rate or bigger down payment. Your current income and budget have allowed you to accumulate significant savings, though you retirement balances seem low. The savings and CD balances show that you could increase your spending each month without severely impacting your financial health. Should you buy, can't be answered because that is an individual choice. Keep in mind that home ownership also includes additional responsibilities that a renter can ask a landlord to fix and pay for. That is the stuff that is impossible to predict.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e128ad42db59566422ffe6f6ac6e6c91",
"text": "Other people have belabored the point that you will get a better rate on a 15 year mortgage, typically around 1.25 % lower. The lower rate makes the 15 year mortgage financially wiser than paying a 30 year mortgage off in 15 years. So go with the 15 year if your income is stable, you will never lose your job, your appliances never break, your vehicles never need major repairs, the pipes in your house never burst, you and your spouse never get sick, and you have no kids. Or if you do have kids, they happen to have good eyesight, straight teeth, they have no aspirations for college, don't play any expensive sports, and they will never ask for help paying the rent when they get older and move out. But if any of those things are likely possibilities, the 30 year mortgage would give you some flexibility to cover short term cash shortages by reverting to your normal 30 year payment for a month or two. Now, the financially wise may balk at this because you are supposed to have enough cash in reserves to cover stuff like this, and that is good advice. But how many people struggle to maintain those reserves when they buy a new house? Consider putting together spreadsheet and calculating the interest cost difference between the two strategies. How much more will the 30 year mortgage cost you in interest if you pay it off in 15 years? That amount equates to the cost of an insurance policy for dealing with an occasional cash shortage. Do you want to pay thousands in extra interest for that insurance? (it is pretty pricey insurance) One strategy would be to go with the 30 year now, make the extra principal payments to keep you on a 15 year schedule, see how life goes, and refinance to a 15 year mortgage after a couple years if everything goes well and your cash reserves are strong. Unfortunately, rates are likely to rise over the next couple years, which makes this strategy less attractive. If at all possible, go with the 15 year so you lock in these near historic low rates. Consider buying less house or dropping back to the 30 year if you are worried that your cash reserves won't be able to handle life's little surprises.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9a70e0a7f1fa8d4e865d69af9323bfbf",
"text": "\"How to spend the money is up to you. That includes spending money on your house. (This is a safer way to look at it than an \"\"investment\"\". Not that it can't ever be treated as such, but that doing so often makes it easy to justify bad decisions and overspending on the house.) So with regards to the mortgage: So if it's not a monstrously huge deal, you might prefer to avoid default. Now, how to invest the rest while waiting to spend it, now...\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6d63608194326842e0479e29ce963b55",
"text": "\"I'm a visual person so the idea of a 30 year mortgage didn't make much sense to me until I could see it This isn't exact but it's pretty close. The green Interest lines represent the money you're giving to the bank as a \"\"thank you\"\" for lending you a large amount of cash up front. As you've already figured out, that's at least the same amount as the price of the home! As much down-payment as is reasonable. Keep one eye on beating the interest Best of luck!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "033272001584b44ca78b60db0b437eab",
"text": "\"I think your analysis is very clear, it's a sensible approach, and the numbers sound about right to me. A few other things you might want to think about: Tax In some jurisdictions you can deduct mortgage interest against your income tax. I see from your profile that you're in Texas, but I don't know the exact situation there and I think it's better to keep this answer general anyway. If that's the case for you, then you should re-run your numbers taking that into account. You may also be able to make your investments tax-advantaged, for example if you save them in a retirement account. You'll need to apply the appropriate limits for your specific situation and take an educated guess as to how that might change over the next 30 years. Liquidity The money you're not spending on your mortgage is money that's available to you for other spending or emergencies - i.e. even though your default assumption is to invest it and that's a sensible way to compare with the mortgage, you might still place some extra value on having more free access to it. Overpayments Would you have the option to pay extra on the mortgage? That's another way of \"\"investing\"\" your money that gets you a guaranteed return of the mortgage rate. You might want to consider if you'd want to send some of your excess money that way.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ee25de70ae32a532f1c8f04baf184b60",
"text": "Unless the taxes are above 3000 per year it looks like a good deal to buy (the 30 year mtg) You could also consider getting the 30 year loan and add additional principal to your payments. It looks like your PMI might be about $50 per month. You will get to deduct over $3000 in interest payments the first year as well as the real estate taxes. Depending on your tax rate that might be something like $100 per month or so of incentive to chose buying over renting. The big issue to consider is the risk of big ticket items to repair. You should keep a fund for this kind of thing... water heater, roof, fridge, cesspool, etc. good luck",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6efcb078a0a804b38e2c3ad82d3f44fd",
"text": "One opinion related to savings is to save 30% of your take home salary every month, split the amount into two parts depending on your age (29) one part would be 30% of 30% and another 70% of 30%. Take the 70% and buy blue chip stock and take the 30% and buy govt. bonds. Each 10 years adjust the percentages at 40, 40% on bonds and 60% on stock. Only cash out on the day you retire, otherwise ignore all market/economic movements. With this and the statutory savings (employment retirement) you should be ok.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c89bda2bf674c8cdbb86ae67c568f3e8",
"text": "I'd suggest you put only 20% down if you qualify for the 80% amount of the mortgage. Live in the house a year and see what expenses really are. Then if your non-Ret accounts are still being funded to your liking, start prepaying the mortgage if you wish. It's great to start with a house that's only 50% mortgaged, but if any life change happens to you, it may be tough to borrow it back. Far easier to just take your time and not make a decision you may regret. You don't give much detail about your retirement savings, but I'd suggest that I'd rather have a large mortgage and fund my retirement accounts to the maximum than to have a paid house and start the retirement account at age 35. Some choose that option.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e7ceb82cec37d7d2d2ae175bc6f4b249",
"text": "The best way to look at it is this: I would suspect most people would say no. Most people do not have the time, skill, or risk tolerance to be able to leverage capital as large as the value of their own home. Remember that a 15-year fixed has a slightly lower interest rate than a 30-year fixed (difference of 0.5–1%). If you won't have the discipline to invest every cent left in your pocket, then you are better off with the 15-year and the lower rate.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2c4bc25e5ecf9f7dd4e2a49e2fe716ba",
"text": "\"To add to what other have stated, I recently just decided to purchase a home over renting some more, and I'll throw in some of my thoughts about my decision to buy. I closed a couple of weeks ago. Note that I live in Texas, and that I'm not knowledgeable in real estate other than what I learned from my experiences in the area when I am located. It depends on the market and location. You have to compare what renting will get you for the money vs what buying will get you. For me, buying seemed like a better deal overall when just comparing monthly payments. This is including insurance and taxes. You will need to stay at a house that you buy for at least 5-7 years. You first couple years of payments will go almost entirely towards interest. It takes a while to build up equity. If you can pay more towards a mortgage, do it. You need to have money in the bank already to close. The minimum down payment (at least in my area) is 3.5% for an FHA loan. If you put 20% down, you don't need to pay mortgage insurance, which is essentially throwing money away. You will also have add in closing costs. I ended up purchasing a new construction. My monthly payment went up from $1200 to $1600 (after taxes, insurance, etc.), but the house is bigger, newer, more energy efficient, much closer to my work, in a more expensive area, and in a market that is expected to go up in value. I had all of my closing costs (except for the deposit) taken care of by the lender and builder, so all of my closing costs I paid out of pocket went to the deposit (equity, or the \"\"bank\"\"). If I decide to move and need to sell, then I will get a lot (losing some to selling costs and interest) of the money I have put in to the house back out of it when I do sell, and I have the option to put that money towards another house. To sum it all up, I'm not paying a difference in monthly costs because I bought a house. I had my closing costs taking care of and just had to pay the deposit, which goes to equity. I will have to do maintenance myself, but I don't mind fixing what I can fix, and I have a builder's warranties on most things in the house. To really get a good idea of whether you should rent or buy, you need to talk to a Realtor and compare actual costs. It will be more expensive in the short term, but should save you money in the long term.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e4ad5de991424ab48e01a72ac5cbd3ac",
"text": "\"I'll assume you live in the US for the start of my answer - Do you maximize your retirement savings at work, at least getting your employer's match in full, if they do this. Do you have any other debt that's at a higher rate? Is your emergency account funded to your satisfaction? If you lost your job and tenant on the same day, how long before you were in trouble? The \"\"pay early\"\" question seems to hit an emotional nerve with most people. While I start with the above and then segue to \"\"would you be happy with a long term 5% return?\"\" there's one major point not to miss - money paid to either mortgage isn't liquid. The idea of owing out no money at all is great, but paying anything less than \"\"paid in full\"\" leaves you still owing that monthly payment. You can send $400K against your $500K mortgage, and still owe $3K per month until paid. And if you lose your job, you may not so easily refinance the remaining $100K to a lower payment so easily. If your goal is to continue with real estate, you don't prepay, you save cash for the next deal. Don't know if that was your intent at some point. Disclosure - my situation - Maxing out retirement accounts was my priority, then saving for college. Over the years, I had multiple refinances, each of which was a no-cost deal. The first refi saved with a lower rate. The second, was in early 2000s when back interest was so low I took a chunk of cash, paid principal down and went to a 20yr from the original 30. The kid starts college, and we target retirement in 6 years. I am paying the mortgage (now 2 years into a 10yr) to be done the month before the kid flies out. If I were younger, I'd be at the start of a new 30 yr at the recent 4.5% bottom. I think that a cost of near 3% after tax, and inflation soon to near/exceed 3% makes borrowing free, and I can invest conservatively in stocks that will have a dividend yield above this. Jane and I discussed the plan, and agree to retire mortgage free.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cace78f304e19ade7973ef225d2b3f22",
"text": "Yes go TFSA first. Unless you make a lot of salary and want to lower your taxes. In this case RRSP might be the way to go. But seeing as you're 30 and probably will make greater salary in the future, go TFSA.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
5a0f2864a689e67747ac2337cbff013d
|
What is the market rate of non-cash ISA fund administration fee in UK?
|
[
{
"docid": "3bc01e681551f89397ada2de94172c65",
"text": "\"Is he affiliated with the company charging this fee? If so, 1% is great. For him. You are correct, this is way too high. Whatever tax benefit this account provides is negated over a sufficiently long period of time. you need a different plan, and perhaps, a different friend. I see the ISA is similar to the US Roth account. Post tax money deposited, but growth and withdrawals tax free. (Someone correct, if I mis-read this). Consider - You deposit £10,000. 7.2% growth over 10 years and you'd have £20,000. Not quite, since 1% is taken each year, you have £18,250. Here's what's crazy. When you realize you lost £1750 to fees, it's really 17.5% of the £10,000 your account would have grown absent those fees. In the US, our long term capital gain rate is 15%, so the fees after 10 years more than wipe out the benefit. We are not supposed to recommend investments here, but it's safe to say there are ETFs (baskets of stocks reflecting an index, but trading like an individual stock) that have fees less than .1%. The UK tag is appreciated, but your concern regarding fees is universal. Sorry for the long lecture, but \"\"1%, bad.\"\"\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "fdcdb8062f86af0013426fabc52fdf48",
"text": "\"You understood it pretty right. Every fiscal year (which runs from April 6 year Y to April 5 year Y+1), you can deposit a total GBP15k (this number is subject to an annual increase by HMRC) into your ISAs. You can open 2 new ISA every year but the amount deposited to those ISAs shall not excess GBP15k in total. From the 2016/17 tax year some ISAs now permit you to replace any funds you have withdrawn, without using up your allowance. It used to be that if you deposited GBP15K and then withdrew GBP5K, you could not pay in to that ISA again within that tax year as you had already used your full allowance. Under new Flexible ISA rules this would be allowed providing you replace the funds in the same ISA account and within the same tax year (strongly recommend that you check the small prints related to your account to make sure this is he case). Any gains and losses on the investments held in the ISA accounts are for you to take. i.e. If you make investment gains of GBP5K this does not reduces your allowance. You will still be able to deposit GBP15k (or whatever HMRC increases that number to) in the following year. You are also allowed to consolidate your ISAs. You can ask bank A to transfer the amount held into an ISA with bank held with bank B. This is usually done by filling a special form with the bank that will held the money post transactions. Again here be very careful. DO NOT withdraw the money to transfer it yourself as this would count against the GBP15K limit. Instead follow the procedures from the bank. Finally if you don't use your allowance for a given year, you cannot use it during the following year. i.e. if you don't deposit the GBP15K this year, then you cannot deposit GBP30K next year. NB: I used the word \"\"deposit\"\". It does not matter to HMRC if the money get invested or not. If you are in a rush on April 4th, just make sure the money is wired into the ISA account by the 5th. No need to rush and make bad investment decision. You can invest it later. Hope it helps\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aa3a2243e87a82d00d77e93c0a719519",
"text": "First I assume you are resident for tax purposes in the UK? 1 Put 2000 in a cash ISA as an emergency fund. 2 Buy shares in 2 or 3 of the big generalist Investment trusts as they have low charges and long track records – unless your a higher rate tax payer don’t buy the shares inside the ISA its not worth it You could use FTSE 100 tracker ETF's or iShares instead of Investment Trusts.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f9f85f2ca6676707e825954304d4e8ed",
"text": "You have to read the fine print of the pension wrapper (Standard Life), and of the new fund you want to invest into to find out. Typically here is were the fee feast could happen So you can manage actively your pension pot. But if you choose to do so you need to be mindful of the fees you have to pay. You should better find a pension wrapper with low fees and find funds with low fees If you change all your funds 4 times a year and you get a 1% charge each time, then you pay 4% of your assets. If your investments return for that year is 8%, then you wiped 50% of your return for that year! Good luck with the reading",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "94fd0ac68a72a65937095c6edeaedb74",
"text": "Thanks very much. 12b1 is a form that explains how a fund uses that .25-1% fee, right? So that's part of the puzzle im getting at. I'm not necessarily trying to understand my net fees, but more who pays who and based off of what. For a quick example, betterment bought me a bunch of vanguard ETFs. That's cool. But vanguard underperformed vs their blackrock and ssga etfs. I get that vanguard has lower fees, but the return was less even taking those into account. I'm wondering, first what sort of kickback betterment got for buying those funds, inclusive of wholesale deals, education fees etc. I'm also wondering how this food chain goes up and down the sponsor, manager tree. I'm sure it's more than just splitting up that 1%",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "dfd8a1a50537d16df5f1e082ddfefc2d",
"text": "I'm answering in a perspective of an End-User within the United Kingdom. Most stockbrokers won't provide Real-time information without 'Level 2' access, however this comes free for most who trade over a certain threshold. If you're like me, who trade within their ISA Holding each year, you need to look elsewhere. I personally use IG.com. They've recently began a stockbroking service, whereas this comes with realtime information etc with a paid account without any 'threshold'. Additionally, you may want to look into CFDs/Spreadbets as these, won't include the heavy 'fees' and tax liabilities that trading with stocks may bring.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3a8097db1373ca2d6f846d54852bfdfe",
"text": "\"While the other people have tried to answer your question as thoroughly as possible, I fear they are entirely incorrect in answering your question itself as it stands. The answer is that there are no usual terms. There are a handful of different options coming out now for this exact scheme. Examples include the UK Governments \"\"Help To Buy\"\" scheme. Accomodation is offered at a normal rate, and a small portion of the rent is set aside each month. At the end of a fixed period, that money becomes a deposit which the letter hands over to a mortgage provider who accepts it as a deposit. This might well be a terminology thing, since the other scenario which people described falls into the same name you've used. That scenario is where the investor who owns the property is considering sale of the property, and is happy to negotiate a price up front for the next year. Usually the rent and price is higher than the market rate because if the market goes well over the next year they could end up out of pocket. Putting that into perspective, over that year they are gaining their $1,000 a month or so, but having $100,000 invested means a return of 12%. If the property value is over $250,000 which I believe to be more likely, they are achieving a return of (I think) 4.8%. That's not a bad rate, by any means, but realistically they are losing a bit more for maintenance, and they could be making more from their money. If the market were to go up in that time by more than 4.8% (my house, for instance, increased in value by over 15% in the last 12 months), they are making a substantial loss since you are getting a house at 15% below the market rate. The total works out to a 10.2% loss for them. Note that I don't know the US housing market at all, I'm speaking mostly from my experience of the market here in the UK. This is what I hear, what I see, and what I've played. To summarise a bit: Make sure you check your terms before signing anything.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8400613fe1604536e0f9484699465382",
"text": "You should check this with a tax accountant or tax preparation expert, but I encountered a similar situation in Canada. Your ISA income does count as income in a foreign country, and it is not tax exempt (the tax exemption is only because the British government specifically says so). You would need to declare the income to the foreign government who would almost certainly charge you tax on it. There are a couple of reasons why you should probably keep the funds in the ISA, especially if you are looking to return. First contribution limits are per year, so if you took the money out now you would have to use future contribution room to put it back. Second almost all UK savings accounts deduct tax at source, and its frankly a pain to get it back. Leaving the money in an ISA saves you that hassle, or the equal hassle of transferring it to an offshore account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b61508d8f8e827dbf949055ad91010b6",
"text": "\"Ultimately you are as stuck as all other investors with low returns which get taxed. However there are a few possible mitigations. You can put up to 15k p.a. into a \"\"normal\"\" ISA (either cash or stocks & shares, or a combination) if your target is to generate the depost over 5 years you should maximise the amount you put in an ISA. Then when you come to buy, you cash in that part needed to top up your other savings for a deposit - i.e. keep the rest in for long term savings. The help to buy ISA might be helpful, but yes there is a limit on the purchase price which in London will restrict you. Several banks are offering good interest on limited sums in current accounts - Santander is probably the best you can get 3% (taxed) on up to 20K - this is a good \"\"safe\"\" return. Just open a 123 Account, arrange to pay out a couple of DDs and pay in £500 a month (you can take the £500 straight out again). I think Lloyds and TSB also offer similar but on much smaller ammounts. Be warned this strategy taken to the limit will involve some complexity checking your various accounts each month. After that you will end up trading better returns for greater risk by using more volatile stock market investments rather than cash deposits.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9a06204d0c55ccb723b886366940db61",
"text": "I don't think that you'll notice a difference in the NAV in a fund with fees that are low as the Vanguard Total Stock Market Fund. Their management fees are incorporated into the NAV, but keep in mind that the fund has a total of $144 billion in assets, with $66 billion in the investor class. The actual fees represent a tiny fraction of the NAV, and may only show up at all on the day they assess the fees. With Vanguard total stock market, you notice the fee difference in the distributions. In the example of Vanguard Total Stock Market, there are institutional-class shares (like VITPX with a minimum investment of $200M) with still lower costs -- as low as 0.0250% vs. 0.18% for the investor class. You will notice a different NAV and distributions for that fund, but there may be other reasons for the variation that I'm not familar with, as I'm not an institutional investor.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b5a4255cf0e80dd0024fc006c4b6e0da",
"text": "Here're some findings upon researches: Two main things to watch out for: Estate tax and the 30% tax withholding. These 2 could be get around by investing in Luxembourg or Ireland domiciled ETF. For instance there's no tax withholding on Ireland domiciled ETF dividend, and the estate tax is not as high. (source: BogleHead forums) Some Vanguard ETF offered in UK stock market: https://www.vanguard.co.uk/uk/mvc/investments/etf#docstab. Do note that the returns of S&P 500 ETF (VUSA) are adjusted after the 30% tax withholding! Due to VUSA's higher TER (0.09%), VOO should remain a superior choice. The FTSE Emerging Markets and All-World ETFs though, are better than their US-counterparts, for non-US residents. Non-US residents are able to claim back partials of the withhold tax, by filing the US tax form 1040NR. In 2013, non-US resident can claim back at least $3,900. Kindly correct me if anything is inaccurate.",
"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": "92a7a528eaa4f83c37ae06739846b0d0",
"text": "In international transfers there are quite a few charges that come into picture. 1. Your Bank's charges, you mentioned its GBP 20. 2. The Fx conversion margin. So your GBP 317.90 became 500 AUD 3. The Charges of St. George's. Normally it is recovered from Beneficiary. Typically it would show up as 2 entries, one credit for AUD 500 and second a debit. Typically in the range of AUD 10 to 25. However incaes of return, St George will deduct 2 charges from AUD 500; - The Original Charges for transfer that it would have recovered from Beneficiary. - Additional Return charges, again in the range of AUD 10 to 20. Thus the amount they would have sent back to your Bank would be less than AUD 500. Your Bank would have converted and possibly again charged you a return fee. Since these are cross border payments there is no regulation and Bank are free to charge as they please and at time do charge excess. What you can do is disptue with the Bank on the points that; - The Beneficiary account was not closed, and its a deficiency of service. - Request for an itemized statement as to what was the amount returned by St George.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0f25b9fbec9ffacf7aed54f24f4be5ec",
"text": "In the absence of a country designation where the mutual fund is registered, the question cannot be fully answered. For US mutual funds, the N.A.V per share is calculated each day after the close of the stock exchanges and all purchase and redemption requests received that day are transacted at this share price. So, the price of the mutual fund shares for April 2016 is not enough information: you need to specify the date more accurately. Your calculation of what you get from the mutual fund is incorrect because in the US, declared mutual fund dividends are net of the expense ratio. If the declared dividend is US$ 0.0451 per share, you get a cash payout of US$ 0.0451 for each share that you own: the expense ratio has already been subtracted before the declared dividend is calculated. The N.A.V. price of the mutual fund also falls by the amount of the per-share dividend (assuming that the price of all the fund assets (e.g. shares of stocks, bonds etc) does not change that day). Thus. if you have opted to re-invest your dividend in the same fund, your holding has the same value as before, but you own more shares of the mutual fund (which have a lower price per share). For exchange-traded funds, the rules are slightly different. In other jurisdictions, the rules might be different too.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a336e432920f71cf5cf7ca918fa8eb41",
"text": "I have a bank account in the US from some time spent there a while back. When I wanted to move most of the money to the UK (in about 2006), I used XEtrade who withdrew the money from my US account and sent me a UK cheque. They might also offer direct deposit to the UK account now. It was a bit of hassle getting the account set up and linked to my US account, but the transaction itself was straightforward. I don't think there was a specific fee, just spread on the FX rate, but I can't remember for certain now - I was transfering a few thousand dollars, so a relatively small fixed fee would probably not have bothered me too much.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
5338be892698b9c5338e7c3887e344d6
|
Degiro Stocks & Shares Account for Minor
|
[
{
"docid": "9d19da4db1e61fc1df456ca82329d5d1",
"text": "Get answers from your equivalent of the IRS, or a local lawyer or accountant who specializes in taxes. Any other answer you get here would be anectdotal at best. Never good to rely on legal or medical advice from internet strangers.",
"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": "6a7ad0dfe6e58a699a893680ecdf1566",
"text": "\"They may be confused. The combination of \"\"my wife received stock when younger\"\" and \"\"her father just died\"\" leaves questions. A completed gift, when she was a kid, means she has a basis (cost) same as the original owner of that stock. This may need to be researched. The other choice is that she gets a price based on the date of dad's death, a stepped up basis, if it was his, but she got it when he passed. No offense to them, but brokers are not always qualified to offer tax advice. How/when exactly did she get to own the stock. Upon second reading it appears I answered this from a tax perspective. You seem to have issues of ownership. What exactly does the broker tell you? In whose name is the statement for the account holding these shares? Scott, saw your update. For the accounts I have for my 13 year old, I am custodian, but the tax ID is her social security number. When 21, she doesn't need my permission to sell anything, just valid ID. What exactly does the broker tell her?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9a0fb227580f6297fca125fd4753dab0",
"text": "If you go through the web pages of some online brokers, you will find out that some of them allow you to manage friends/relatives accounts from your account as a trusteer. That should really solve your underlying problem, you will need only one login, etc. (Example: https://www.interactivebrokers.com/ff/en/main.php) If I understand it right it will even allow you to make one trade splitting the cost and returns among the other accounts, but you would have to verify that. Anyways, that will save you a lot of trouble and your broker can probably help you with the legal necessities.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "24457d4ce386548e8e53051b0455ad59",
"text": "They are 2 different class of shares belonging to the same company. Class A shares [par value of 0.01] have 100 voting rights per share. Class B shares [par value of 0.0002] have one voting rights. Both are listed separately with different ISN and trade at slightly different values. The Class A at higher value than Class B which looks right as it has more voting power.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ff68b09fef2ab83c41d8cf7759d12c2c",
"text": "The point of that question is to test if the user can connect shares and stock price. However, that being said yeah, you're right. Probably gives off the impression that it's a bit elementary. I'll look into changing it asap.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1e9cebde4465fbb20cb434e8b71958d4",
"text": "First, a margin account is required to trade options. If you buy a put, you have the right to deliver 100 shares at a fixed price, 50 can be yours, 50, you'll buy at the market. If you sell a put, you are obligated to buy the shares if put to you. All options are for 100 shares, I am unaware of any partial contract for fewer shares. Not sure what you mean by leveraging the position, can you spell it out more clearly?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f829c5590b6964b2e6b929ca81b0be2c",
"text": "I am not sure whether this hold in all countries, but at least in the Netherlands my bank allows for investment in funds without charging transaction costs. The downside is that these funds charge an annual fee of about 1%, but for the amounts you are talking about this definitely sounds more attractive than the alternative. As an alternative, you could ofcourse just take care of the transaction costs. That way your child can see their funds develop as you put it into different stocks without being distracted by the details. Of course you feel the 'pain' but I believe the main lesson stands out most this way.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "19c215406af14db05a1acffe9423ae75",
"text": "Nothing. Stockbrokers set up nominee accounts, in which they hold shares on behalf of individual investors. Investors are still the legal owners of the shares but their names do not appear on the company’s share register. Nominee accounts are ring-fenced from brokers’ other activities so they are financially secure.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9c86e9d22d6efc89d32749eb6995cce7",
"text": "\"You say: To clarify, my account is with BlackRock and the fund is titled \"\"MID CAP GROWTH EQUITY-CLASS A\"\" if that helps. Not totally sure what that means. You should understand what you're investing in. The fund you have could be a fine investment, or a lousy one. If you don't know, then I don't know. The fund has a prospectus that describes what equities the fund has a position in. It will also explain the charter of the fund, which will explain why it's mid-cap growth rather than small-cap value, for example. You should read that a bit. It's almost a sure thing that your father had to acknowledge that he read it before he purchased the shares! Again: Understand your investments.\"",
"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": "453ef189864190cf2c9747957a99e3de",
"text": "If I bought 1 percent share of company X, Most countries company X, is treated as a separate legal entity than individual. So max loss is what you have invested. However certain types of companies, generally called partnerships are not separate entities and you have to pay back the said loss. However such companies are not traded on stock exchanges. Is there an age requirements to enter the stock market? Depends on country. Generally a minor can hold an account with a guardian.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4d6f7aaab66362044861af30f6dad102",
"text": "I find the reg, at last. https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?company=Cornerstone+Strategic+Value+Fund&owner=exclude&action=getcompany Yes, its a common stock.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e5af5d8cb91b2e4534e91e12ea98e8c7",
"text": "You need to find out exactly how the two accounts are titled. If an account is an UGMA (Uniform Gifts to Minors Act) account that is in your name with your mother/father as custodian, then you are entitled to all the money in the account when you become an adult. If the account is indeed a UGMA account, the bank is supposed to not let the custodian operate the account once the child becomes an adult, but this does not always happen. There was a question earlier on money.SE (which I cannot find at this time) in which the 25-year-old person asking the question claimed that his father was still buying and selling shares in his UGMA brokerage account and the IRS was asking why the profits and losses from these transactions were not being reported on the 25-year-old's tax return. Money in an UGMA account is not supposed to be used for payment of household expenses, food, etc. which is the parent's responsibility during the minority, but this can well be abused. As to whether money was taken out and then restored (or possibly not restored, as you seem to suspect), it is possible to sue the custodian for improper handling of the UGMA account and recover the funds, but whether one wants to sue a parent over what might be a relatively small sum is another matter. Consider whether most of what is recovered might go to pay legal fees or other costs of the recovery process, and will likely ruin a family relationship. If the accounts are titled as joint accounts, then either party can empty the account without informing the other. But doing so would need information about the account number etc. which you may not have. For tax purposes, there is also the issue of whose Social Security Number is listed on the account, yours or your parent's. See also this answer for a view of what happens from the other side.",
"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": "b6943922775d4ae6f57b6c3d05a6dcc4",
"text": "Even without fraud, a company can get into serious trouble overnight, often through no fault of their own. That's part of the hazard of being part owner of a company -- which is what a share of stock is. As a minority owner not involved in actually running the business, there really isn't a lot you can do about that excep to play the odds and think about how that risk compares to the profit you're taking (which is one reason the current emphasis on stock price rather than dividends is considered a departure from traditional investing) and, as everyone else has said, avoid putting too much of your wealth in one place.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
ef5e8a3d1719624c85817fff5f67a364
|
How can I report pump and dump scams?
|
[
{
"docid": "d2346488c7ec39e940a95ce0dd21b526",
"text": "Start with your local police department then move on to these sites. Fill out the United States Postal Service fraud complaint form http://ehome.uspis.gov/fcsexternal/ Contact your State Attorneys General. Your state Attorney General or local office of consumer protection is also listed in the government pages of your telephone book Write to the Federal Trade Commission: spam@uce.gov If you are aware of a securities (e.g., stocks) scam, insider trading, etc., you will want to contact the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission). http://www.consumerfraudreporting.org/SEC.php",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "e9f1dbf5d857097e9aaf9017f61da980",
"text": "\"A friend since July online and big business talks and trust/money forwards. Usually a question \"\"is this a scam or legitimate?\"\" is hard to answer since obviously scams are modelled after legitimate stories (or they'd easily fail). If there were bookmakers for \"\"scam or legitimate\"\", this one would easily gather odds of 10000:1. The only plausible reason for this to be legitimate would be to defraud the scam-or-legitimate bookmakers. At any rate, Exxon is a large company and has to obey labor laws. They cannot set up operations in a manner where their workers may not have access to their salary for prolonged times without easy remedy. Drop communications immediately, don't open them, don't read them. They hook you with emotional investment. They will redouble efforts if it appears you are slipping out of their reach. Explanations will become more plausible, more pressing, more emotionally charged. You are a big promising fish and they won't let you swim off without a serious struggle to rehook you. Hand your communication so far to law enforcement. That may help with not having to figure this out on your own.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "df0f4088f7b0566b209ff366f0393d2f",
"text": "Patrick Byrne (CEO of Overstock.com) ran a somewhat interesting website awhile back called 'Deep Capture' which focused heavily on naked short selling and bear raids. He was called all sorts of names and many 'serious' journalist types brushed his allegations off. His basic argument was that a cabal of hedge funds would simultaneously naked short a specific equity and then a coordinated group of journalists and message board jockeys would disparage the company as loudly and publicly as possible, driving the price down. Naked shorting is supposed to be illegal since you can hold the types of positions like in the linked article about Citigroup where the number of shares sold short actually exceeds the number of shares in existence. The group he named was essentially a who's who of hedge funds and fraudsters and included many names of prominent politically active 'reformed' criminals from the S&L days on Wall St. I can't remember how the cards fell, but the scheme allegedly involved Michael Milliken, Sam Antar (from Crazy Eddie's Fraud), Gary Weiss, Jim Cramer, etc etc. It was a fascinating story. Byrne actually followed through with several lawsuits (one of which was settled after a Rocker Partners paid Byrne $5 million dollars to settle). The 'Deep Capture' site is down, but I [found a decent article](http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/01/wikipedia_and_naked_shorting/print.html) that sums up some of the shenanigans, including a journalist sock-puppeting to edit Wikipedia, repeatedly denying it, being IP-traced to inside the DTCC building (the Wall St. entity responsible for clearing trades, including naked shorts).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9c4940e819f4f7310f79918fd13c6cf8",
"text": "Pump-and-dump scams are indeed very real, but the scale of a single scam isn't anywhere near the type of heist you see in movies like Trading Places. Usually, the scammer will buy a few hundred dollars of a penny stock for some obscure small business, then they'll spam every address they have with advice that this business is about to announce a huge breakthrough that will make it the next Microsoft. A few dozen people bite, buy up a few thousand shares each (remember the shares are trading for pennies), then when the rise in demand pushes up the price enough for the scammer to make a decent buck, he cashes out, the price falls based on the resulting glut of stock, and the victims lose their money. Thus a few red flags shake out that would-be investors should be wary of:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6a3f134165b64c4caefb5433a0e73c34",
"text": "Meh... how about telling us how they actually run scams? What to watch out for? Some real info. What's here is, mostly, obvious top level stuff. What I want is the dirt. Real details. Real content. Come on, give it to us.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "57b3624471dc64a3d30fedfa0b56435f",
"text": "\"Coming from someone who has worked a in the account servicing department of an actual bank in the US, other answers are right, this is probably a scam, the phone number on the letter is probably ringing to a fraudulent call center (these are very well managed and sound professional), and you must independently locate and dial the true contact number to US Bank. NOW. Tell them what happened. Reporting is critical. Securing your money is critical. Every piece of information you provided \"\"the bank\"\" when you called needs to be changed or worked around. Account numbers, passwords, usernames, card numbers get changed. Tax ID numbers get de-prioritized as an authentication mechanism even if the government won't change them. The true bank probably won't transfer you to the branch. If the front-line call center says they will, ask the person on the phone what the branch can do that they cannot. Information is your friend. They will probably transfer you to a special department that handles these reports. Apparently Union Bank's call center transfers you to the branch then has the branch make this transfer. Maybe their front-line call center team is empowered to handle it like I was. Either way, plug your phone in; if the call takes less than 5 minutes they didn't actually do everything. 5 to 8 minutes per department is more likely, plus hold time. There's a lot of forms they're filling out. What if that office is closed because of time differences? Go online and ask for an ATM limit increase. Start doing cash advances at local banks if your card allows it. Just get that money out of that account before it's in a fraudsters account. Keep receipts, even if the machine declines the transaction. Either way, get cash on hand while you wait for a new debit card and checks for the new account you're going to open. What if this was fraud, you draw your US Bank account down to zero $800 at a time, and you don't close it or change passwords? Is it over? No. Then your account WILL get closed, and you will owe EVERYTHING that the fraudsters rack up (these charges can put your account terrifyingly far in the negative) from this point forward. This is called \"\"participation in a scam\"\" in your depository agreement, because you fell victim to it, didn't report, and the info used was voluntarily given. You will also lose any of your money that they spend. What if US Bank really is closing your account? Then they owe you every penny you had in it. (Minus any fees allowed in the depository agreement). This closure can happen several days after the date on the warning, so being able to withdraw doesn't mean you're safe. Banks usually ship an official check shipped to the last known address they had for you. Why would a bank within the United States close my account when it's not below the minimum balance? Probably because your non-resident alien registration from when you were in school has expired and federal law prohibits them from doing business with you now. These need renewed at least every three years. Renewing federally is not enough; the bank must be aware of the updated expiration date. How do I find out why my account is being closed? You ask the real US Bank. They might find that it's not being closed. Good news! Follow the scam reporting procedure, open a new account (with US Bank if you want, or elsewhere) and close the old one. If it IS being closed by the bank, they'll tell you why, and they'll tell you what your next options are. Ask what can be done. Other commenters are right that bitcoin activity may have flagged it. That activity might actually be against your depository agreement. Or it set off a detection system. Or many other reasons. The bank who services your account is the only place that knows for sure. If I offer them $500 per year will they likely keep the account opened? Otherwise I got to go to singapore open another account Legitimate financial institutions in the United States don't work this way. If there is a legal problem with your tax status in the US, money to the bank won't solve it. Let's call the folks you've talked to \"\"FraudBank\"\" and the real USBank \"\"RealBank,\"\" because until RealBank confirms, we have no reason to believe that the letter is real. FraudBank will ask for money. Don't give it. Don't give them any further information. Gather up as much information from them as possible instead. Where to send it, for example. Then report that to RealBank. RealBank won't have a way to charge $500/year to you only. If they offer a type of account to everyone that costs $500, ask for the \"\"Truth in Savings Act disclosures.\"\" Banks are legally required to provide these upon request. Then read them. Don't put or keep your money anywhere you don't understand.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "585dcbe697a32ef9df12931509c5c79f",
"text": "A couple ways, but its not a guarantee. You have to have special charts. Instead of each tick being 1 min, 5 min, or whatever, it is a set number of trades. Say 2000. Since retail investors only buy and sell in small amounts, there will be small volume per tick. An institutional investor, however, would have a much much higher trade lot size, even if using an algo. Thus, large volume spikes in such a chart would signal institutional activity over retail. Similarly, daily charts showing average trade size can help you pick out when institutional activity is highest, as they have much larger trade sizes. You could also learn how the algos work and look for evidence one is being used. ie every time price hits VWAP a large sell order goes through would indicate an institutional investor is selling, especially if it happens multiple times in a row.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b9385dc51d9996dcea24e091cc49cf5e",
"text": "Sap just developed a fraud detection module for their ERP suite in conjuction with EY. It offers live fraud scanning so you can stop a flagged transaction before a transfer is carried out. I saw a presentation an it looks pretty powerfull although it is only in the early stages.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c9ab02f9024d26564ec50c7fba40d8d7",
"text": "\"If you must play with these scammers, be sure to open a new account, at a new bank, in order to supply \"\"personal banking information\"\". If it does pan out and they give you some money, you can always move it to your real bank account. Be sure to deposit into the new account no more than you're willing to lose to them.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f03383a88a8140d54337e9b3816d3390",
"text": "\"The Indian regulator (SEBI) has banned trading in 300 shell companies that it views as being \"\"Shady\"\", including VB Industries. According to Money Control (.com): all these shady companies have started to rally and there was a complaint to SEBI that investors are getting SMSs from various brokerage firms to invest in them This suggests evidence of \"\"pump and dump\"\" style stock promotion. On the plus side, the SEBI will permit trading in these securities once a month : Trading in these securities shall be permitted once a month (First Monday of the month). Further, any upward price movement in these securities shall not be permitted beyond the last traded price and additional surveillance deposit of 200 percent of trade value shall be collected form the Buyers which shall be retained with Exchanges for a period of five months. This will give you an opportunity to exit your position, however, finding a buyer may be a problem and because of the severe restrictions placed on trading, any bid prices in the market are going to be a fraction of the last trade price.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c743f34b227a7fc64ada2c7bc3bcdec2",
"text": "\"For this to work, those who control the dilution must also control their salaries because the only way for them to be paid off when it's the corporation itself selling is to gain access to the proceeds. When a corporation sells newly issued equity, the corporation itself owns the money. To at least have the appearance of propriety, the scammers must be paid those proceeds. Both actions imply that the board is captured by the scammers. There are many corporations that seem to do this even with persistently large market capitalizations. The key difference between this and pump-and-dump is that its a fraudulent group of investors selling in this case instead of the corporation itself. A detailed simple example Corporations are mandated by law to be little oligarchies; although, \"\"republic\"\" is now becoming more appropriate with all of the new shareholder rights. A corporation is controlled at root by the board of directors who are elected by the shareholders. The board has no direct operational control, as that is left to the \"\"king\"\", the CEO; however, the board does control what everyone wants access to: the money. Board members have all sorts of legal qualitative mandates on how to behave, and they've functioned fairly decently efficiently over the long run, but there are definitely some bad apples. Boards are somewhat intransigent since it's difficult to hold board elections, and usually only specific board members are put up for election by a shareholder vote, so a bad one has the potential to really get stuck in there. Once a bad one is in there, they don't care because they know it will be tough to get them out, so they run roughshod over the company's purse. Only the board can take action on major funding such as the CEO's operating budget, board compensation, financing, investment, etc, some with shareholder approval, some without. The corporation itself owns all of those assets, but the board controls them. In this example, they scheme with most likely the top executive, but a rubber stamp top executive could allow a lower rung to scheme with the board, but the board is always constant until the law is changed. Because there's no honor amongst thieves, the board votes which can require some combination of executive and shareholder approval are taken very close together: sell shares, increase salaries to key executive schemers, increase board compensation. The trusting shareholders believe this is in the best interests of the company at large so go along. So the money flows from existing & new shareholders to the corporation now controlled by a malicious board and then finally to the necessary malicious executive and the vital malicious board.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f578fc1e1d123e18742806193a7f3b8c",
"text": "\"As others have commented, this is almost certainly a Ponzi scheme. What will happen is that they will report to you that you are earning fantastic returns. This will encourage you to pour more money into the scheme in the belief that you are making huge profits. The problems will start to occur when you ask for your money. You won't receive any money and by the time you realise you have been scammed, the site operators will have vanish with all of the \"\"suckers\"\" money.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aad964023bfe20997bec03f865987ce6",
"text": "\"Given that such activities are criminal and the people committing them have to hide them from the law, it's very unlikely that an investor could detect them, let alone one from a different country. The only things that can realistically help is to keep in mind the adage \"\"If something sounds too good to be true, it probably is\"\", and to stick to relatively large companies, since they have more auditing requirements and fraud is much harder to hide at scale (but not impossible, see Enron). Edit: and, of course, diversify. This kind of thing is rare, and not systematic, so diversification is a very good protection.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0572d8145317a4ad82e1ea9467de9d01",
"text": "I have prepared a report on scam's like this. I'd be happy to deliver a copy of the report to your home. Just give me your address and mail me the keys to your house and I'll drop by and leave it in your home. Oh, and tell me a time when you won't be home, so I won't bother you when I come by. It might also be helpful if you tell me if you have any cash, jewelry, or other valuables in the house and where you keep them, so I can give you advice on security measures. :-)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4b55176dac61778d9cd64bdc1444526d",
"text": "\"Accept that the money's gone. It could, as others have mentioned, been a lot more. Learn. Make sure your son (and you!) have learned the lesson (at least try to get something out of the $650). The world isn't always a nice place unfortunately. Don't wire money to strangers - use an escrow service or paypal or similar. As the saying goes: \"\"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me\"\". Report it to the authorities. Does have the advantage of the domestic rather than foreign bank account used. The scammer might have closed it by now, but there should be some paper tail. I imagine the id required for opening a bank account in the US is as strict as it is most places these days. They may have used fake Id, but that's not your problem. Assuming contact was made over the internet, bearing in mind IANAL (or American), this could be a crime of Wire Fraud, in which case I believe it's a case for the FBI rather than your local police. The phone calls your son is still receiving could also be construed as attempted extortion and if across state lines could also come under federal jurisdiction. The FBI have a better chance of catching such a scammer, generally having more chance of knowing one end of a computer from the other compared to a local beat cop. If other victims have also contacted the authorities, it will probably be taken more seriously. Give as much information as you can. Not just the bank account details, but all communication, exact time of phone calls, etc. The cops may say there's nothing they can do as it's a civil matter (breach of contract) rather than a criminal one. In which case you have the (probably expensive) option of going the civil route as described by Harper above. Inform Others. Assuming initial contact with the scammer was made through a website or forum or similar. I imagine this must be a niche area for hand made toys. Post your experience to warn other potential victims. Inform the site owner - they may ban the scammers account where applicable. Stop the calls. Block the number. If the number's being withheld, contact the provider - they should have a policy regarding harassment and be able to block it their end. If the calls keep coming, your son will need to change his number. Don’t let it get to you. You may have warm cosy fantasies of removing the guys kneecaps with a 2x4. Don't however dwell on the b*stard for too long and let it get under your skin. You will have to let it go.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1d946609ef38fb86422a19d3d63a6971",
"text": "Yes this is a huge security loophole and many banks will do nothing to refund if you are scammed. For example for business accounts some Wells Fargo branches say you must notify within 24 hours of any check withdrawal or the loss is yours. Basically banks don't care - they are a monopoly system and you are stuck with them. When the losses and complaints get too great they will eventually implement the European system of electronic transfers - but the banks don't want to be bothered with that expense yet. Sure you can use paypal - another overpriced monopoly - or much better try Dwolla or bitcoin.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
bc378c0f0e03932986483f058e1104cd
|
What happens to options if a company is acquired / bought out?
|
[
{
"docid": "22a72d04529b83e3ac19cb3d5e257b79",
"text": "A lot may depend on the nature of a buyout, sometimes it's is for stock and cash, sometimes just stock, or in the case of this google deal, all cash. Since that deal was used, we'll discuss what happens in a cash buyout. If the stock price goes high enough before the buyout date to put you in the money, pull the trigger before the settlement date (in some cases, it might be pulled for you, see below). Otherwise, once the buyout occurs you will either be done or may receive adjusted options in the stock of the company that did the buyout (not applicable in a cash buyout). Typically the price will approach but not exceed the buyout price as the time gets close to the buyout date. If the buyout price is above your option strike price, then you have some hope of being in the money at some point before the buyout; just be sure to exercise in time. You need to check the fine print on the option contract itself to see if it had some provision that determines what happens in the event of a buyout. That will tell you what happens with your particular options. For example Joe Taxpayer just amended his answer to include the standard language from CBOE on it's options, which if I read it right means if you have options via them you need to check with your broker to see what if any special exercise settlement procedures are being imposed by CBOE in this case.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fc099b1abdf9dc876d19f6f58c312c29",
"text": "\"When the buyout happens, the $30 strike is worth $10, as it's in the money, you get $10 ($1000 per contract). Yes, the $40 strike is pretty worthless, it actually dropped in value today. Some deals are worded as an offer or intention, so a new offer can come in. This appears to be a done deal. From Chapter 8 of CHARACTERISTICS AND RISKS OF STANDARDIZED OPTIONS - FEB 1994 with supplemental updates 1997 through 2012; \"\"In certain unusual circumstances, it might not be possible for uncovered call writers of physical delivery stock and stock index options to obtain the underlying equity securities in order to meet their settlement obligations following exercise. This could happen, for example, in the event of a successful tender offer for all or substantially all of the outstanding shares of an underlying security or if trading in an underlying security were enjoined or suspended. In situations of that type, OCC may impose special exercise settlement procedures. These special procedures, applicable only to calls and only when an assigned writer is unable to obtain the underlying security, may involve the suspension of the settlement obligations of the holder and writer and/or the fixing of cash settlement prices in lieu of delivery of the underlying security. In such circumstances, OCC might also prohibit the exercise of puts by holders who would be unable to deliver the underlying security on the exercise settlement date. When special exercise settlement procedures are imposed, OCC will announce to its Clearing Members how settlements are to be handled. Investors may obtain that information from their brokerage firms.\"\" I believe this confirms my observation. Happy to discuss if a reader feels otherwise.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "687295a40647872b6b45f2cac9b45173",
"text": "\"Going private does not mean that the company buys its own shares, only that the freely traded shares are bought up by a private entity (this can be management => \"\"management buy-out\"\" or it can be a private investor). The stock is then not traded publicly and the company gets rid of a whole slew of compliance obligations. In your stated example the company would essentially convert all its stock to treasury stock, which does not pay dividends and has no voting rights. From what I gather from some googling this would actually imply that the company would liquidate itself since it now has no capital anymore. Not sure on this though, an accountant might be able to help here...\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "95425b2dd48fd47992af3dbce0ba899e",
"text": "You're assuming options traded on the open market. To close open positions, a seller buys them back on the open market. If there's little on offer, this will drive the price up.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e0622d970d4c45fc8bc60f986f22d96c",
"text": "My understanding was that if a company buys back shares then those shares are 'extinguished' I.e. the rest of the shareholders now own a greater portion of the company. However, if there is only one share left, then the company could not buy it because doing so would extinguish it leaving the company without an owner. That result would run contrary to the requirements for an incorporated company in countries like NZ and Australia.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "12a44f72bcc6e299b061b76187cd394b",
"text": "\"Great answer by @duffbeer. Only thing to add is that the option itself becomes a tradeable asset. Here's my go at filling out the answer from @duffbeer. \"\"Hey kid... So you have this brand-new video game Manic Mazes that you paid $50 for on Jan 1st that you want to sell two months from now\"\" \"\"Yes, Mr. Video Game Broker, but I want to lock in a price so I know how much to save for a new Tickle Me Elmo for my baby sister.\"\" \"\"Ok, for $3, I'll sell you a 'Put' option so you can sell the game to me for $40 in two months.\"\" Kid says \"\"Ok!\"\", sends $3 to Mr Game Broker who sends our kid a piece of paper saying: The holder of this piece of paper can sell the game Manic Mazes to Mr Game Broker for $40 on March 1st. .... One month later .... News comes out that Manic Mazes is full of bugs, and the price in the shops is heavily discounted to $30. Mr Options Trader realizes that our kid holds a contract written by Mr Game Broker which effectively allows our kid to sell the game at $10 over the price of the new game, so maybe about $15 over the price in the second-hand market (which he reckons might be about $25 on March 1st). He calls up our kid. \"\"Hey kid, you know that Put option that Mr Game Broker sold to you you a month ago, wanna sell it to me for $13?\"\" (He wants to get it a couple of bucks cheaper than his $15 fair valuation.) Kid thinks: hmmm ... that would be a $10 net profit for me on that Put Option, but I wouldn't be able to sell the game for $40 next month, I'd likely only get something like $25 for it. So I would kind-of be getting $10 now rather than potentially getting $12 in a month. Note: The $12 is because there could be $15 from exercising the put option (selling for $40 a game worth only $25 in the second-hand market) minus the original cost of $3 for the Put option. Kid likes the idea and replies: \"\"Done!\"\". Next day kid sends the Put option contract to Mr Options Trader and receives $13 in return. Our kid bought the Put option and later sold it for a profit, and all of this happened before the option reached its expiry date.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bcf6d7697232b49f82be486e06406df7",
"text": "In my mind you would get all the money. You owned 100% when that transaction occurred. S/He gets 10% then on everything after. I usually go to an extreme case to figure out the answer. So... If S/He bought 100% of the company it wouldn't go to the company it would go to you. I would be open to criticism on this answer I am answering from common sense not because I really know the answer.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4a80711ceb6fd70f6930a17b1ec00e4a",
"text": "In the first case, if you wish to own the stock, you just exercise the option, and buy it for the strike price. Else, you can sell the option just before expiration, it will be priced very close to its in-the-money value.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ca6c17333231952678c6616eaf362e9f",
"text": "If you sold bought a call option then as you stated sold it to someone else what you are doing is selling the call you bought. That leaves you with no position. This is the case if you are talking about the same strike, same expiration.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1a6050c4d12f94d73dedb8d92bd49986",
"text": "When your options vest, you will have the option to buy your company's stock at a particular price (the strike price). A big part of the value of the option is the difference between the price that your company's stock is trading at, and the strike price of the option. If the price of the company stock in the market is lower than the strike price of the option, they are almost worthless. I say 'almost' because there is still the possibility that the stock price could go up before the options expire. If your company is big enough that their stock is not only listed on an exchange, but there is an active options market in your company's stock, you could get a feel for what they are worth by seeing what the market is willing to buy or sell similar exchange listed options. Once the options have vested, you now have the right to purchase your company's stock at the specified strike price until the options expire. When you use that right, you are exercising the option. You don't have to do that until you think it is worthwhile buying company stock at that price. If the company pays a dividend, it would probably be worth exercising the options sooner, (options don't receive a dividend). Ultimately you are buying your company's stock (albeit at a discount). You need to see if your company's stock is still a good investment. If you think your company has growth prospects, you might want to hold onto the stock. If you think you'd be better off putting your money elsewhere in the market, sell the stock you acquired at a discount and use the money to invest in something else. If there are any additional benefits to holding on to the stock for a period of time (e.g. selling part to fit within your capital gain allowance for that year) you should factor that into your investment decision, but it shouldn't force you to invest in, or remain invested in something you would otherwise view as too risky to invest in. A reminder of that fact is that some employees of Enron invested their entire retirement plans into Enron stock, so when Enron went bankrupt, these employees not only lost their job but their savings for retirement as well...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0eee0bb6b550a0e12ab0fccca9dba11d",
"text": "\"Thanks for your question Dai. The circumstances under which these buyouts can occur is based on the US takeover code and related legislation, as well as the laws of the state in which the company is incorporated. It's not actually the case that a company such as Dell needs to entice or force every shareholder to sell. What is salient is the conditions under which the bidder can acquire a controlling interest in the target company and effect a merger. This usually involves acquiring at least a majority of the outstanding shares. Methods of Acquisition The quickest way for a company to be acquired is the \"\"One Step\"\" method. In this case, the bidder simply calls for a shareholder vote. If the shareholders approve the terms of the offer, the deal can go forward (excepting any legal or other impediments to the deal). In the \"\"Two-Step\"\" method, which is the case with Dell, the bidder issues a \"\"tender offer\"\" which you mentioned, where the current shareholders can agree to sell their shares to the bidder, usually at a premium. If the bidder secures the acceptance of 90% of the shares, they can immediately go forward with what is called a \"\"short form\"\" merger, and can effect the merger without ever calling for a shareholder meeting or vote. Any stockholders that hold out and do not want to sell are \"\"squeezed out\"\" once the merger has been effected, but retain the right to redeem their outstanding shares at the valuation of the tender offer. In the case you mentioned, if shareholders controlling 25% of the shares (not necessarily 25% of the shareholders) were to oppose the tender offer, there would be serveral alternatives. If the bidder did not have at least 51% of the shares secured, they would likely either increase the valuation of the tender offer, or choose to abandon the takeover. If the bidder had 51% or more of the shares secured, but not 90%, they could issue a proxy statement, call for a shareholder meeting and a vote to effect the merger. Or, they could increase the tender offer in order to try to secure 90% of the shares in order to effect the short form merger. If the bidder is able to secure even 51% of the shares, either through the proxy or by way of a controlling interest along with a consortium of other shareholders, they are able to effect the merger and squeeze out the remaining shareholders at the price of the tender offer (majority rules!). Some states' laws specify additional circumstances under which the bidder can force the current shareholders to exchange their shares for cash or converted shares, but not Delaware, where Dell is incorporate. There are also several special cases. With a \"\"top-up\"\" provision, if the company's board/management is in favor of the merger, they can simply issue more and more shares until the bidder has acquired 90% of the total outstanding shares needed for the \"\"short form\"\" merger. Top-up provisions are very common in cases of a tender offer. If the board/management opposes the merger, this is considered a \"\"hostile\"\" takover, and they can effect \"\"poison pill\"\" measures which have the opposite effect of a \"\"top-up\"\" and dilute the bidders percent of outstanding shares. However, if the bidder can secure 51% of the shares, they can simply vote to replace the current board, who can then replace the current management, such that the new board and management will put into place whatever provisions are amenable to the bidder. In the case of a short form merger or a vote to effect a merger, the shareholders who do not wish to sell have the right to sell at the tender price, or they can oppose the deal on legal grounds by arguing that the valuation of the tender offer is materially unfair. However, there are very few cases which I'm aware of where this type of challenge has been successful. However, they do not have the power to stop the merger, which has been agreed to by the majority of the shareholders. This is similar to how when the president is elected, the minority voters can't stop the new president from being inaugurated, or how you can be affected if you own a condo and the condo owners' association votes to change the rules in a way you don't like. Tough luck for you if you don't like it! If you want more detail, I'd recommend checking out a web guide from 2011 here as well as related articles from the Harvard Law blog here. I hope that helps!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a595ab4071d7db42e3c2c2213720456f",
"text": "In my experience, any kind of equity you may be offered by the company is just a carrot. Your offer may be written in such a way that your potential ownership represents, say, 1% of the company today. But if the company goes for a round of financing your ownership percentage can get diluted. If this happens a couple of times and the terms of financing aren't very favorable then your percentage can go from that 1% down to 0.001%, making the equity worthless. I've known people who heard their company was being bought and thought they might get some kind of payoff. Come to find out the company hadn't done all that well and there wasn't anything to pay out after the main investors got some money back. (The main investors took a loss.) For obvious reasons, management wasn't keeping the staff up to date about the fact that they were operating in the red and their options were worthless. Some people grumbled about lawyers and filing lawsuits, but at the end of the day, there wasn't any money to be won. Keep this in mind. As to your question regarding what to look out for:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fc8258418510d335f3378e71ed7ab30e",
"text": "An option is freely tradable, and all options (of the same kind) are equal. If your position is 0 and you sell 1 option, your new position in that option is -1. If the counterparty to your trade buys or sells more options to close, open, or even reopen their position afterwards, that doesn't matter to your position at all. Of course there's also the issue with American and European Options. European Options expire at their due date, but American Options expire at their due date or at any time before their due date if the holder decides they expire. With American Options, if a holder of an American Option decides to exercise the option, someone who is short the same option will be assigned as the counterparty (this is usually random). Expiry is after market close, so if one of your short American Options expires early, you will need to reopen the position the next day. Keep in mind dividends for slightly increased complexity. American and European Options do not in any way refer to the continents they are traded on, or to the location of the companies. These terms simply describe the expiry rules.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "47bf776843d018598f96343213a8cc9a",
"text": "I am not required to hold any company stock. I also have an ESOP plan carrying a similar number of shares in company stock. So if it were to be sold, what would the recommendation be to replace it? I can move the shares into any option shown, and have quite a few others. Not dealing with any huge amounts, just a 4.5% contribution over three years (so far).",
"title": ""
},
{
"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": "debd5e40e3327e8ec70f403b0a65963c",
"text": "In the case you mentioned, where a private company owners will take debt with the purpose of buying out other owners, is this done through a share repurchases program (I understand private companies issue them, even though it's rare)? Thank you for the insights.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5ca9adafc2dd1effc7b43af95f937c0c",
"text": "\"This is a great question. I've participated in a deal like that as an employee, and I also know of friends and family who have been involved during a buyout. In short: The updated part of your question is correct: There is no single typical treatment. What happens to unvested restricted stock units (RSUs), unvested employee stock options, etc. varies from case to case. Furthermore, what exactly will happen in your case ought to have been described in the grant documentation which you (hopefully) received when you were issued restricted stock in the first place. Anyway, here are the two cases I've seen happen before: Immediate vesting of all units. Immediate vesting is often the case with RSUs or options that are granted to executives or key employees. The grant documentation usually details the cases that will have immediate vesting. One of the cases is usually a Change in/of Control (CIC or COC) provision, triggered in a buyout. Other immediate vesting cases may be when the key employee is terminated without cause, or dies. The terms vary, and are often negotiated by shrewd key employees. Conversion of the units to a new schedule. If anything is more \"\"typical\"\" of regular employee-level grants, I think this one would be. Generally, such RSU or option grants will be converted, at the deal price, to a new schedule with identical dates and vesting percentages, but a new number of units and dollar amount or strike price, usually so the end result would have been the same as before the deal. I'm also curious if anybody else has been through a buyout, or knows anybody who has been through a buyout, and how they were treated.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
74b3e199d25881173fc712a91ad9297a
|
Using GnuCash for accurate cost basis calculation for foreign investments (CAD primary currency)
|
[
{
"docid": "b032d3617b0cb738bf35e3604308a83b",
"text": "You would need to use Trading Accounts. You can enable this, File->Properties->Account settings tab, and check Use Trading Accounts. For more details see the following site: http://wiki.gnucash.org/wiki/Trading_Accounts",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "8568a818f3a0c4a7473017be99a53d48",
"text": "\"I found an answer by Peter Selinger, in two articles, Tutorial on multiple currency accounting (June 2005, Jan 2011) and the accompanying Multiple currency accounting in GnuCash (June 2005, Feb 2007). Selinger embraces the currency neutrality I'm after. His method uses \"\"[a]n account that is denominated as a difference of multiple currencies... known as a currency trading account.\"\" Currency trading accounts show the gain or loss based on exchange rates at any moment. Apparently GnuCash 2.3.9 added support for multi-currency accounting. I haven't tried this myself. This feature is not enabled by default, and must be turned on explicity. To do so, check \"\"Use Trading Accounts\"\" under File -> Properties -> Accounts. This must be done on a per-file basis. Thanks to Mike Alexander, who implemented this feature in 2007, and worked for over 3 years to convince the GnuCash developers to include it. Older versions of GnuCash, such as 1.8.11, apparently had a feature called \"\"Currency Trading Accounts\"\", but they behaved differently than Selinger's method.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7272c31978e10ac0038691e7e9e1f605",
"text": "\"The only \"\"authoritative document\"\" issued by the IRS to date relating to Cryptocurrencies is Notice 2014-21. It has this to say as the first Q&A: Q-1: How is virtual currency treated for federal tax purposes? A-1: For federal tax purposes, virtual currency is treated as property. General tax principles applicable to property transactions apply to transactions using virtual currency. That is to say, it should be treated as property like any other asset. Basis reporting the same as any other property would apply, as described in IRS documentation like Publication 550, Investment Income and Expenses and Publication 551, Basis of Assets. You should be able to use the same basis tracking method as you would use for any other capital asset like stocks or bonds. Per Publication 550 \"\"How To Figure Gain or Loss\"\", You figure gain or loss on a sale or trade of property by comparing the amount you realize with the adjusted basis of the property. Gain. If the amount you realize from a sale or trade is more than the adjusted basis of the property you transfer, the difference is a gain. Loss. If the adjusted basis of the property you transfer is more than the amount you realize, the difference is a loss. That is, the assumption with property is that you would be using specific identification. There are specific rules for mutual funds to allow for using average cost or defaulting to FIFO, but for general \"\"property\"\", including individual stocks and bonds, there is just Specific Identification or FIFO (and FIFO is just making an assumption about what you're choosing to sell first in the absence of any further information). You don't need to track exactly \"\"which Bitcoin\"\" was sold in terms of exactly how the transactions are on the Bitcoin ledger, it's just that you bought x bitcoins on date d, and when you sell a lot of up to x bitcoins you specify in your own records that the sale was of those specific bitcoins that you bought on date d and report it on your tax forms accordingly and keep track of how much of that lot is remaining. It works just like with stocks, where once you buy a share of XYZ Corp on one date and two shares on another date, you don't need to track the movement of stock certificates and ensure that you sell that exact certificate, you just identify which purchase lot is being sold at the time of sale.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "adbd26a148ea4692bd89917533e0a3ab",
"text": "\"First of all, it's quite common-place in GnuCash (and in accounting in general, I believe) to have \"\"accounts\"\" that represent concepts or ideas rather than actual accounts at some institution. For example, my personal GnuCash book has a plethora of expense accounts, just made up by me to categorize my spending, but all of the transactions are really just entries in my checking account. As to your actual question, I'd probably do this by tracking such savings as \"\"negative expenses,\"\" using an expense account and entering negative numbers. You could track grocery savings in your grocery expense account, or if you want to easily analyze the savings data, for example seeing savings over a certain time period, you would probably want a separate Grocery Savings expense account. EDIT: Regarding putting that money aside, here's an idea: Let's say you bought a $20 item that was on sale for $15. You could have a single transaction in GnuCash that includes four splits, one for each of the following actions: decrease your checking account by $20, increase your expense account by $20, decrease your \"\"discount savings\"\" expense account by $5, and increase your savings account (where you're putting that money aside) by $5.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7167ec18e71daaffb58292000094dc2c",
"text": "Would I have to pay some kind of capital gains tax? And if so, when? Converting Tax paid USD into CAD is not a taxable event. A taxable even will occur if you convert back the CAD into USD. If you receive interest on the CAD then the interest is also a taxable event. Also, is there any reason this is a terrible idea? That will only be known in future. Its like predicting that in future this will turn out to be advantageous, however it may turn out the other way.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "10d9f9670fe70075b14cc479478ba1a2",
"text": "No, GnuCash doesn't specifically provide a partner cash basis report/function. However, GnuCash reports are fairly easy to write. If the data was readily available in your accounts it shouldn't be too hard to create a cash basis report. The account setup is so flexible, you might actually be able to create accounts for each partner, and, using standard dual-entry accounting, always debit and credit these accounts so the actual cash basis of each partner is shown and updated with every transaction. I used GnuCash for many years to manage my personal finances and those of my business (sole proprietorship). It really shines for data integrity (I never lost data), customer management (decent UI for managing multiple clients and business partners) and customer invoice generation (they look pretty). I found the user interface ugly and cumbersome. GnuCash doesn't integrate cleanly with banks in the US. It's possible to import data, but the process is very clunky and error-prone. Apparently you can make bank transactions right from GnuCash if you live in Europe. Another very important limitation of GnuCash to be aware of: only one user at a time. Period. If this is important to you, don't use GnuCash. To really use GnuCash effectively, you probably have to be an actual accountant. I studied dual-entry accounting a bit while using GnuCash. Dual-entry accounting in GnuCash is a pain in the butt. Accurately recording certain types of transactions (like stock buys/sells) requires fiddling with complicated split transactions. I agree with Mariette: hire a pro.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e714ca3f65ef959e2f5a651731a8f4bf",
"text": "The GnuCash tutorial has some basics on double entry accounting: http://www.gnucash.org/docs/v1.8/C/gnucash-guide/basics_accounting1.html#basics_accountingdouble2",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "ff8c228fa00407ba410e26d425901054",
"text": "\"For the purposes of report generation, I would recommend that you present the data in the currency of the user's home country. You could present another indicator, if needed, to indicate that a specific transaction was denominated in a foreign currency, where the amount represents the value of the foreign-denominated transaction in the user's home country Currency. For example: Airfare from USA to London: $1,000.00 Taxi from airport to hotel: $100.00 (in £) In terms of your database design, I would recommend not storing the data in any one denomination or reference currency. This would require you to do many more conversions between currencies that is likely to be necessary, and will create additional complexity where in some cases, you will need to do multiple conversions per transaction in and out of your reference currency. I think it will be easier for you to store multiple currencies as themselves, and not in a separate reference currency. I would recommend storing several pieces of information separately for each transaction: This way, you can create a calculated Amount for each transaction that is not in the user's \"\"home\"\" currency, whereas you would need to calculate this for all transactions if you used a universal reference currency. You could also get data from an external source if the user has forgotten the conversion rate. Remember that there are always fees and variations in the exchange rate that a user will get for their home country's currency, even if they change money at the same place at two different times on the same day. As a result, I would recommend building in a simple form that allows a user to enter how much they exchanged and how much they got back to calculate the exchange rate. So for example, let's say I have $ 200.00 USD and I exchanged $ 100.00 USD for £ 60.00, and there was a £ 3.00 fee for the exchange. The exchange rate would be 0.6, and when the user enters a currency conversion, your site could create three separate transactions such as: USD Converted to £: $100.00 £ Received from Exchange: £ 60.00 Exchange Fee: £ 3.00 So if the user exchanged currency and then ran a balance report by Currency, you could either show them that they now have $ 100.00 USD and £ 57.00, or you could alternatively choose to show the £ 57.00 that they have as $95.00 USD instead. If you were showing them a transaction report, you could also show the fee denominated in dollars as well. I would recommend storing your balances and transactions in their own currencies, as you will run into some very interesting problems otherwise. For example, let's say you used a reference currency tied to the dollar. So one day I exchange $ 100.00 USD for £ 60.00. In this system I would still have 100 of my reference currency. However, if the next day, the exchange rate falls and $ 1.00 USD is only worth £ 0.55, and I change my £ 60.00 back into USD, I will get approxiamately $ 109.09 USD back for my £ 60.00. If I then go and buy something for $ 100.00 USD, the balance of the reference currency would be at 0, but I will still have $ 9.09 USD in my pocket as a result of the fluctuating currency values! That is why I'd recommend storing currencies as themselves, and only showing them in another currency for convenience using calculations done \"\"on the fly\"\" at report runtime. Best of luck with your site!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b528f2b68ccc47dd8e86323231c148b1",
"text": "\"No. This is too much for most individuals, even some small to medium businesses. When you sell that investment, and take the cheque into the foreign bank and wire it back to the USA in US dollars, you will definitely obtain the final value of the investment, converted to US$. Thats what you wanted, right? You'll get that. If you also hedge, unless you have a situation where it is a perfect hedge, then you are gambling on what the currencies will do. A perfect hedge is unusual for what most individuals are involved in. It looks something like this: you know ForeignCorp is going to pay you 10 million quatloos on Dec 31. So you go to a bank (probably a foreign bank, I've found they have lower limits for this kind of transaction and more customizable than what you might create trading futures contracts), and tell them, \"\"I have this contract for a 10 million quatloo receivable on Dec 31, I'd like to arrange a FX forward contract and lock in a rate for this in US$/quatloo.\"\" They may have a credit check or a deposit for such an arrangement, because as the rates change either the bank will owe you money or you will owe the bank money. If they quote you 0.05 US$/quatloo, then you know that when you hand the cheque over to the bank your contract payment will be worth US$500,000. The forward rate may differ from the current rate, thats how the bank accounts for risk and includes a profit. Even with a perfect hedge, you should be able to see the potential for trouble. If the bank doesnt quite trust you, and hey, banks arent known for trust, then as the quatloo strengthens relative to the US$, they may suspect that you will walk away from the deal. This risk can be reduced by including terms in the contract requiring you to pay the bank some quatloos as that happens. If the quatloo falls you would get this money credited back to your account. This is also how futures contracts work; there it is called \"\"mark to market accounting\"\". Trouble lurks here. Some people, seeing how they are down money on the hedge, cancel it. It is a classic mistake because it undoes the protection that one was trying to achieve. Often the rate will move back, and the hedger is left with less money than they would have had doing nothing, even though they bought a perfect hedge.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c5deea8142a0d002a0eb0baa2cd6e99e",
"text": "\"Can someone please clarify if Norbert's gambit is the optimal procedure to exchange CAD to USD? I'm not sure I'd call an arbitrage trade the \"\"optimal procedure,\"\" because as you point out you're introducing yet another point of risk in to the transaction. I think buying the foreign currency for an agreed upon price is the \"\"optimal procedure.\"\" If you must use this arbitrage trade, try with a government bond fund; they're typically very stable.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c3d454d4eac15d202c95e8a03bd20526",
"text": "I use GNUCash. It's a bit more like Quickbooks than plain Quicken, but it's not all that complicated. Probably the most difficult part is understanding the idea of income accounts. Benefits: For short term planning, I use scheduled transactions. If I'm spending more than I have, it'll show up here. Every paycheck and dollar spent or invested is recorded with the exact date I anticipate it will happen, 30 days in advance. If that would overdraw my checking account, the Future Minimum Balance field will go negative and red. This lets me move float to higher interest savings and retirement funds, and avoids overdraft fees or other mishaps. By looking 30 days ahead in detail, I have enough time to transfer from illiquid assets. For longer term planning, I keep a spreadsheet around that plans out annual expenses. If I'm spending more than I earn, it shows up here. I estimate everything: expenses, savings, taxes, and income. I need this because I have a lot of expenses that are far less frequent than monthly or paycheck-ly. The beauty of it is that once I've got it in place, I can duplicate the sheet and consider tweaks for say taking a new job or moving, or even just changing an insurance plan (probably less relevant for those with access to NHS). Especially when moving to take a new job, it's not as straightforward as comparing salaries, and thus having a document for the status quo to start from lets you focus on the parts that changed.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3a3ace553b8d5770299f9fc3f60b1b86",
"text": "I've done this for many years, and my method has always been to get a bank draft from my Canadian bank and mail it to my UK bank. The bank draft costs $7.50 flat fee and the mail a couple of dollars more. That's obviously quite a lot to pay on $100, so I do this only every six months or so and make the regular payments out of my UK account. It ends up being only a couple of percent in transaction costs, and the exchange rate is the bank rate.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7f60f3491884525065cfe44ca428df27",
"text": "Gnucash uses aqbanking, so I'd suggest looking at aqbanking to see if it will do what you want. It seems to be actively developed (as of 26.2.2011), but the main page is in German and my German is a bit rusty... You might also try asking on the gnucash-users list.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "26e287a091fd702c5e5f6a22d8b26381",
"text": "If you want to convert more than a few thousand dollars, one somewhat complex method is to have two investment accounts at a discount broker that operations both in Canada and the USA, then buy securities for USD on a US exchange, have your broker move them to the Canadian account, then sell them on a Canadian exchange for CAD. This will, of course, incur trading fees, but they should be lower than most currency conversion fees if you convert more than a few thousand dollars, because trading fees typically have a very small percentage component. Using a currency ETF as the security to buy/sell can eliminate the market risk. In any case, it may take up to a week for the trades and transfer to settle.",
"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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
bbc5d1eabdf6deae1d64520c24d92fa8
|
Which field should I use for getting the income yield of this bond ETF?
|
[
{
"docid": "949551126783dc387e3ca4d8f8389f3b",
"text": "What you want is the distribution yield, which is 2.65. You can see the yield on FT as well, which is listed as 2.64. The difference between the 2 values is likely to be due to different dates of updates. http://funds.ft.com/uk/Tearsheet/Summary?s=CORP:LSE:USD",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "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": "dc791ff7f4a2e648915913f2f2bc62ae",
"text": "Yup. What I wanted to know was where they are pulling it up from. Have casually used Google finance for personal investments, but they suck at corp actions. Not sure if they provide free APIs, but that would probably suck too! :D",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a4f2af7a90c5a816a855e15c4044574a",
"text": "\"Negative Yields on Bonds is opposite of Getting profit on your investment. This is some kind of new practice from world wide financial institute. the interest rate is -0.05% for ten years. So a $100,000 bond under those terms would be \"\"discounted\"\" to $100,501, give or take. No, actually what you are going to get out from this investment is after 10 years when this investment is mature for liquidation, you will get return not even your principle $100,000 , but ( (Principle $100,000) minus (Negative Yields @ -0.05) Times ( 10 Years ) ) assume the rates are on simple annual rate. Now anyone may wander why should someone going to buy this kind of investment where I am actually giving away not only possible profit also losing some of principle amount! This might looks real odd, but there is other valid reason for issuing / investing on such kind of bond. From investor prospective: Every asset has its own 'expense' for keeping ownership of it. This is also true for money/currency depending on its size. And other investment possibility and risk factor. The same way people maintain checking account with virtually no visible income vs. Savings account where bank issue some positive rate of interest with various time factor like annually/half-yearly/monthly. People with lower level of income but steady on flow choose savings where business personals go for checking one. Think of Millions of Ideal money with no secure investment opportunity have to option in real. Option one to keeping this large amount of money in hand, arranging all kind of security which involve extra expense, risk and headache where Option two is invest on bond issued by Government of country. Owner of that amount will go for second one even with negative yields on bonds where he is paying in return of security and risk free grantee of getting it back on time. On Issuing Government prospective: Here government actually want people not to keep money idle investing bonds, but find any possible sector to invest which might profitable for both Investor + Grater Community ultimately country. This is a basic understanding on issue/buy/selling of Negative interest bearing bond on market. Hope I could explain it here. Not to mention, English is not my 1st language at all. So ignore my typo, grammatical error and welcome to fix it. Cheers!\"",
"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": "841f67a51fe5b559c4ce1db46e0b290f",
"text": "The point of a total return index is that it already has accounted for the capital gains + coupon income. If you want to calculate it yourself you'll have to find the on-the-run 10y bond for each distinct period then string them together to calc your total return. Check XLTP if they have anything",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b346ac30ad1dc6e6710e573670fca002",
"text": "Gundlach shared a chart that showed how investors in European “junk” bonds are willing to accept the same no-default return as they are for U.S. Treasury bonds. In other words, the yield on European “junk” bonds is about the same—between 2 percent and 3 percent—as the yield on U.S. Treasuries, even though the risk profile of the two could not be more different. Sounds like a strong indicator to me. How might this play out in the US?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0e6602bd884bae5981aa067b8b0c3763",
"text": "\"Bonds might not be simple, but in general there are only a few variables that need to be understood: bid, coupon (interest) rate, maturity, and yield. Bond tables clearly lay those out, and if you're talking about government bonds a lot of things (like convertibles) don't apply (although default is still a concern). This might be overly simplistic, but I view ETF's primarily as an easy way to bring somewhat esoteric instruments (like grain futures) into the easily available markets of Nasdaq and the NYSE. That they got \"\"enhanced\"\" with leveraged funds and the such is interesting, but perhaps not the original intent of the instrument. Complicating your situation a bit more is the fee that gets tacked onto the ETF. Even Vanguard government bond funds hang out north of 0.1%. That's not huge, but it's not particularly appealing either considering that (unlike rounding up live cattle futures), it's not that much work to buy US government bonds, so the expense might not seem worth it to someone who's comfortable purchasing the securities directly. I'd be interested to see someone else's view on this, but in general I'd say that if you know what you want and know how to buy it, the government bond ETF becomes a lot less relevant as the liquidity offered (including the actual \"\"ease of transacting\"\") seem to to be the biggest factors in favor. From Investopedia's description: The bond ETF is an exciting new addition to the bond market, offering an excellent alternative to self-directed investors who, looking for ease of trading and increased price transparency, want to practice indexing or active bond trading. However, bond ETFs are suitable for particular strategies. If, for instance, you are looking to create a specific income stream, bond ETFs may not be for you. Be sure to compare your alternatives before investing.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c5da86ac16ae98fff435ef214930f834",
"text": "I've recently discovered that Morningstar provides 5yr avgs of a few numbers, including dividend yield, for free. For example, see the right-hand column in the 'Current Valuation' section, 5th row down for the 5yr avg dividend yield for PG: http://financials.morningstar.com/valuation/price-ratio.html?t=PG®ion=usa&culture=en-US Another site that probably has this, and alot more, is YCharts. But that is a membership site so you'll need to join (and pay a membership fee I believe.) YCharts is supposedly pretty good for long-term statistical information and trend graphs for comparing and tracking stocks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "031daa43ef28ab8f0178cc542cea1d56",
"text": "\"Since you want to know exactly what \"\"yield\"\" means, let's get all the details of the security down first. Treasury Bills are 0-1 year and do not pay interest/coupons. The yield comes from buying the T-Bill at a discount. For example, you buy a T-Bill for $99 and it pays $100 when it matures, and the yield over that holding period is 1/99. When people talk about \"\"yield\"\" they are generally talking about annualized yield unless stated otherwise. Treasury Notes are 2-10 years. They pay interest semi-annually. Treasury Bonds are 20-30 years and they also pay interest semi-annually. Again, \"\"yield\"\" is typically the annualized yield, or the two semi-annual interest payments added together (without compounding). These have interest payments so they are typically sold at par. They may trade a premium/discount afterwards. TIPS pay a constant coupon rate, but the principal is adjusted up and down with inflation.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d0c4460f43692954b0a086c354365cad",
"text": "what do you mean exactly? Do you have a future target price and projected future dividend payments and you want the present value (time discounted price) of those? Edit: The DCF formula is difficult to use for stocks because the future price is unknown. It is more applicable to fixed-income instruments like coupon bonds. You could use it but you need to predict / speculate a future price for the stock. You are better off using the standard stock analysis stuff: Learn Stock Basics - How To Read A Stock Table/Quote The P/E ratio and the Dividend yield are the two most important. The good P/E ratio for a mature company would be around 20. For smaller and growing companies, a higher P/E ratio is acceptable. The dividend yield is important because it tells you how much your shares grow even if the stock price stays unchanged for the year. HTH",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "80a85c95c7462ad01c4b710df507a311",
"text": "\"Hello! I am working on a project where I am trying to determine the profit made by a vendor if they hold our funds for 5 days in order to collect the interest on those funds during that period before paying a third party. Currently I am doing \"\"Amount x(Fed Funds Rate/365)x5\"\" but my output seems too low. Any advice?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "98d5e2358e13115774a720d76e552a6c",
"text": "I'll have to think it through, but at the very least unless your debt is a pure discount instrument and you are using cash flows, some if that money IS getting paid during those 5 years. As in if you are using earnings, they pay p&i. Or if earnings and pure discount instruments, then amortized interest (I think, been a while). You see the actual numbers and know what you are trying to do, but I'm a little lost. Are you building a discount model with a multiple terminal and using ev as the multiple? Are you using free cash flow to firm for the discounting? I'm guessing that's the case.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7751eff7538c3741651656f32aa11030",
"text": "In this case the market interest rate is the discount rate that sets equal the market price (current value) of the bond to its present value. To find the market interest rate which is also referred to as promised yield YTM you would have solve for the interest rate in the bond price formula A market price of bond is the sum of discounted coupons and the terminal value of the bond. Most spreadsheet programs and calculators have a RATE function that makes possible finding this market interest rate. First see this for finding a coupon paying bond price The coupon payments are discounted so is the par value of the bond and sum of such discounts is the market price of the bond. The TVM functions in Excel and calculators make this possible using the following equation Let us take your data, 9% $100,000 coupon with 5 years remaining to maturity with market interest rate of 10%. Bonds issued in the US mostly pay two coupons per year. Thus we are finding the present value of 10 coupons each worth $4500 and par value of $100,000. The semi-annual market interest rate is 10%/2 or 5% The negative sign indicate money going out of hand Now solving for RATE is only possible using numerical methods and the RATE function is programmed using Newton-Raphson method to find one of the roots of the bond price equation. This rate will be the periodic rate in this case semi-annual rate which you have to multiply by 2 to get the annual rate. Do remember there is a difference between annual nominal rate and an annualized effective rate. To find the market interest rate If you don't have Excel or a financial calculator then you may opt to use my version of these financial functions in this JavaScript library tadJS",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3f8851d458841a55b140337c80cb1702",
"text": "\"The first thing that it is important to note here is that the examples you have given are not individual bond prices. This is what is called the \"\"generic\"\" bond price data, in effect a idealised bond with the indicated maturity period. You can see individual bond prices on the UK Debt Management Office website. The meaning of the various attributes (price, yield, coupon) remains the same, but there may be no such bond to trade in the market. So let's take the example of an actual UK Gilt, say the \"\"4.25% Treasury Gilt 2019\"\". The UK Debt Management Office currently lists this bond as having a maturity date of 07-Mar-2019 and a price of GBP 116.27. This means that you will pay 116.27 to purchase a bond with a nominal value of GBP 100.00. Here, the \"\"nominal price\"\" is the price that HM Treasury will buy the bond back on the maturity date. Note that the title of the bond indicates a \"\"nominal\"\" yield of 4.25%. This is called the coupon, so here the coupon is 4.25%. In other words, the treasury will pay GBP 4.25 annually for each bond with a nominal value of GBP 100.00. Since you will now be paying a price of GBP 116.27 to purchase this bond in the market today, this means that you will be paying 116.27 to earn the nominal annual interest of 4.25. This equates to a 3.656% yield, where 3.656% = 4.25/116.27. It is very important to understand that the yield is not the whole story. In particular, since the bond has a nominal value of GBP100, this means that as the maturity date approaches the market price of the bond will approach the nominal price of 100. In this case, this means that you will witness a loss of capital over the period that you hold the bond. If you hold the bond until maturity, then you will lose GBP 16.27 for each nominal GBP100 bond you hold. When this capital loss is netted off the interest recieved, you get what is called the gross redemption yield. In this case, the gross redemption yield is given as approximately 0.75% per annum. NB. The data table you have included clearly has errors in the pricing of the 3 month, 6 month, and 12 month generics.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b4ae774d48fa6d2cae21d71ed5c702bf",
"text": "\"A (very) simplified bond-pricing equation goes thus: Fair_Price: {Face_Value * (1 + Interest - Expected_Market_Return) ^ (Years_To_Maturity)} * P(Company_Will_Default_Before_Maturity) To reiterate, that is a very simplified model. But it allows us to demonstrate the 3 key factors that drive \"\"Fair\"\" Value: The interest relative to the current market rate. If your AAA bond yields 1%, but an equally-good AAA bond currently sells at 3% in the market, then the \"\"Equivalent\"\" value is the face value minus 2% (1% - 3%) for every year to maturity. Years to maturity. Because 1) is multiplied for every year to maturity, longer-dated bonds are more sensitive to changes in market rates. If your bond yields 2% less than market but matures in a year, then it's worth $98, but if it matures in 56 years, then it's only worth 0.98^56 = $32. Conversely, if your bond yields more than the market rate, then its' price will be greater than face value. The company might default on the debt. If a Bond has a \"\"Fair\"\" Value of $100, but you think there's a 50% chance that the company will default, then it's only worth $50. In fact, it can be worth even less because getting paid on a defaulted bond can often take time and/or money and/or lawyers. In your case, because your bond matures in 56 years but yields ~5% (well above the current market rate), for it to be below Face value implies a strong probability of default, or a strong belief that market returns will be above 5% over the next 56 years.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
6b1c0aeaf0d1877086df3d5fd92aa527
|
Large orders and market manipulation
|
[
{
"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": "bb4603a9d130e55a92bbe6c6147cc416",
"text": "More shares mean less volatility because it takes a larger number of trades, a larger number of shares per trade, or a combination of both to raise or lower the stock price. Institutional investors (mutual funds, pensions, hedge funds, other investment firms, etc) are the sorts of organizations with the large amounts of money needed to move a stock price one way or the other. But the more floating shares there are in a company, the harder it is for one or two firms to move a stock price. A company with fewer floating shares wouldn't require as many trades (or as many shares per trade) to see wider swings in price. When it comes to stock price, insider trading isn't the same as manipulation. In the (surprisingly few) cases of insider trading that are prosecuted, it tends to be an individual (or small group) with early access to information that the broader market doesn't have being able to buy or sell ahead of the broader market. Their individual sales are seldom if ever enough to noticeably move a stock price. They're locking in profit or limiting a loss. Manipulation might (but doesn't always) precede insider trading, if misinformation (or truth) is released for the purpose of creating a situation that can be profited from via a trade or trades.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1af10b20aad5898e5868d79f09afeaf6",
"text": "But what about the following scenario which is my paraphrasing of a Nanex article (I'm hoping you can help clarify this for me). 1. I observe a 1,000 lot @$10 advertised for Sell on a lit exchange. 2. I try to lift the 1,000 by placing a limit order @10. 3. My order goes through some kind of order routing process. First, 3 orders get executed on a dark pool. Let's say I got a 50 lot filled (so available offer reduces to 950). 4. My order hits a lit exchange. I get a partial fill for 100 (offer shrinks to 850); but the offered size shrinks instead to 500. Or 0. 5. Now, in order to execute my trade, I will have to take a higher price than the original advertised liquidity. My question (maybe you can answer this) is why did my original order size of 1,000 appear in smaller blocks? Is this because the order routing algorithm breaks up the size? Or is it that market makers only post offers in small block sizes (e.g. 100) So even if the order book looked like: 100 @ 10 100 @ 10 100 @ 10 100 @ 10 100 @ 10 100 @ 10 All the way to 1,000 total -- as soon as the first 100 shares were lifted, the MM can immediately cancel the remainder of the advertised liquidity -- in practical terms making it impossible to execute large orders at an advertised price.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "02b06b32f83f65d01ab0230c995ad296",
"text": "\"That article, like almost any article written by a non-expert and quoting only \"\"research\"\" from lobbying groups, hugely misses the point. The vast majority of orders that end up being cancelled are cancelled as a standard part of exchanges' official market-maker programs. Each exchange wants you and me to know that it has liquidity -- that when we go to buy or sell some stock, there will be someone waiting on the other side of the trade. So the exchange pays (via lowered fees or even rebates) hundreds of registered market makers to constantly have orders resting in each product's order book within a few ticks of the current NBBO or the last trade price. That way, if everyone else should suddenly disappear from the market, you and I will still be able to trade our shares for a price somewhat close to the last trade price. But market makers who are simply acting in this \"\"backstop\"\" role don't actually want to have their orders filled, because those orders will almost always lose them money. So as prices rise and fall (as much as tens of times per second), the market makers need to cancel their resting orders (so they don't get filled) and add new ones at new prices (so they meet their obligations to the exchange). And because the number of orders resting in any given product's order book is vastly larger than the number of actual trades that take place in any given time period, naturally the number of cancellations is also going to hugely outweigh the number of actual trades. As much as 97% to 3% (or even more). But that's completely fine! You and I don't have to care about any of that. We almost never need the market makers to be there to trade with us. They're only there as a backstop. There's almost always plenty of organic liquidity for us to trade against. Only in the rare case where liquidity completely dries up do we really care that the registered market makers are there. And in those cases (ideally) the market makers can't cancel their orders (depending on how well the exchange has set up its market maker program). So, to answer your question, the effect of standard order cancellation on a stock is essentially none. If you were to visualize the resting orders in a product's book as prices moved up and down, you would essentially see a Gaussian distribution with mean at the last trade price, and it would move up and down with the price. That \"\"movement\"\" is accomplished by cancellations followed by new orders. P.S. As always, keep in mind that your and my orders almost never actually make it to a real stock exchange anymore. Nowadays they are almost always sent to brokers' and big banks' internal dark pools. And in there you and I have no idea what shenanigans are going on. As just one example, dark pools allow their operators and (for a fee) other institutional participants access to a feature called last look that allows them to cancel their resting order as late as after your order has been matched against it! :( Regarding the question in your comment ... If Alice is sending only bona fide orders (that is, only placing an order at time T if, given all the information she has at time T, she truly wants and intends for it to be filled) then her cancellation at a later time actually adds to the effectiveness of and public perception of the market as a tool for price discovery (which is its ultimate purpose). [In the following example imagine that there are no such things as trading fees or commissions or taxes.] Let's say Alice offers to buy AAPL at $99.99 when the rest of the market is trading it for $100.00. By doing so she is casting her vote that the \"\"fair value\"\" of a share of AAPL is between $99.99 and $100.00. After all, if she thought the fair value of a share of AAPL was higher -- say, between $100.00 and $100.01 -- then she should be willing to pay $100.00 (because that's below fair value) and she should expect that other people in the market will not soon decide to sell to her at $99.99. If some time later Alice does decide that the fair value of AAPL is between $100.00 and $100.01 then she should definitely cancel her order at $99.99, for exactly the reason discussed above. She probably won't get filled at $99.99, and by sitting there stubbornly she's missing out (potentially forever) on the possibility to make a profit. Through the simple act of cancelling her $99.99 order, Alice is once again casting a vote that she no longer thinks that's AAPL's fair value. She is (very slightly) altering the collective opinion of the entire market as to what a share of AAPL is worth. And if her cancellation then frees her up to place another order closer to her perceived fair value (say, at $100.00), then that's another vote for her honest optinion about AAPL's price. Since the whole goal of the market is to get a bunch of particpants to figure out the fair value of some financial instrument (or commodity, or smart phone, or advertising time, etc.), cancellations of honest votes from the past in order to replace them with new, better-informed honest votes in the present can only be a good thing for the market's effectiveness and perceived effectiveness. It's only when participants start sending non-honest votes (non bona fide orders) that things start to go off the rails. That's what @DumbCoder was referring to in his comment on your original question.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "63a93c1cfbf0f9667863828d242469fd",
"text": "People are trying ideas like this, actually. Though they generally aren't very public about it. While keshlam ventures into hyperbole when mentioning Watson, he is certainly correct human language parsing is a extremely hard problem. While it is not always true that the big players will know before the news (sometimes that would qualify as insider trading). The volume spike that you mention generally comes as the news arrives to the major (and minor) players. So, if you have an algorithm run after the volume spike the price will likely have adjusted significantly already. You can try to avoid this by constantly scanning for news on a set of stocks however this becomes an even harder problem. Or maybe by becoming more specific and parsing known important and specific news sources (farm report for instance) and trying to do so faster than anyone else. These are some methods people use to not be too late.",
"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": "a4942354c3082e4093e875fbcf7027a8",
"text": "Yes the stock market is 'rigged' to some extent but if you are good at game theory then you can predict the direction of bias and therefore take advantage of the 'rigged' nature of the market. Eventually enough people become aware of the bias and then the people who are manipulating the market have to change their strategy. This is just how the market works though its always worked this way it has just become more and more sophisticated. look at it this way if you control billions of dollars in equities then you have to manipulate the market to give you a favorable price. If you dont manipulate then day traders and speculators will drive up the price of a security before you can even get your money in. So the big players try to manipulate the market and the small fish try to predict the manipulation. Welcome to the jungle",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f719c01ac03e037a88ca3dd067d103db",
"text": "This depends on the stock exchange in question. Generally if you modify an existing order [including GTC], these are internally treated as Cancel/Replace Orders. Depending on the action, you may lose the time priority position and a new position would get assigned. More here. (f) Cancel/Replace Orders. Depending on how a quote or order is modified, the quote or order may change priority position as follows: (1) If the price is changed, the changed side loses position and is placed in a priority position behind all orders of the same type (i.e., customer or non-customer) at the same price. (2) If one side's quantity is changed, the unchanged side retains its priority position. (3) If the quantity of one side is decreased, that side retains its priority position. (4) If the quantity of one side is increased, that side loses its priority position and is placed behind all orders of the same type at the same price.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "984a0df7f2f718d037aefe13c7f31b80",
"text": "Ethereum trades are not subject to the same rules as securities are. Thats the primary flaw in your assessment. Yes, cryptocurrency is a free trading arena where you can actually take advantage of market inefficiencies yourself 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, at massive profits. The equity securities markets are not like that, and can't be used as a comparison. If you have a preference for flexibility, then it is already clear which markets work better for you. Market makers can make stub quotes, brokers can easily block their retail customers from doing it themselves. Even the dubious market manipulation excuse is reference to a sanction exclusive to the equity markets. The idea that it went through a week earlier probably triggered the compliance review. Yes, a broker can refuse to place your limit order.",
"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": "df0f4088f7b0566b209ff366f0393d2f",
"text": "Patrick Byrne (CEO of Overstock.com) ran a somewhat interesting website awhile back called 'Deep Capture' which focused heavily on naked short selling and bear raids. He was called all sorts of names and many 'serious' journalist types brushed his allegations off. His basic argument was that a cabal of hedge funds would simultaneously naked short a specific equity and then a coordinated group of journalists and message board jockeys would disparage the company as loudly and publicly as possible, driving the price down. Naked shorting is supposed to be illegal since you can hold the types of positions like in the linked article about Citigroup where the number of shares sold short actually exceeds the number of shares in existence. The group he named was essentially a who's who of hedge funds and fraudsters and included many names of prominent politically active 'reformed' criminals from the S&L days on Wall St. I can't remember how the cards fell, but the scheme allegedly involved Michael Milliken, Sam Antar (from Crazy Eddie's Fraud), Gary Weiss, Jim Cramer, etc etc. It was a fascinating story. Byrne actually followed through with several lawsuits (one of which was settled after a Rocker Partners paid Byrne $5 million dollars to settle). The 'Deep Capture' site is down, but I [found a decent article](http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/01/wikipedia_and_naked_shorting/print.html) that sums up some of the shenanigans, including a journalist sock-puppeting to edit Wikipedia, repeatedly denying it, being IP-traced to inside the DTCC building (the Wall St. entity responsible for clearing trades, including naked shorts).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "59d3b64634a7f5a1e63aa35593284f5d",
"text": "It could be that the contracts were bought at cheaper prices such as $.01 earlier in the day. What you see there with the bid and ask is the CURRENT bid and CURRENT ask. The high ask price means there is no current liquidity, as someone is quoting a very high ask price just in case someone really wants to trade that price. But as you said, no one would buy this with a better price on a closer strike price. The volume likely occurred at a different price than listed on the current ask.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7f2bfc1b06ba8b2345e7b38192d33827",
"text": "\"It's a form of market manipulation. It makes it look like there is high trading volume, which gets attention from speculators and technical traders who see a ton of volume and think that there is some kind of news announcement or something. People start buying it so they don't miss out on whatever it is that \"\"everyone else\"\" is doing, and the price goes up.\"",
"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": "46f306dff57c96fa3e115a1e5e51a28b",
"text": "In general, how does a large open market stock sale affect prices? A very general answer, all other things being equal, the price will move down. However there is nothing general. It depends on total number of shares in market and total turn over for that specific shares. The order book for the day etc. What is the maximum percentage of a company you could sell per day before the trading freezes, and what factors matter? Every stock exchange has rules that would determine when a particular stock would be suspended from trading, generally a 10-20% swing [either ways]. Generally highly liquid stock or stock during initial listing are exempt from such limits as they are left to arrive the market price ... A large sell order may or may not swing the price for it to get suspended. At times even a small order may do ... again it is specific to a particular stock.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3f98ff6cd4c67451f3a35795ff4a6a4e",
"text": "While it is true that this formula may have historically outperformed the market you have to keep one important thing in mind: once the formula is out in the open, the market inefficiency will disappear. Here is what I mean. Historically there have always been various inefficiencies in the market structure. Some people were able to find these and make good money off them. Invariably these people tend to write books about how they did it. What happens next is that lots of people get in on the game and now you have lots of buyers going after positions that used to be under-priced, raising demand and thus prices for these positions. This is how inter-exchange arbitrage disappeared. Its how high frequency trading is running itself into the ground. If enough demand is generated for an inefficiency, the said inefficiency disappears or the gains get so small that you can only make money off it with large amounts of capital. Keep in mind, as Graham said, there is no silver bullet in the stock market since you do not hold any data that is unavailable to everyone else.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
b848abf50efea40ab5acb20d3e6fcd34
|
What is the best strategy for after hours trading?
|
[
{
"docid": "bea4611700552b43adf637d393d847a9",
"text": "First you will need a plan stating three main points: You will have to decide what criteria you will use to answer these points. You might use Fundamental Analysis to find what to buy and Technical Analysis to decide when to buy and when to sell (your buy and sell triggers). Once you have a Trading Plan in place you would need to find a broker with conditional orders. You can place conditional buy orders to get in a trade (for example if the price moves above or below a target price). You can place conditional stop loss orders if your trade goes against you, and you can also place conditional profit target stops to automatically get out if rises to your desired profit target. You can place one, two or many conditional orders after hours which will enable you to trade without being in front of your screen all day long.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "31c10b2d23beea4ec3e15b5f62854008",
"text": "I would never trade after hours and I have 30 years of trading experience. It is a very volatile emotion driven market without a lot of the big players that arbitrage wrong pricing. If I were you I would simply use limit orders you input while the market is closed. If you want to get kute you can put in low-ball offers (and vice versa) to see if they get filled in the volatility at market open. Then check in (when?) when you wake up (or before you go to bed, etc) and revise the limit if not filled. In other words don't 'trade'. Know what your company is worth and put in orders that reflect that.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "54b2d8e307104d0ed9651537bd06468e",
"text": "A lot of people here talk about shorting stocks, buying options, and messing around with leveraged ETFs. While these are excellent tools, that offer novel opportunities for the sophisticated investor, Don't mess around with these until you have been in the game for a few years. Even if you can make money consistently right out of the gate, don't do it. Why? Making money isn't your challenge, NOT LOSING money is your challenge. It's hard to measure the scope of the risk you are assuming with these strategies, much less manage it when things head south. So even if you've gotten lucky enough to have figured out how to make money, you surely haven't learned out how to hold on to it. I am certain that every beginner still hasn't figured out how to comprehend risk and manage losing positions. It's one of those things you only figure out after dealing with it. Stocks (with little to no margin) are a great place to learn how to lose because your risk of losing everything is drastically lower than with the aforementioned tools of the sophisticated investor. Despite what others may say you can make out really well just trading stocks. That being said, one of my favorite beginner strategies is buying stocks that dip for reasons that don't fundamentally affect the company's ability to make money in the mid term (2 quarters). Wallstreet loves these plays because it shakes out amateur investors (release bad news, push the stock down shorting it or selling your position, amateurs sell, which you buy at a discount to the 'fair price'.) A good example is Netflix back in 2007. There was a lawsuit because netflix was throttling movie deliveries to high traffic consumers. The stock dropped a good chunk overnight. A more recent example is petrobras after their huge bond sale and subsequent corruption scandal. A lot of people questioned Petrobras' long-term ability to maintain sufficient liquidity to pay back the loans, but the cashflow and long term projections are more than solid. A year later the stock was pushed further down because a lot of amateur Brazilians invest in Petrobras and they sold while the stock was artificially depressed due to a string of corruption scandals and poor, though temporary, economic conditions. One of my favorite plays back in 2008-2011 was First Solar on the run-up to earnings calls. Analysts would always come out of these meetings downgrading the stock and the forums were full of pikers and pumpers claiming heavy put positions. The stock would go down considerably, but would always pop around earnings. I've made huge returns on this move. Those were the good ole days. Start off just googling financial news and blogs and look for lawsuits and/or scandals. Manufacturing defects or recalls. Starting looking for companies that react predictably to certain events. Plot those events on your chart. If you don't know how to back-test events, learn it. Google Finance had a tool for that back in the day that was rudimentary but helpful for those starting out. Eventually though, moreso than learning any particular strategy, you should learn these three skills: 1) Tooling: to gather, manipulate, and visualize data on your own. These days automated trading also seems to be ever more important, even for the small fish. 2) Analytical Thinking learn to spot patterns of the three types: event based (lawsuits, arbitrage, earnings etc), technical (emas, price action, sup/res), or business-oriented (accounting, strategy, marketing). Don't just listen to what someone else says you should do at any particular moment, critical thinking is essential. 3) Emotions and Attitude: learn how to comprehend risk and manage your trigger finger. Your emotions are like a blade that you must sharpen every day if you want to stay in the game. Disclaimer: I stopped using this strategy in 2011, and moved to a pure technical trading regime. I've been out totally out of the game since 2015.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e06218ad5241fdad9d48acc2f7afd1e7",
"text": "A great way to learn is by watching then doing. I run a very successful technical analysis blog, and the first thing I like to tell my readers is to find a trader online who you can connect with, then watch them trade. I particularly like Adam Hewison, Marketclub.com - This is a great website, and they offer a great deal of eduction for free, in video format. They also offer further video based education through their ino.tv partner which is paid. Here is a link that has their free daily technical analysis based stock market update in video format. Marketclub Daily Stock Market Update Corey Rosenblum, blog.afraidtotrade.com - Corey is a Chartered Market Technician, and runs a fantastic technical analysis blog the focuses on market internals and short term trades. John Lansing, Trending123.com - John is highly successful trader who uses a reliable set of indicators and patterns, and has the most amazing knack for knowing which direction the markets are headed. Many of his members are large account day traders, and you can learn tons from them as well. They have a live daily chat room that is VERY busy. The other option is to get a mentor. Just about any successful trader will be willing to teach someone who is really interested, motivated, and has the time to learn. The next thing to do once you have chosen a route of education is to start virtual trading. There are many platforms available for this, just do some research on Google. You need to develop a trading plan and methodology for dealing with the emotions of trading. While there is no replacement for making real trades, getting some up front practice can help reduce your mistakes, teach you a better traders mindset, and help you with the discipline necessary to be a successful trader.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3ae22710c80a01cf0fa6319f8862dcff",
"text": "Apparent data-feed issues coming out of NASDAQ in the after hours market. Look at MSFT, AMZN, AAPL, heck even Sears. Funny thing though, is that you see traces of irregular prices during the active session around 10:20am on stocks like GOOG.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "81c0ba6d26ca860bf07777e2e195e6ea",
"text": "\"4PM is the market close in NYC, so yes, time looks good. If \"\"out of the money,\"\" they expire worthless. If \"\"in the money,\"\" it depends on your broker's rules, they can exercise the option, and you'll need to have the money to cover on Monday or they can do an exercise/sell, in which case, you'd have two commissions but get your profit. The broker will need to tell you their exact procedure, I don't believe it's universal.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1fa9a19bf4ae1323db1fa31bb93c3932",
"text": "Its hard to write much in those comment boxes, so I'll just make an answer, although its really not a formal answer. Regarding commissions, it costs me $5 per trade, so that's actually $10 per trade ($5 to buy, $5 to sell). An ETF like TNA ($58 per share currently) fluctuates $1 or $2 per day. IXC is $40 per share and fluctuates nearly 50 cents per day (a little less). So to make any decent money per trade would mean a share size of 50 shares TNA which means I need $2900 in cash (TNA is not marginable). If it goes up $1 and I sell, that's $10 for the broker and $40 for me. I would consider this to be the minimum share size for TNA. For IXC, 100 shares would cost me $4000 / 2 = $2000 since IXC is marginable. If IXC goes up 50 cents, that's $10 for the broker and $40 for me. IXC also pays a decent dividend. TNA does not. You'll notice the amount of cash needed to capture these gains is roughly the same. (Actually, to capture daily moves in IXC, you'll need a bit more than $2000 because it doesn't vary quite a full 50 cents each day). At first, I thought you were describing range trading or stock channeling, but those systems require stop losses when the range or channel is broken. You're now talking about holding forever until you get 1 or 2 points of profit. Therefore, I wouldn't trade stocks at all. Stocks could go to zero, ETFs will not. It seems to me you're looking for a way to generate small, consistent returns and you're not seeking to strike it rich in one trade. Therefore, buying something that pays a dividend would be a good idea if you plan to hold forever while waiting for your 1 or 2 points. In your system you're also going to have to define when to get back in the trade. If you buy IXC now at $40 and it goes to $41 and you sell, do you wait for it to come back to $40? What if it never does? Are you happy with having only made one trade for $40 profit in your lifetime? What if it goes up to $45 and then dips to $42, do you buy at $42? If so, what stops you from eventually buying at the tippy top? Or even worse, what stops you from feeling even more confident at the top and buying bigger lots? If it gets to $49, surely it will cover that last buck to $50, right? /sarc What if you bought IXC at $40 and it went down. Now what? Do you take up gardening as a hobby while waiting for IXC to come back? Do you buy more at lower prices and average down? Do you find other stocks to trade? If so, how long until you run out of money and you start getting margin calls? Then you'll be forced to sell at the bottom when you should be buying more. All these systems seem easy, but when you actually get in there and try to use them, you'll find they're not so easy. Anything that is obvious, won't work anymore. And even when you find something that is obvious and bet that it stops working, you'll be wrong then too. The thing is, if you think of it, many others just like you also think of it... therefore it can't work because everyone can't make money in stocks just like everyone at the poker table can't make money. If you can make 1% or 2% per day on your money, that's actually quite good and not too many people can do that. Or maybe its better to say, if you can make 2% per trade, and not take a 50% loss per 10 trades, you're doing quite well. If you make $40 per trade profit while working with $2-3k and you do that 50 times per year (50 trades is not a lot in a year), you've doubled your money for the year. Who does that on a consistent basis? To expect that kind of performance is just unrealistic. It much easier to earn $2k with $100k than it is to double $2k in a year. In stocks, money flows TO those who have it and FROM those who don't. You have to plan for all possibilities, form a system then stick to it, and not take on too much risk or expect big (unrealistic) rewards. Daytrading You make 4 roundtrips in 5 days, that broker labels you a pattern daytrader. Once you're labeled, its for life at that brokerage. If you switch to a new broker, the new broker doesn't know your dealings with the old broker, therefore you'll have to establish a new pattern with the new broker in order to be labeled. If the SEC were to ask, the broker would have to say 'yes' or 'no' concering if you established a pattern of daytrading at that brokerage. Suppose you make the 4 roundtrips and then you make a 5th that triggers the call. The broker will call you up and say you either need to deposit enough to bring your account to $25k or you need to never make another daytrade at that firm... ever! That's the only warning you'll ever get. If you're in violation again, they lock your account to closing positions until you send in funds to bring the balance up to $25k. All you need to do is have the money hit your account, you can take it right back out again. Once your account has $25k, you're allowed to trade again.... even if you remove $15k of it that same day. If you trigger the call again, you have to send the $15k back in, then take it back out. Having the label is not all bad... they give you 4x margin. So with $25k, you can buy $100k of marginable stock. I don't know... that could be a bad thing too. You could get a margin call at the end of the day for owning $100k of stock when you're only allowed to own $50k overnight. I believe that's a fed call and its a pretty big deal.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c67e32269a972e5a4e46ebb9ed6a7e07",
"text": "Well, arbitrage is a simple mean reversion strategy which states that any two similar commodity with some price difference (usually not much) will converge. So either you can bet on difference in prices in different exchanges or also you can bet on difference in futures value. For example if current price of stock is 14$ and if futures price is 10$. Then you can buy one futures contract and short one stock at the market price. This would lock in a profit of 4$ per share.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "44bd46e3484fc1c98a0eebad6293c006",
"text": "First, accept the fact that you are not going to be able to predict the ups and downs of the market well enough for that to be a viable strategy. In the long run these schemes tend to be losers because it forces you to guess correctly twice (When to get out, when to get back in) and missing either date can cost you. A better strategy to benefit from market volatility:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1276e1f81743f47e0912964e2eba3635",
"text": "\"Your strategy fails to control risk. Your \"\"inversed crash\"\" is called a rally. And These kind of things often turn into bigger rallies because of short squeezes, when all the people that are shorting a stock are forced to close their stock because of margin calls - its not that shorts \"\"scramble\"\" to close their position, the broker AUTOMATICALLY closes your short positions with market orders and you are stuck with the loss. So no, your \"\"trick\"\" is not enough. There are better ways to profit from a bearish outlook.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7bbfa7d7bbe88354359e0a432ac667b2",
"text": "Trading is NOT zero-sum game, it is negative sum actually. In fact all people's money is getting swept by commissions and fees. If you don't have The Plan (which includes minimizing commission losses), you win some (not a lot), then you get big positions, then market crashes, then all your money is gone. You will start noticing that commissions are real, only when you get market crash. Prey that you get heavy losses (-10% of portfolio) before some (giant) market crash. Getting good lesson by small price is better then high price (-30..50%). Piece of advice. There is small exchanges that do NOT charge you for operations, taking only market spread ($0.01) as commission. They do so because they do not have big population and they trade mostly by using automatic market-makers (which means there is no way to buy 10% of Apple there).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c38fdb9c7f76677a4614faf0eaf2598a",
"text": "\"You avoid pattern day trader status by trading e-mini futures through a futures broker. The PDT rules do not apply in the futures markets. Some of the markets that are available include representatives covering the major indices i.e the YM (DJIA), ES (S&P 500) and NQ (Nasdaq 100) and many more markets. You can take as many round-turn trades as you care to...as many or as few times a day as you like. E-mini futures contracts trade in sessions with \"\"transition\"\" times between sessions. -- Sessions begin Sunday evenings at 6 PM EST and are open through Monday evening at 5 PM EST...The next session begins at 6 pm Monday night running through Tuesday at 5 PM EST...etc...until Friday's session close at 5 PM EST. Just as with stocks, you can either buy first then sell (open and close a position) or short-sell (sell first then cover by buying). You profit (or lose) on a round turn trade in the same manor as you would if trading stocks, options, ETFs etc. The e-mini futures are different than the main futures markets that you may have seen traders working in the \"\"pits\"\" in Chicago...E-mini futures are totally electronic (no floor traders) and do not involve any potential delivery of the 'product'...They just require the closing of positions to end a transaction. A main difference is you need to maintain very little cash in your account in order to trade...$1000 or less per trade, per e-mini contract...You can trade just 1 contract at a time or as many contracts as you have the cash in your account to cover. \"\"Settlement\"\" is immediate upon closing out any position that you may have put on...No waiting for clearing before your next trade. If you want to hold an e-mini contract position over 2 or more sessions, you need to have about $5000 per contract in your account to cover the minimum margin requirement that comes into play during the transition between sessions... With the e-minis you are speculating on gaining from the difference between when you 'put-on' and \"\"close-out\"\" a position in order to profit. For example, if you think the DJIA is about to rise 20 points, you can buy 1 contract. If you were correct in your assessment and sold your contract after the e-mini rose 20 points, you profited $100. (For the DJIA e-mini, each 1 point 'tick' is valued at $5.00)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "46bb0ac8ba2b87ecce14e735c5a917b5",
"text": "What is a good resource to learn about options trading strategies? Options are a quite advanced investment form, and you'd do well to learn a lot about them before attempting to dive into this fairly illiquid market. Yale's online course in financial markets covers the Options Market and is a good starting point to make sure you've got all the basics. You may be familiar with most of it, but it's a decent refresher on lingo and Black-Scholes. How can I use options to establish some cash flow from long standing investments while minimizing capital gains expenses? This question seems designed to get people to talk about covered calls. Essentially, you sell call contracts: you let people buy things you already have at a price in the future, at their whim. They pay you for this option, though usually not much if the options aren't in the money. You can think of this as trading any return above the call option for a bit of extra cash. I don't invest with taxable accounts, but there are significant tax consequences for options. Because they expire, there will be turnover in your portfolio, and up front income when you take the sell side. So if you trade in options with close expiration dates, you'll probably end up with a lot of short-term capital gains, which are treated as normal income. One strategy is to trade in broad-based stock index options, which have favorable tax treatments. Some people have abused this though to disguise normal income as capital gains, so it could go away. Obviously the easy approach is to just use a tax advantaged account for options trading. An ETF might also be able to handle the turnover on your behalf, for example VIX is a series of options on S&P500 options. A second strategy I've heard of is buying calls and puts at a given strike price. For example, if you bought Dec '13 calls and puts on SPX @ 115 today, it would cost you about $35 dollars. If the price moves more than 35 dollars away from 115 by DEC '13 (in either direction), you've made a profit. If you reflect on that for a bit, you'll see why VIX is considered a volatility index. I guess I should mention that shorting a stock and buying a put option at the market price are very similar, with the exception that your loss is limited to the price of the option. Is there ever an instance where options investing is not speculative? The term 'speculative' is not well defined. For many people, the answer is no. It's very easy to just buy put options and wait for prices to fall, or call options and wait for prices to rise. Moreover, the second strategy above essentially gives you similar performance to a stock without paying full price. These all fall under the headline of increasing a risk portfolio rather than decreasing it, which I figure is a decent definition of speculation. On the other hand, there are ways to use options minimize risk rather than increase it. You can buy underwater options as portfolio insurance, if your portfolio drops below a certain amount, you still have the right to sell it at a higher one. And the Case-Schiller index is run in part, on the hopes that one day there might be a thriving market for real estate options (or futures). When you buy a home or lend money to someone to buy one, you could buy regional Case-Schiller options to protect you if the regional market tanks. But in all of these cases, it's required for someone else to take the opposite trade. Risk isn't reduced, it's traded around. So technically, there is a speculative element to these as well. I think the proper question here is whether speculation is present, but whether speculation can be put to good ends. Without speculators, the already very thin market for options would shrivel faster.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a43d0a13a01babe7f87b6ccb7c57d41d",
"text": "the strategy is tested all the way to 97. how is the continuous series backadjusted? the emini is rolledover and Ratio back adjusted to the 2nd nearest contract, 9 days prior to expiration. since it is an intraday trade, the discrepancy to the real thing should be next to irrelevant. but comparing it to the spx could make it interesting. what would be a good format to present the results ? jpeg? pdf ?",
"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": "13d54dbd5a6b33f419ebeafe4f977782",
"text": "\"I read the book, and I'm willing to believe you'd have a good chance of beating the market with this strategy - it is a reasonable, rational, and mechanical investment discipline. I doubt it's overplayed and overused to the point that it won't ever work again. But only IF you stick to it, and doing so would be very hard (behaviorally). Which is probably why it isn't overplayed and overused already. This strategy makes you place trades in companies you often won't have heard of, with volatile prices. The best way to use the strategy would be to try to get it automated somehow and avoid looking at the individual stocks, I bet, to take your behavior out of it. There may well be some risk factors in this strategy that you don't have in an S&P 500 fund, and those could explain some of the higher returns; for example, a basket of sketchier companies could be more vulnerable to economic events. The strategy won't beat the market every year, either, so that can test your behavior. Strategies tend to work and then stop working (as the book even mentions). This is related to whether other investors are piling in to the strategy and pushing up prices, in part. But also, outside events can just happen to line up poorly for a given strategy; for example a bunch of the \"\"fundamental index\"\" ETFs that looked at dividend yield launched right before all the high-dividend financials cratered. Investing in high-dividend stocks probably is and was a reasonable strategy in general, but it wasn't a great strategy for a couple years there. Anytime you don't buy the whole market, you risk both positive and negative deviations from it. Here's maybe a bigger-picture point, though. I happen to think \"\"beating the market\"\" is a big old distraction for individual investors; what you really want is predictable, adequate returns, who cares if the market returns 20% as long as your returns are adequate, and who cares if you beat the market by 5% if the market cratered 40%. So I'm not a huge fan of investment books that are structured around the topic of beating the market. Whether it's index fund advocates saying \"\"you can't beat the market so buy the index\"\" or Greenblatt saying \"\"here's how to beat the market with this strategy,\"\" it's still all about beating the market. And to me, beating the market is just irrelevant. Nobody ever bought their food in retirement because they did or did not beat the market. To me, beating the market is a game for the kind of actively-managed mutual fund that has a 90%-plus R-squared correlation with the index; often called an \"\"index hugger,\"\" these funds are just trying to eke out a little bit better result than the market, and often get a little bit worse result, and overall are a lot of effort with no purpose. Just get the index fund rather than these. If you're getting active management involved, I'd rather see a big deviation from the index, and I'd like that deviation to be related to risk control: hedging, or pulling back to cash when valuations get rich, or avoiding companies without a \"\"moat\"\" and margin of safety, or whatever kind of risk control, but something. In a fund like this, you aren't trying to beat the market, you're trying to increase the chances of adequate returns - you're optimizing for predictability. I'm not sure the magic formula is the best way to do that, focused as it is on beating the market rather than on risk control. Sorry for the extra digression but I hope I answered the question a bit, too. ;-)\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
ba44ab234e65fc9f2f6d061bdb380f6c
|
Which first time Stocks and Shares ISA for UK, frequent trader UK markets?
|
[
{
"docid": "3d99e0afe3526d2911c7bc203042da44",
"text": "I wouldn't only consider the entry/exit cost per trade. That's a good comparison page by the way. I would also consider the following. This depends if you are planning on using your online broker to provide all the information for you to trade. I have lower expectations of my online broker, not meant to be harsh on the online brokers, but I expect brokers to assist me in buying/selling, not in selecting. Edit: to add to the answer following a comment. Here are three pieces of software to assist in stock selection",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "7602775b21de86391db58f419dad795a",
"text": "Since I've been doing this since late 03 I have colo machines in Chicago and NYC, and have direct exchange data feeds etc. I mentioned in a prior post though, for someone starting out on algorithmic trading, I'd recommend Nanex for tick data and Interactive Brokers for your brokerage account. IB has a robust and easy to use API. It won't let you do the most low latency stuff bc you can't colo at the exchange and have to clear through their order management systems but if you are looking at opportunities that exist in the market in excess of 50ms it's probably a good place to start. If not, go Lightspeed imo, but that'll cost you on the colo/data a lot more.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b1706d4b8a932bdbaf455068acf63dfa",
"text": "I've been a retail trader for close to 7 years and while I have a specialized futures account, I use Interactive Brokers for my other trading. They charge per share or contract rather than per trade (good for smaller accounts or if you want to piece into and out of positions). You can also trade just about anything. Futures, options, options on futures, individual stocks, ETFs, Bonds (futures), currencies. The interface is pretty good as well. I have seperate charts (eSignal) so I'm not sure how good their charting is",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c584ea3ef8b9b2732ccb1dfe350e2151",
"text": "The 'same day rule' in the UK is a rule for matching purposes only. It says that sales on any day are matched firstly with purchases made on the same day for the purposes of ascertaining any gain/loss. Hence the phrase 'bed-and-breakfast' ('b&b') when you wish to crystalise a gain (that is within the exempt amount) and re-establish a purchase price at a higher level. You do the sale on one day, just before the market closes, which gets matched with your original purchase, and then you buy the shares back the next day, just after the market opens. This is standard tax-planning. Whenever you have a paper gain, and you wish to lock that gain out of being taxed, you do a bed-and-breakfast transaction, the idea being to use up your annual exemption each and every year. Of course, if your dealing costs are high, then they may outweigh any tax saved, and so it would be pointless. For the purpose of an example, let's assume that the UK tax year is the same as the calendar year. Scenario 1. Suppose I bought some shares in 2016, for a total price of Stg.50,000. Suppose by the end of 2016, the holding is worth Stg.54,000, resulting in a paper gain of Stg.4,000. Question. Should I do a b&b transaction to make use of my Stg.11,100 annual exemption ? Answer. Well, with transaction costs at 1.5% for a round-trip trade, suppose, and stamp duty on the purchase of 0.5%, your total costs for a b&b will be Stg1,080, and your tax saved (upon some future sale date) assuming you are a 20% tax-payer is 20%x(4,000-1,080) = Stg584 (the transaction costs are deductible, we assume). This does not make sense. Scenario 2. The same as scenario 1., but the shares are worth Stg60,000 by end-2016. Answer. The total transaction costs are 2%x60,000 = 1,200 and so the taxable gain of 10,000-1,200 = 8,800 would result in a tax bill of 20%x8,800 = 1,760 and so the transaction costs are lower than the tax to be saved (a strict analysis would take into account only the present value of the tax to be saved), it makes sense to crystalise the gain. We sell some day before the tax year-end, and re-invest the very next day. Scenario 3. The same as scenario 1., but the shares are worth Stg70,000 by end-2016. Answer. The gain of 20,000 less costs would result in a tax bill for 1,500 (this is: 20%x(20,000 - 2%x70,000 - 11,100) ). This tax bill will be on top of the dealing costs of 1,400. But the gain is in excess of the annual exemption. The strategy is to sell just enough of the holding to crystallise a taxable gain of just 11,100. The fraction, f%, is given by: f%x(70,000-50,000) - 2%xf%x70,000 = 11,100 ... which simplifies to: f% = 11,100/18,600 = 59.68%. The tax saved is 20%x11,100 = 2,220, versus costs of 2%x59.58%x70,000 = 835.52. This strategy of partial b&b is adopted because it never makes sense to pay tax early ! End.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f05e7457666194747ad2a2fffb8275aa",
"text": "Now the question: is advisable for a beginner to speculate in CfDs? No. If not, is there a better way to invest with a small amount of money? In the US, and I'm sure this carries to the UK, most (if not all) big brokerages (Schwab, TD Ameritrade, Fidelity, Vanguard, etc) have a set of funds that are zero load and zero commission though the fund will still have an expense ratio. This is the Barclay's UK page related to zero cost investing in the Barclay's funds. Barclay's might not be the right fit for a beginner as it seems there is a hefty account minimum, but the same zero commission concept exists in the UK. Again, most of these brokerages will also have an extremely low expense ratio S&P index (or some other market index) fund. As a beginner that's where you should start. This is not meant to patronize beginners, it's just math. Assume your trade commission is £7. If your investment is £100, you'll lose £7 right up front to the buy commission, then another £7 when you sell. Lets say your position raises 10%, you'll be at a net loss of 4.7%. Meanwhile if you put your £100 in to a 0.1% expense fee mutual fund with no transaction commissions and no load fees, after a 10% gain you'd owe £0.11 due to the expense ratio at the of the year. You'd have £109.89. Beginners get crushed by fees and commission. It is not advisable, by any stretch of the imagination, to attempt to day trade or actively manage a portfolio of any sort of security; and commodities and currency are the WORST place to start.",
"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": "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": "fb1797631bbe56e4504988fc1ee766c1",
"text": "1 lot is 100 shares on London stock exchange",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6c281f1428b353322422c8364bfe4bf2",
"text": "You will likely need to open an account in another EU country, like a broker operating out of France, Britain or Germany, to get the best options. If you are comfortable using an english language site and interface, I highly recommend Interactive Brokers as they let you trade in many markets simultaneously, have simple currency conversion, and great tools. But, they are geared toward active traders so you might be better with a more retail oriented broker if you are new to trading stocks. There are many options. Here is a list to start with:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b4b8da68cdfff0a88f33fc196fac38f8",
"text": "I have a friend that bought volatility calls the day before brexit and made 1900% return in 1 night. I wouldn't put that investment next to someone that's buying and holding SPY and say my vix friend is thousands of times better at investing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1b2dae65dd374866d9f3920425b49b6e",
"text": "I'm not familiar with QQQ, but I'm guessing this is something like IShares Ftse 100 (see description here)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f3610a88991b8393c50a0ebc5ca97b41",
"text": "\"Is this amount an adequate starting amount to begin investing with? Yes. You can open an account at a brokerage with this amount. I'm not sure I would invest in individual stocks at this point. Which services should I use to start buying shares? (Currently my bank offers this service but I'm willing to use other sources) I can't make UK-specific recommendations, but I'd compare your bank's fees to those of a discount broker -- as well as the variety and level of service available. I would like to regularly increase the amount invested in shares. Is it worth doing this in say £200 increments? Take a look at the fees associated with each investment. Divide the fee by the increment to see what percent you'll lose to fees/commissions. Keep in mind that you have to gain more than that percentage to start earning a positive return on your investment. If you have access to fee-free automatic mutual fund investments, and you can commit to the £200 amount on a regular basis going forward, then this can be a completely free way of making these incremental investments. See also this answer on dollar cost averaging, and my comment on the other answer on that question for how fees impact returns. When buying shares should I focus on say two or three companies, or diversify more? I would diversify into two or three different index funds. Read up on asset allocation. For example, you might invest 1/3 of your balance into S&P 500 index fund, bond index fund, and MSCI EAFE index fund (but that's just a rough example, and not necessarily good for you). I highly recommend \"\"The Intelligent Asset Allocator\"\" by William Bernstein for excellent info on diversification and asset allocation.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "722a3d48ad73e91293f18ac8e486b377",
"text": "Since you mentioned £, there's a good chance you're in the UK. The UK is something of an anomaly in the world in so much as you don't need to use CDFs because you can 'spread bet'. The principle is ultimately the same: you're making a bet that the price will change in your favour. As others have said, this isn't investment and isn't a good idea if you don't know what you're doing. It's a possibly risky way into the field because your losses can exceed your deposit. It's generally pretty short-term, and so is highly susceptible to unpredictable temporary market fluctuation ('real' investing is usually longer term, and so based on the general trend of the market, which is generally less difficult to predict). That said, half-way decent spread betting companies will check you out pretty thoroughly before you start, they'll offer a 'demo' account where you can trade with 'fake money' (ie. you make no deposit, and can make no withdrawals) until you're comfortable. Some do training courses and seminars too. When you first start trading for real, you'll need to put a 'stop loss' on every trade, and thus mostly avoid the problem of losing more than you staked (it's still possible to lose more than you staked with a stop loss, but in most cases your excess loss won't be ruinous, just eye-watering). I worked for one such spread-betting company (a good, honest one at that). We once had an internal competition using demo accounts - the aim was to make as much money as you could in a two week period. I think we started with £10,000 each. A couple of people 'made' a decent looking amount of money in that time, but dozens more of us lost at least all of the money. It is possible to make money, but there's a far, far greater chance you'll lose all you're prepared to stake (and maybe more). Also, using a demo account is very different from using real money (no matter how much you tell yourself it isn't).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3c0b89345b97cedbae31d67280424bad",
"text": "Your question is actually quite broad, so will try to split it into it's key parts: Yes, standard bank ISAs pay very poor rates of interest at the moment. They are however basically risk free and should track inflation. Any investment in the 6-7% return range at the moment will be linked to stock. Stock always carries large risks (~50% swings in capital are pretty standard in the short run. In the long run it generally beats every other asset class by miles). If you can’t handle those types of short terms swings, you shouldn’t get involved. If you do want to invest in stock, there is a hefty ignorance tax waiting at every corner in terms of how brokers construct their fees. In a nutshell, there is a different best value broker in the UK for virtually every band of capital, and they make their money through people signing up when they are in range x, and not moving their money when they reach band y; or just having a large marketing budget and screwing you from the start (Nutmeg at ~1% a year is def in this category). There isn't much of an obvious way around this if you are adamant you don't want to learn about it - the way the market is constructed is just a total predatory minefield for the complete novice. There are middle ground style investments between the two extremes you are looking at: bonds, bond funds and mixes of bonds and small amounts of stock (such as the Vanguard income or Conservative Growth funds outlined here), can return more than savings accounts with less risk than stocks, but again its a very diverse field that's hard to give specific advice about without knowing more about what your risk tolerance, timelines and aims are. If you do go down this (or the pure stock fund) route, it will need to be purchased via a broker in an ISA wrapper. The broker charges a platform fee, the fund charges a fund fee. In both cases you want these as low as possible. The Telegraph has a good heat map for the best value ISA platform providers by capital range here. Fund fees are always in the key investor document (KIID), under 'ongoing charges'.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
b8452535ad6f3021830d02b614f21e74
|
US ISA equivalent for tax exempt investment & savings
|
[
{
"docid": "a087862ebd93bef3b6d75993e9ced7e4",
"text": "As far as I know, there is no direct equivalent. An IRA is subject to many rules. Not only are there early withdrawal penalties, but the ability to deduct contributions to an IRA phases out with one's income level. Qualified withdrawals from an IRA won't have penalties, but they will be taxed as income. Contributions to a Roth IRA can be made post-tax and the resulting gains will be tax free, but they cannot be withdrawn early. Another tax-deductable investment is a 529 plan. These can be withdrawn from at any time, but there is a penalty if the money is not used for educational purposes. A 401K or similar employer-sponsored fund is made with pre-tax dollars unless it is designated as a Roth 401K. These plans also require money to be withdrawn specifically for retirement, with a 10% penalty for early withdrawal. Qualifying withdrawals from a regular retirement plan are taxed as income, those from a Roth plan are not (as with an IRA). Money can be made harder to get at by investing in all of the types of funds you can invest in using an IRA through the same brokers under a different type of account, but the contribution will be made with post-tax, non-deductable dollars and the gains will be taxed.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "9c913aa51881967e18ada87b98694a77",
"text": "\"It sounds like this is an entirely unsettled question, unfortunately. In the examples you provide, I think it is safe to say that none of those are 'substantially identical'; a small overlap or no overlap certainly should not be considered such by a reasonable interpretation of the rule. This article on Kitces goes into some detail on the topic. A few specifics. First, Former publication 564 explains: Ordinarily, shares issued by one mutual fund are not considered to be substantially identical to shares issued by another mutual fund. Of course, what \"\"ordinarily\"\" means is unspecified (and this is no longer a current publication, so, who knows). The Kitces article goes on to explain that the IRS hasn't really gone after wash sales for mutual funds: Over the years, the IRS has not pursued wash sale abuses against mutual funds, perhaps because it just wasn’t very feasible to crack down on them, or perhaps because it just wasn’t perceived as that big of an abuse. After all, while the rules might allow you to loss-harvest a particular stock you couldn’t have otherwise, it also limits you from harvesting ANY losses if the overall fund is up in the aggregate, since losses on individual stocks can’t pass through to the mutual fund shareholders. But then goes to explain about ETFs being very different: sell SPY, buy IVV or VTI, and you're basically buying/selling the identical thing (99% or so correlation in stocks owned). The recommendation by the article is to look at the correlation in owned stocks, and stay away from things over 95%; that seems reasonable in my book as well. Ultimately, there will no doubt be a large number of “grey” and murky situations, but I suspect that until the IRS provides better guidance (or Congress rewrites/updates the wash sale rules altogether!), in the near term the easiest “red flag” warning is simply to look at the correlation between the original investment being loss-harvested, and the replacement security; at correlations above 0.95, and especially at 0.99+, it’s difficult to argue that the securities are not ”substantially identical” to each other in performance. Basically - use common sense, and don't do anything you think would be hard to defend in an audit, but otherwise you should be okay.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9ed2cb593ee57de5f9f887f837964aa8",
"text": "A CDIC-insured high-interest savings bank account is both safe and liquid (i.e. you can withdraw your money at any time.) At present time, you could earn interest of ~1.35% per year, if you shop around. If you are willing to truly lock in for 2 years minimum, rates go up slightly, but perhaps not enough to warrant loss of liquidity. Look at GIC rates to get an idea. Any other investments – such as mutual funds, stocks, index funds, ETFs, etc. – are generally not consistent with your stated risk objective and time frame. Better returns are generally only possible if you accept the risk of loss of capital, or lock in for longer time periods.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8400613fe1604536e0f9484699465382",
"text": "You should check this with a tax accountant or tax preparation expert, but I encountered a similar situation in Canada. Your ISA income does count as income in a foreign country, and it is not tax exempt (the tax exemption is only because the British government specifically says so). You would need to declare the income to the foreign government who would almost certainly charge you tax on it. There are a couple of reasons why you should probably keep the funds in the ISA, especially if you are looking to return. First contribution limits are per year, so if you took the money out now you would have to use future contribution room to put it back. Second almost all UK savings accounts deduct tax at source, and its frankly a pain to get it back. Leaving the money in an ISA saves you that hassle, or the equal hassle of transferring it to an offshore account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "52a51f7367d454bf22824007f02cd520",
"text": "The main difference is that the ISA account like a Cash ISA shelters you from TAX - you don't have to worry about Capital Gains TAX. The other account is normal taxable account. With only £500 to invest you will be paying a high % in charges so... To start out I would look at some of the Investment Trust savings schemes where you can save a small amount monthly very cost-effectively - save £50 a month for a year to see how you get on. Some Trusts to look at include Wittan, City Of London and Lowland",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "21d0c3dcd64ed588f9aa8af50c2612a9",
"text": "An ISA is a much simpler thing than I suspect you think it is. It is a wrapper or envelope, and the point of it is that HMRC does not care what happens inside the envelope, or even about extractions of funds from the envelope; they only care about insertions of funds into the envelope. It is these insertions that are limited to £15k in a tax year; what happens to the funds once they're inside the envelope is your own business. Some diagrams: Initial investment of £10k. This is an insertion into the envelope and so counts against your £15k/tax year limit. +---------ISA-------+ ----- £10k ---------> | +-------------------+ So now you have this: +---------ISA-------+ | £10k of cash | +-------------------+ Buy fund: +---------ISA-------+ | £10k of ABC | +-------------------+ Fund appreciates. This happens inside the envelope; HMRC don't care: +---------ISA-------+ | £12k of ABC | +-------------------+ Sell fund. This happens inside the envelope; HMRC don't care: +---------ISA-------+ | £12k of cash | +-------------------+ Buy another fund. This happens inside the envelope; HMRC don't care: +---------ISA-----------------+ | £10k of JKL & £2k of cash | +-----------------------------+ Fund appreciates. This happens inside the envelope; HMRC don't care: +---------ISA-----------------+ | £11k of JKL & £2k of cash | +-----------------------------+ Sell fund. This happens inside the envelope; HMRC don't care: +---------ISA-------+ | £13k of cash | +-------------------+ Withdraw funds. This is an extraction from the envelope; HMRC don't care. +---------ISA-------+ <---- £13k --------- | +-------------------+ No capital gains liability, you don't even have to put this on your tax return (if applicable) - your £10k became £13k inside an ISA envelope, so HMRC don't care. Note however that for the rest of that tax year, the most you can insert into an ISA would now be £5k: +---------ISA-------+ ----- £5k ---------> | +-------------------+ even though the ISA is empty. This is because the limit is to the total inserted during the year.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a03334002934853b3c52dd87d276af9f",
"text": "\"In a Roth IRA scenario, this $5,000 would be reduced to $3,750 if we assume a (nice and round) 25% tax rate. For the Traditional IRA, the full $5,000 would be invested. No, that's not how it works. Taxes aren't removed from your Roth account. You'll have $5,000 invested either way. The difference is that you'll have a tax deduction if you invest in a traditional IRA, but not a Roth. So you'll \"\"save\"\" $1,250 in taxes up front if you invest in a traditional IRA versus a Roth. The flip side is when you withdraw the money. Since you've already paid tax on the Roth investment, and it grows tax free, you'll pay no tax when you withdraw it. But you'll pay tax on the investment and the gains when you withdraw from a traditional IRA. Using your numbers, you'd pay tax on $2.2MM from the traditional IRA, but NO TAX on $2.2MM from the Roth. At that point, you've saved over $500,000 in taxes. Now if you invested the tax savings from the traditional IRA and it earned the same amount, then yes, you'd end up in the same place in the end, provided you have the same marginal tax rate. But I suspect that most don't invest that savings, and if you withdraw significant amount, you'll likely move into higher tax brackets. In your example, suppose you only had $3,750 of \"\"discretionary\"\" income that you could put toward retirement. You could put $5,000 in a traditional IRA (since you'll get a $1,250 tax deduction), or $3,750 in a Roth. Then your math works out the same. If you invest the same amount in either, though, the math on the Roth is a no-brainer.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "66786513c4ca328a928805d2de4d7409",
"text": "when investing in index funds Index fund as the name suggests invests in the same proportion of the stocks that make up the index. You can choose a Index Fund that tracks NYSE or S&P etc. You cannot select individual companies. Generally these are passively managed, i.e. just follow the index composition via automated algorithms resulting in lower Fund Manager costs. is it possible to establish an offshore company Yes it is possible and most large organization or High Net-worth individuals do this. Its expensive and complicated for ordinary individuals. One needs and army of International Tax Consultants / International Lawyers / etc but do I have to pay taxes from the capital gains at the end of the year? Yes Canada taxes on world wide income and you would have to pay taxes on gains in Canada. Note depending on your tax residency status in US, you may have to pay tax in US as well.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "92672dcaf9b5d74a175578d2a4403c40",
"text": "Note that after 15 years, the tax exemption is €36800 per person, which includes both the principal you desposited and the accumulated interest. It's possible that you will have a higher balance than this in your savings account at this point and would still owe tax on the interest accumulated above the exempted amount. After 20 years, you get the full tax exemption, the lesser of your portion of the mortgage debt and €162000 per person. In direct answer to your questions: I'm not aware of any exceptions to the 15 year rule for allowing the accumulated interest to be tax free when selling your house. If your accumulated interest is low enough, you might consider just paying the tax on it as it would give you the most flexibility in choosing a new mortgage. This is why I asked about more details about your interest rate and how long the mortgage has been running. It may, however, possible to couple the savings account to a new ABN AMRO Bankspaar mortgage when you buy a new house. You should check your mortgage terms and conditions. For example, Section 23.12 in ABN AMRO's terms and conditions from 2010 describes this. See here. It is probably best, however, to speak directly with either your mortgage broker or with a mortgage adviser with ABN AMRO. If your mortgage broker still worked on commission (aflsuitprovisie) when you closed your mortgage, then they are obligated to assist you with this type of question. In order to qualify for the tax exemption, you must use the saved value to pay off debt on your primary residence (eigenwoningschuld). Decoupling the savings account entirely from a mortgage will disqualify you from the tax advantages. You will owe tax on all accumulated interest.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3c0b89345b97cedbae31d67280424bad",
"text": "Your question is actually quite broad, so will try to split it into it's key parts: Yes, standard bank ISAs pay very poor rates of interest at the moment. They are however basically risk free and should track inflation. Any investment in the 6-7% return range at the moment will be linked to stock. Stock always carries large risks (~50% swings in capital are pretty standard in the short run. In the long run it generally beats every other asset class by miles). If you can’t handle those types of short terms swings, you shouldn’t get involved. If you do want to invest in stock, there is a hefty ignorance tax waiting at every corner in terms of how brokers construct their fees. In a nutshell, there is a different best value broker in the UK for virtually every band of capital, and they make their money through people signing up when they are in range x, and not moving their money when they reach band y; or just having a large marketing budget and screwing you from the start (Nutmeg at ~1% a year is def in this category). There isn't much of an obvious way around this if you are adamant you don't want to learn about it - the way the market is constructed is just a total predatory minefield for the complete novice. There are middle ground style investments between the two extremes you are looking at: bonds, bond funds and mixes of bonds and small amounts of stock (such as the Vanguard income or Conservative Growth funds outlined here), can return more than savings accounts with less risk than stocks, but again its a very diverse field that's hard to give specific advice about without knowing more about what your risk tolerance, timelines and aims are. If you do go down this (or the pure stock fund) route, it will need to be purchased via a broker in an ISA wrapper. The broker charges a platform fee, the fund charges a fund fee. In both cases you want these as low as possible. The Telegraph has a good heat map for the best value ISA platform providers by capital range here. Fund fees are always in the key investor document (KIID), under 'ongoing charges'.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "03cd2798097762b25fb89bff28c5dde5",
"text": "\"The IRS rules are actually the same. 26 U.S. Code § 1091 - Loss from wash sales of stock or securities In the case of any loss claimed to have been sustained from any sale or other disposition of shares of stock or securities where it appears that, within a period beginning 30 days before the date of such sale or disposition and ending 30 days after such date, the taxpayer has acquired (by purchase or by an exchange on which the entire amount of gain or loss was recognized by law), or has entered into a contract or option so to acquire, substantially identical stock or securities, then no deduction shall be allowed... What you should take away from the quote above is \"\"substantially identical stock or securities.\"\" With stocks, one company may happen to have a high correlation, Exxon and Mobil come to mind, before their merger of course. With funds or ETFs, the story is different. The IRS has yet to issue rules regarding what level of overlap or correlation makes two funds or ETFs \"\"substantially identical.\"\" Last month, I wrote an article, Tax Loss Harvesting, which analyses the impact of taking losses each year. I study the 2000's which showed an average loss of 1% per year, a 9% loss for the decade. Tax loss harvesting made the decade slightly positive, i.e. an annual boost of approx 1%.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "31594816af776ae31246dff47b57b5a2",
"text": "Your 1&2 are the end of that chapter. You can't convert for that year again, and must wait 30 days to convert in the new tax year. For example, each year for over a decade, I've helped my mother in law with this. In May, we convert a chunk of money/stock to Roth. In April, I'll recharacterize just enough so she tops off her 15% bracket but doesn't hit 25%. 30 days later, the new conversion happens. All the Roth money is money now taxed at 15%, which, in an emergency, a need for a lot of cash, will avoid the potential of 25% or higher, tax. You see, your 3 never really happens.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "445f3efc2c8bd10a811cef2d6b9aa778",
"text": "\"Nobody knows for sure what \"\"substantially identical\"\" means because the IRS hasn't officially defined it. Until they do so, it would come down to the decision of an auditor or a tax court. The rule of thumb that I have always heard is if the funds track the same index, they are probably substantially identical. I think most people wouldn't consider any pair of AGG, CMF, and NYF to be substantially identical, so you should be safe with your tax-loss harvesting strategy.\"",
"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": "19ada7d27de09ad5f1e7666426b99453",
"text": "Good question - I know you can keep the ISA in the UK and it won't lose its tax free status but you're not able to contribute it while you're not a UK resident. Not that its tax free status buys you that much if you're a non-resident as you could apply to receive tax gross on pretty much any savings account anyway. Given that the idea of tax-free saving outside a retirement account doesn't really exist here in the US I would assume that you will have to declare the interest as income and, if you don't pay any other taxes in the UK that would cover the amount you'd have to pay on your ISA under the foreign tax credit, you'd end up giving the IRS their pound of flesh. As I mentioned in an answer to a previous question, you really need to talk to an US accountant/CPA, preferably one that is familiar with UK taxation law as well.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d02e60ef882ba479adeb86ca67e26799",
"text": "\"There are two different types of ISA; the \"\"Cash ISA\"\" for cash savings, and the \"\"Stocks and Shares ISA\"\" for stock market investing. You can transfer funds between these two different types of ISA. If your current cash ISA provider does not provide stocks and shares ISAs, then there may be a fee involved when transferring funds between two different providers. If I am reading your notation correctly, you have contributed the full allowance of GBP15,240 in both the current tax year and the previous tax year. Each year you can contribute GBP15,240 (currently) to your ISAs and this can be done in any combination of cash ISA and stocks and shares ISA. For example, you could put GBP5,240 into your cash ISA and GBP10,000 into your stocks and shares ISA. Regarding your questions : It is also important to understand that once you withdraw money from an ISA, it does not affect your previous contributions or allowances. For example, if you have used your full contribution allowance for the current year and chose to withdraw some funds, then you have still used your full contribution allowance and so you cannot redeposit these funds.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
c3613240fab21090cdfd20643f0f082e
|
How much is an asset producing $X/month is worth?
|
[
{
"docid": "f6dec2b363e24bdd007f21f55cd16a61",
"text": "The simplest way is just to compute how much money you'd have to have invested elsewhere to provide a comparable return. For example, if you assume a safe interest rate of 2.3% per year, you would need to have about $520,000 to get $1,000/month.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "5c2dde5217bba8832a2d722576b1c794",
"text": "\"Once you buy stocks on X day of the month, the chances of stocks never actually going above and beyond your point of value on the chart are close to none. How about Enron? GM? WorldCom? Lehman Brothers? Those are just a few of the many stocks that went to 0. Even stock in solvent companies have an \"\"all-time high\"\" that it will never reach again. Please explain to my why my thought is [in]correct. It is based on flawed assumptions, specifically that stock always regain any losses from any point in time. This is not true. Stocks go up and down - sometimes that have losses that are never made up, even if they don't go bankrupt. If your argument is that you should cash out any gains regardless of size, and you will \"\"never lose\"\", I would argue that you might have very small gains in most cases, but there are still times where you are going to lose value and never regain it, and those losses can easily wipe out any gains you've made. Never bought stocks and if I try something stupid I'll lose my money, so why not ask the professionals first..? If you really believe that you \"\"can't lose\"\" in the stock market then do NOT buy individual stocks. You may as well buy a lottery ticket (not really, those are actually worthless). Stick to index funds or other stable investments that don't rely on the performance of a single company and its management. Yes, diversification reduces (not eliminates) risk of losses. Yes, chasing unreasonable gains can cause you to lose. But what is a \"\"reasonable gain\"\"? Why is your \"\"guaranteed\"\" X% gain better than the \"\"unreasonable\"\" Y% gain? How do you know what a \"\"reasonable\"\" gain for an individual stock is?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3ed36d63a9b925c315ab217b16467959",
"text": "Have you looked at what is in that book value? Are the assets easily liquidated to get that value or could there be trouble getting the fair market value as some assets may not be as easy to sell as you may think. The Motley Fool a few weeks ago noted a book value of $10 per share. I could wonder what is behind that which could be mispriced as some things may have fallen in value that aren't in updated financials yet. Another point from that link: After suffering through the last few months of constant cries from naysayers about the company’s impending bankruptcy, shareholders of Penn West Petroleum Ltd. (TSX:PWT)(NYSE:PWE) can finally look toward the future with a little optimism. Thus, I'd be inclined to double check what is on the company books.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "90f3ac4042a941d61e7a35f1938326dc",
"text": "\"The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA) publishes these and other relevant data on their Statistics page, in the \"\"Treasury & Agency\"\" section. The volume spreadsheet contains annual and monthly data with bins for varying maturities. These data only go back as far as January 2001 (in most cases). SIFMA also publishes treasury issuances with monthly data for bills, notes, bonds, etc. going back as far as January 1980. Most of this information comes from the Daily Treasury Statements, so that's another source of specific information that you could aggregate yourself. Somewhere I have a parser for the historical data (since the Treasury doesn't provide it directly; it's only available as daily text files). I'll post it if I can find it. It's buried somewhere at home, I think.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "133154f62f8331a8df866bfc4aab2f0b",
"text": "\"The trade-off seems to be quite simple: \"\"How much are you going to get if you sell it\"\" against \"\"How much are you going to get if you rent it out\"\". Several people already hinted that the rental revenue may be optimistic, I don't have anything to add to this, but keep in mind that if someone pays 45k for your apartment, the net gains for you will likely be lower as well. Another consideration would be that the value of your apartment can change, if you expect it to rise steadily you may want to think twice before selling. Now, assuming you have calculated your numbers properly, and a near 0% opportunity cost: 45,000 right now 3,200 per year The given numbers imply a return on investment of 14 years, or 7.1%. Personal conclusion: I would be surprised if you can actually get a 3.2k expected net profit for an apartment that rents out at 6k per year, but if you are confident the reward seems to be quite nice.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "007fb63be456236692b786f481554eca",
"text": "If you are able to buy a 150K home for 50K now that would be a good deal! However, you can't you have to borrow 100K in order to make this deal happen. This dramatically increases the risk of any investment, and I would no longer classify it as passive income. The mortgage on a 150K place would be about 710/month (30 year fixed). Reasonably I would expect no more than 1200/month in rent, or 14,400. A good rule of thumb is to assume that half of rental revenue can be counted as profit before debt service. So in your case 7200, but you would have a mortgage payment of 473/month. Leaving you a profit of 1524 after debt service. This is suspiciously like 2K per year. Things, in the financial world, tend to move toward an equilibrium. The benefit of rental property you can make a lot more than the numbers suggest. For example the home could increase in value, and you can have fewer than expected repairs. So you have two ways to profit: rental revenue and asset appreciation. However, you said that you needed passive income. What happens if you have a vacancy or the tenant does not pay? What happens if you have greater than expected repairs? What happens if you get a fine from the HOA or a special assessment? Not only will you have dip into your pocket to cover the payment, you might also have to dip into your pocket to cover the actual event! In a way this would be no different than if you borrowed 100K to buy dividend paying stocks. If the fund/company does not pay out that month you would still have to make the loan payment. Where does the money come from? Your pocket. At least dividend paying companies don't collect money from their shareholders. Yes you can make more money, but you can also lose more. Leverage is a two edged sword and rental properties can be great if you are financial able to absorb the shocks that are normal with ownership.",
"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": "6d753c2cdcbb21b0bfcd4588aebc4b66",
"text": "If it's anything IG that's likely an annualized figure. I previously sold CP over short term windows at 1% annualized. Else, it would generate a high long term gain, but you need to weigh a variety of factors versus gains, particularly if you're investing any meaningful sum of money. I'm not a bond trader. Unless it's some kind of payday loan...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6db8ff167a2027d4fa6c4eb9c132fc41",
"text": "\"I think the key concept here is future value. The NAV is essentially a book-keeping exercise- you add up all the assets and remove all the liabilities. For a public company this is spelled out in the balance sheet, and is generally listed at the bottom. I pulled a recent one from Cisco Systems (because I used to work there and know the numbers ;-) and you can see it here: roughly $56 billion... https://finance.yahoo.com/q/bs?s=CSCO+Balance+Sheet&annual Another way to think about it: In theory (and we know about this, right?) the NAV is what you would get if you liquidated the company instantaneously. A definition I like to use for market cap is \"\"the current assets, plus the perceived present value of all future earnings for the company\"\"... so let's dissect that a little. The term \"\"present value\"\" is really important, because a million dollars today is worth more than a million dollars next year. A company expected to make a lot of money soon will be worth more (i.e. a higher market cap) than a company expected to make the same amount of money, but later. The \"\"all future earnings\"\" part is exactly what it sounds like. So again, following our cisco example, the current market cap is ~142 billion, which means that \"\"the market\"\" thinks they will earn about $85 billion over the life of the company (in present day dollars).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "59ee99fc3853372dbb802b2e295679f8",
"text": "Dummy example to explain this. Suppose your portfolio contained just two securities; a thirty year US government bond and a Tesla stock. Both of those position are currently valued at $1mm. The Tesla position however is very volatile with its daily volatility being about 5% (based on the standard deviation of its daily return) whole there bond's daily volatility is 1%. Then the Tesla position is 5/6 of your risk while being only 1/2 of the portfolio. Now if in month the Tesla stock tanks to half is values then. Then it's risk is half as much as before and so it's total contribution to risk has gone down.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "977f45171572bdcd9111d69d3c1ca028",
"text": "How would they make money from it? They sell you the software for $100 (US example; could as easily be 100 Euros or 10,000 Japanese Yen). You use it to make recommendations on your blog. Your blog becomes rich from advertising. They sold $100 worth of software. If they spent $1 million in labor developing it, they're way behind. Another problem is that the software would stop working and need adjusted periodically. This is easy to do on a server but annoying on a PC. And who pays for the adjustments? Put both those things together, and it's a lot easier to do on a server. Another advantage is that a server can get a better data feed as well. Pay a premium for the detailed information rather than relying on public sources. And people are used to renting server access where they expect to buy software once. Another issue is that they are unlikely to beat the market this way. Yes, AIs have done so. But that's the latest AI, constantly adjusted. This is going to be a previous generation AI. It's more likely to match the market. And we already have a way to match the market: an index fund. If someone had a brilliant AI, the best use would probably be to sell it to a fund manager. The fund manager could then use the AI to find opportunities for its existing investors. Note that a $10 billion fund with a 10% return that gives a .1% commission would be paying $1 million. And that has no marketing or packaging overhead. Think $10 billion is a lot? Fidelity has $2 trillion.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "76e622fc225406dbd70fb144752364dc",
"text": "\"You could use any of various financial APIs (e.g., Yahoo finance) to get prices of some reference stock and bond index funds. That would be a reasonable approximation to market performance over a given time span. As for inflation data, just googling \"\"monthly inflation data\"\" gave me two pages with numbers that seem to agree and go back to 1914. If you want to double-check their numbers you could go to the source at the BLS. As for whether any existing analysis exists, I'm not sure exactly what you mean. I don't think you need to do much analysis to show that stock returns are different over different time periods.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "53797b151ae0daf43edf5e83c4fc64bd",
"text": "The problem I have with gold is that it's only worth what someone will pay you for it. To a degree that's true with any equity, but with a company there are other capital resources etc that provide a base value for the company, and generally a business model that generates income. Gold just sits there. it doesn't make products, it doesn't perform services, you can't eat it, and the main people making money off of it are the folks charging a not insubstantial commission to sell it to you, or buy it back. Sure it's used in small quantities for things like plating electrical contacts, dental work, shielding etc. But Industrial uses account for only 10% of consumption. Mostly it's just hoarded, either in the form of Jewelry (50%) or 'investment' (bullion/coins) 40%. Its value derives largely from rarity and other than the last few years, there's no track record of steady growth over time like the stock market or real-estate. Just look at what gold prices did between 10 to 30 years ago, I'm not sure it came anywhere near close to keeping pace with inflation during that time. If you look at the chart, you see a steady price until the US went off the gold standard in 1971, and rules regarding ownership and trading of gold were relaxed. There was a brief run up for a few years after that as the market 'found its level' as it were, and you really need to look from about 74 forward (which it experienced its first 'test' and demonstration of a 'supporting' price around 400/oz inflation adjusted. Then the price fluctuated largely between 800 to 400 per ounce (adjusted for inflation) for the next 30 years. (Other than a brief sympathetic 'Silver Tuesday' spike due to the Hunt Brothers manipulation of silver prices in 1980.) Not sure if there is any causality, but it is interesting to note that the recent 'runup' in price starts in 2000 at almost the same time the last country (the Swiss) went off the 'gold standard' and gold was no longer tied to any currency (or vise versa) If you bought in '75 as a hedge against inflation, you were DOWN, as much as 50% during much of the next 33 years. If you managed to buy at a 'low' the couple of times that gold was going down and found support around 400/oz (adjusted) then you were on average up slightly as much as a little over 50% (throwing out silver Tuesday) but then from about '98 through '05 had barely broken even. I personally view 'investments' in gold at this time as a speculation. Look at the history below, and ask yourself if buying today would more likely end up as buying in 1972 or 1975? (or gods forbid, 1980) Would you be taking advantage of a buying opportunity, or piling onto a bubble and end up buying at the high? Note from Joe - The article Demand and Supply adds to the discussion, and supports Chuck's answer.",
"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": "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": "1d572b9345892ac7846a98e286c53a59",
"text": "In addition to @mhoran_psprep answer, and inspired by @wayne's comment. If the bank won't let you block automatic transfers between accounts, drop the bank like a hot potato They've utterly failed basic account security principles, and shouldn't be trusted with anyone's money. It's not the bank's money, and you're the only one that can authorize any kind of transfer out. I limit possible losses through debit and credit cards very simply. I keep only a small amount on each (~$500), and manually transfer more on an as needed basis. Because there is no automatic transfers to these cards, I can't lose everything in the checking account, even temporarily.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
1ec17526340438fd93028a6b0552dde3
|
I have a horrible 401k plan, with high expenses. Should I stay with it or move my money elsewhere?
|
[
{
"docid": "6f7f146420a8d950612905256935cb4b",
"text": "2%? I would put in just what it takes to share in the profit sharing, not a dime more. My S&P fund cost is .02% (edited, as it dropped to .02 since original post), 1/100 of the cost of most funds you list. Doesn't take too many years of this fee to negate the potential tax savings, and not many more to make this a real loser.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "568cdc8bc1ffceb1b886706a7fa2092e",
"text": "The first question is essentially asking for specific investment advice which is off-topic per the FAQ, but I'll take a stab at #2 and #3 (2) If my 401k doesn't change before I leave my job (not planned in the near future), I should roll it over into my Roth IRA after I leave due to these high expense ratios, correct? My advice is that you should roll over a 401K into an IRA the first chance you get (usually when you leave the job). 401K plans are NOTORIOUS for high expense ratios and why leave your money in a plan where you have a limited choice of investments anyway versus a self-directed IRA where you can invest in anything you want? (3) Should I still max contribute with these horrible expense ratios? If they are providing a match, yes. Even with the expense ratios it is hard to beat the immediate return of an employer match. If they aren't matching, the answer is still probably yes for a few reasons: You already are maxing out your ability to contribute to sheltered accounts, so assuming you still want to sock away that money for retirement, the tax benefits are still valuable and probably offset the expense ratios. Although you seem to be an exception, it is hard for most people to be disciplined enough to put money in a retirement account after they have it in their hands (versus auto-deduction from paychecks).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0e1d597ab1d99ac6d618b795375ca10f",
"text": "As to the rollover question. Only rollover to a ROTH if you have other funds you can use to pay the taxes you will be hit with if you do that. DO NOT pay the taxes out of the funds in the 401k. If you don't have a way to pay the taxes, then roll it to a traditional IRA. You never want to pay the government any taxes 'early' and you don't want to reduce the balance. beyond that, A lot depends on how long you figure you will be with that company. If it's only a few years, or if you and other employees can make enough of a fuss that they move the fund to someplace decent (any of the big no-load companies such as Vanguard would be a better custodian), then I'd go ahead and max it out. If you figure to be there for a long while, and it looks like someone is in bed with the custodian and there's no way it will be changed, then maybe look to max out a Roth IRA instead.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "413df26f033408bb007111463e8079c8",
"text": "\"It's simple. At 100% match, it would take a \"\"long\"\" time for bad fees to negate the benefit. Longer than the average person stays with one company. Even though $50/10 shares is crazy, if you wait till you have $500, it's 10%. Still crazy, but you are still getting 90% of the match. I'd avoid this, however, and just go with the closest thing they have to an S&P fund. Invest outside this account to save the right amount to fund your retirement. 2% total isn't enough, obviously.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e97b9935d422e0a08f35ada912eecf77",
"text": "With an appropriate selection within a 401K and if operating expenses are low, you get tax deferred savings and possibly a lower tax bracket for now. The returns vary of course with market fluctuations but for almost 3 years it has been double digit growth on average. Some health care sector funds were up over 40% last year. YMMV. With stocks and mutual funds that hold them, you also are in a sense betting that people want their corporations to grow and succeed. Others do most of the work. Real estate should be part of your savings strategy but understand that they are not kidding when they talk about location. It can lose value. Tenants tend to have some problem part of the year such that some owners find it necessary to have a paid property manager to buffer from their complaints. Other owners get hauled into court and sued as slum lords for allegedly not doing basics. Tenants can ruin your property as well. There is maintenance, repair, replacement, insurance against injury not just property damage, and property taxes. While some of it might be deductible, not all is. You may want to consider that there are considerable ongoing costs and significant risks in time and money with real estate as an investment at a level that you do not incur with a 401K. If you buy mainly to flip, then be aware that if there are unforeseen issues with the house or the market sours as it can, you could be stuck with an immovable drain on your income. If you lose your job could you make payments? Many, many people sadly lost their homes or investment properties that way in 2008-2010.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1a583f8aa944dd9185528d222d199839",
"text": "\"As Mhoran answered, typical match, but some have no match at all, so not bad. The loan provision means you can borrow up to $50k or 50% of your balance, whichever is less. 5 year payback for any loan, but a 10 year payback for a home purchase. I am on the side of \"\"don't do it\"\" but finance is personal, and in some situations it does make sense. The elephant in this room is the expenses within the 401(k). Simply put, a high enough expense will wipe out any benefit from tax deferral. If you are in this situation, I recommend depositing to the match, but not a cent more. Last, do they offer a Roth 401(k) option? There's a high probability you will never be in as low a tax bracket as the next few years, now's the time to focus on the Roth deposits, if not in the 401(k), then in an IRA.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1bc58bfb4b2ab498e53e1521f99132aa",
"text": "I like the way you framed this question. There is no single right answer for what to do with your savings, but there are some choices that are wrong in the sense that they are dominated by other choices you could make. Of the choices you listed, there are two that fall into that category. The ones that seem like a bad idea to me are: Putting it into your Roth 401(k). You can't do this directly anyhow, but you could do it indirectly by increasing your contributions and using the growth fund to cover the hole in your budget, but that's a lot of work for a relatively small gain. You would essentially be exchanging one long-term investment for another long-term investment. You would pay capital gains taxes on the investment when you sell it today, in order to not pay taxes on its earnings when you eventually withdraw it. There is some benefit there, but it's a long way off, not that large, and probably not worth the effort. Things that might change your mind: If your 401(k) was a traditional 401(k) (paying tax at capital gains rate today to get a deduction at your normal income rate is likely to be a win). You're not contributing enough to get the full company match (always try to get that match if you can). Putting it into your emergency fund. Once again, you are likely to pay capital gains tax if you do this, and you will be putting it into an investment that is likely to get a lower return than your current one. It isn't really necessary to incur these costs, since if you encounter an emergency that you can't cover with your existing emergency fund, you could always liquidate the growth fund then, when you know you need it. Now, a growth fund is going to be more volatile than what you would normally want for an emergency fund, but the risk isn't that bad, if you think about it. Say your emergency comes up and you find that the growth fund is down 20% (which would be a pretty horrible run). That's $600 less that you have to deal with the situation. Keep in mind that you already have $2000 (and building) in your current emergency fund. Is that $600 going to make the difference between meeting the need and not? It's not likely. Better to leave the investment where it is and keep building your emergency fund week by week. Things that might change your mind: Your level of risk aversion (if having that money in a more risky investment is keeping you up at night, move it). You face significant job uncertainty (if you have reason to think your job is at risk, it might be a good idea to top off that emergency fund sooner rather than later.) Your other two choices both seem like solid options under the right circumstances. If it were me, I'd leave the investment in place rather than use it to pay off the student loan. The investment is likely (though of course not guaranteed) to earn more than the interest rate even on the highest-rate loan, especially when you consider that the interest on the student loan is probably tax deductible. Moreover, the size of the investment isn't enough to fully repay the loan, so putting it toward the loan won't even improve your cash flow for some time to come. However, there is always a chance that the investment will perform poorly and some people prefer the guaranteed return from paying off the loan. It depends on your personal risk tolerance. The one thing I would recommend is to think of putting the money toward the loan not as a debt repayment, but as a fixed-income investment with a yield equal to your loan's interest rate. If you would still consider buying it then, then go ahead. If not, then stick with what you've got. In my experience people get way too emotional about debt; try to take that emotion out of your decision making if you can.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "91c4eb3564770ad72c70d0bae8ab26c1",
"text": "If you can afford to put money in your 401(k) account, I would say at least you should invest enough to get your employer's matching fund. It's free money, why not get it?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a05b4763ad0d4ff9cd08035c8bbfd6ed",
"text": "\"There are certain allowable reasons to withdraw money from a 401K. The desire to free your money from a \"\"bad\"\" plan is not one of them. A rollover is a special type of withdrawal that is only available after one leaves their current employer. So as long as you stay with your current company, you cannot rollover. [Exception: if you are over age 59.5] One option is to talk to HR, see if they can get a expansion of offerings. You might have some suggestions for mutual funds that you would like to see. The smaller the company the more likely you will have success here. That being said, there is some research to support having few choices. Too many choices intimidates people. It's quite popular to have \"\"target funds\"\" That is funds that target a certain retirement year. Being that I will be 50 in 2016, I should invest in either a 2030 or 2035 fund. These are a collection of funds that rebalances the investment as they age. The closer one gets to retirement the more goes into bonds and less into stocks. However, I think such rebalancing is not as smart as the experts say. IMHO is almost always better off heavily invested in equity funds. So this becomes a second option. Invest in a Target fund that is meant for younger people. In my case I would put into a 2060 or even 2065 target. As JoeTaxpayer pointed out, even in a plan that has high fees and poor choices one is often better off contributing up to the match. Then one would go outside and contribute to an individual ROTH or IRA (income restrictions may apply), then back into the 401K until the desired amount is invested. You could always move on to a different employer and ask some really good questions about their 401K. Which leads me back to talking with HR. With the current technology shortage, making a few tweaks to the 401K, is a very cheap way to make their employees happy. If you can score a 1099 contracting gig, you can do a SEP which allows up to a whopping 53K per year. No match but with typically higher pay, sometimes overtime, and a high contribution limit you can easily make up for it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "28ffc0062a3460bb1ff52241820a905e",
"text": "For such a small amount, I really don't think it's worth the time and effort to withdraw it. Why not roll it over into a traditional IRA or a new 401k / 403b?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9d97b61377d579ffc5a6e1e2422f53aa",
"text": "The math works out so that the 401k is still a better deal in the long term over a taxable account because of the tax-deferred growth. Let's assume you invest in an S&P 500 index fund in either a taxable investment account or a 401k and the difference in fees is .5%. I used an online calculator and a hypothetical 1k/year investment over 30 years with 4.5% tax-deferred growth vs 5% taxable and a 25% tax bracket. After 30 years the tax-deferred 401k account will have $67k and the taxable account will have $58k. The math isn't perfect -- I'm sure I'm missing some intricacies with dividends/capital gains distributions and that you'll then pay income tax on the 401k upon retirement as you drawn down, but it still seems pretty clear that the 401k will win in the long run, especially if you invest more than the 1k/year used in my example. But yeah, .84% expenses on an index fund is robbery. Can you bring that to the attention of the HR department? Maybe they'll want to look for a lower-fee provider and it's in their best interest too, if they also participate.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "866e58263eedf18e6f30d34a65b9779f",
"text": "First, to answer the question. The benefit of a 401k is that you don't have to pay income tax on the money contributed nor do you pay capital gains tax on the money that accumulates. You get that with the restriction that you can't willy nilly remove and contribute money to the account (and you are taxed on withdrawals, more severely if you do it before you are 65). Similar sorts of restrictions apply to all retirement accounts which give tax benefits. Now, for the 7000 not providing benefit. Assuming a very modest 4% growth, over 40 years 7000 becomes 34,671. Not something to sneeze at (inflation, risk reward, blah, blah, blah, it is less than it looks, but 4% is really pretty low, the stock market averages anywhere from 7->10% and IIRC the bond market is somewhere around 5%). Now, certainly, to avoid bankruptcy you should withdraw. However, if it is possible, you will be best served by keeping the money in your 401k account. The penalties and lost earning opportunities are pretty significant. /u/BeatArmy99 [has the numbers](http://www.reddit.com/r/finance/comments/2ct0qy/why_cant_i_access_my_401k_if_its_my_money/cjiorl7) for how much you lose by doing an early withdraw. Don't do this lightly and I would suggest avoiding cashing out the whole thing if you can.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5a11ccdbf30c6fbfee86941d06167d15",
"text": "The expense fees are high, and unfortunate. I would stop short of calling it criminal, however. What you are paying for with your expenses is the management of the holdings in the fund. The managers of the fund are actively, continuously watching the performance of the holdings, buying and selling inside the fund in an attempt to beat the stock market indexes. Whether or not this is worth the expenses is debatable, but it is indeed possible for a managed fund to beat an index. Despite the relatively high expenses of these funds, the 401K is still likely your best investment vehicle for retirement. The money you put in is tax deductible immediately, your account grows tax deferred, and anything that your employer kicks in is free money. Since, in the short term, you have little choice, don't lose a lot of sleep over it. Just pick the best option you have, and occasionally suggest to your employer that you would appreciate different options in the future. If things don't change, and you have the option in the future to rollover into a cheaper IRA, feel free to take it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6fc9945af9c41291f054e379070cc7d6",
"text": "That expense ratio on the bank fund is criminally high. Use the Vanguard one, they have really low expenses.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aa1ab4352c4b2ea40d45ae23b1f82460",
"text": "If there is no match and you are disciplined enough to contribute without it coming directly out of your paycheck, dump the 401K. The reason: Most 401K plans have huge hidden fees built into the investment prices. You won't see them directly, but 3% is not uncommon. 3% is a horrible drag on your investment performance. Get an IRA or Roth IRA and pick something with low fees. Bonus: You will have a lot more investment choices!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3bfc7e4b55c9d114db072e3df57b51da",
"text": "With painful 20/20 hindsight, I earnestly say - max it out hard. The reason is the sheer opportunity of it. As a young person you have time on your side - you have so many years for the earnings to compound! It is many times more advantageous to max it out now, than fail to do so and be in your 40s trying to catch up. Use the Roth 401K if your company supports that. After that, max out a Roth IRA if your income is low enough to use them. Otherwise, max out a traditional IRA (this will not be tax deductible because your income is too high), and the next day, convert it to Roth. That conversion will be tax-free since you already paid taxes on that money. 401K money is untouchable. No one can ever take it from you - not with a lawsuit, not with bankruptcy. As such, never give it up willingly by borrowing from it or cashing it out early, no matter how serious the problem seems in the short term. How do you invest a 401K when the market is so scary? I found out when I became a Board member overseeing management of an endowment. Turns out there's a professional gold standard for ultra-long-term, high growth, volatility-be-damned investing. Who knew?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9b550cd328fc152dabda777f75e4d49b",
"text": "The S&P top 5 - 401(k) usually comply with the DOL's suggestion to offer at least three distinct investment options with substantially different risk/return objectives. Typically a short term bond fund. Short term is a year or less and it will rarely have a negative year. A large cap fund, often the S&P index. A balanced fund, offering a mix. Last, the company's stock. This is a great way to put all your eggs in one basket, and when the company goes under, you have no job and no savings. My concern about your Microsoft remark is that you might not have the choice to manage you funds with such granularity. Will you get out of the S&P fund because you think this one stock or even one sector of the S&P is overvalued? And buy into what? The bond fund? If you have the skill to choose individual stocks, and the 401(k) doesn't offer a brokerage window (to trade on your own) then just invest your money outside the 401(k). But. If they offer a matching deposit, don't ignore that.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
993f502e1a6658295e9d3bfa3ed37fab
|
What happens to a company when it issues preference shares?
|
[
{
"docid": "0ebfb0ff79a08dd8776c2fb71f1a5123",
"text": "In most cases , preferential sharesholders are paid dividends first before common shareholders are paid . In the event of a company bankruptcy , preferential shareholders have the right to be paid first before common shareholders. In exchange for these benefits , preferential shareholders do not have any voting rights. The issuing of preferential shares has no impact on share prices or issuing of bonuses , it is a mere coincidence that the stock price went up",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "8287734736cb8c29240c5a1b27ab2c2c",
"text": "It might, but it also might not. The Board of Directors gets to decide whether and how much dividends are paid to stockholders. So this will vary from company to company and may change over time. I suggest you ask the person making the offer. That said: It looks like they offered you OPTIONS, not Shares. An option is just the right to buy stock at a given price in the future. It is extremely unlikely that you would be entitled to any dividends since you don't have an ownership stake, just a potential to be a shareholder.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ffa363ff5c09f42ad29c604cfe28039c",
"text": "The option is exercised. The option is converted into shares. That is an optional condition in closing that contract, hence why they are called options.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b1fd26ee58a9ba5d07e635ce82827285",
"text": "Good questions. I can only add that it may be valuable if the company is bought, they may buy the options. Happened to me in previous company.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0c8190665ca7c86417f05ab163d11144",
"text": "To follow up on Quid's comment, the share classes themselves will define what level of dividends are expected. Note that the terms 'common shares' and 'preferred shares' are generally understood terms, but are not as precise as you might believe. There are dozens/hundreds of different characteristics that could be written into share classes in the company's articles of incorporation [as long as those characteristics are legal in corporate law in the company's jurisdiction]. So in answering your question there's a bit of an assumption that things are working 'as usual'. Note that private companies often have odd quirks to their share classes, things like weird small classes of shares that have most of the voting rights, or shares with 'shotgun buyback clauses'. As long as they are legal clauses, they can be used to help control how the business is run between various shareholders with competing interests. Things like parents anticipating future family infighting and trying to prevent familial struggle. You are unlikely to see such weird quirks in public companies, where the company will have additional regulatory requirements and where the public won't want any shock at unexpected share clauses. In your case, you suggested having a non-cumulative preferred share [with no voting rights, but that doesn't impact dividend payment]: There are two salient points left related to payout that the articles of incorporation will need to define for the share classes: (1) What is the redemption value for the shares? [This is usually equal to the cost of subscribing for the shares in the first place; it represents how much the business will need to pay the shareholder in the event of redemption / recall] (2) What is the stated dividend amount? This is usually defined at a rate that's at or a little above a reasonable interest rate at the time the shares are created, but defined as $ / share. For example, the shares could have $1 / share dividend payment, where the shares originally cost $50 each to subscribe [this would reflect a rate of payment of about 2%]. Typically by corporate law, dividends must be paid to preferred shares, to the extent required based on the characteristics of the share class [some preferred shares may not have any required dividends at all], before any dividends can be paid to common shares. So if $10k in dividends is to be paid, and total preferred shares require $15k of non-cumulative dividends each year, then $0 will be paid to the common shares. The following year, $15k of dividends will once again need to be paid to the preferred shares, before any can be paid to the common shares.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "adbdd54925b565f216b4280ab7340fb6",
"text": "Selling stock means selling a portion of ownership in your company. Any time you issue stock, you give up some control, unless you're issuing non-voting stock, and even non-voting stock owns a portion of the company. Thus, issuing (voting) shares means either the current shareholders reduce their proportion of owernship, or the company reissues stock it held back from a previous offering (in which case it no longer has that stock available to issue and thus has less ability to raise funds in the future). From Investopedia, for exmaple: Secondary offerings in which new shares are underwritten and sold dilute the ownership position of stockholders who own shares that were issued in the IPO. Of course, sometimes a secondary offering is more akin to Mark Zuckerberg selling some shares of Facebook to allow him to diversify his holdings - the original owner(s) sell a portion of their holdings off. That does not dilute the ownership stake of others, but does reduce their share of course. You also give up some rights to dividends etc., even if you issue non-voting stock; of course that is factored into the price presumably (either the actual dividend or the prospect of eventually getting a dividend). And hopefully more growth leads to more dividends, though that's only true if the company can actually make good use of the incoming funds. That last part is somewhat important. A company that has a good use for new funds should raise more funds, because it will turn those $100 to $150 or $200 for everyone, including the current owners. But a company that doesn't have a particular use for more money would be wasting those funds, and probably not earning back that full value for everyone. The impact on stock price of course is also a major factor and not one to discount; even a company issuing non-voting stock has a fiduciary responsibility to act in the interest of those non-voting shareholders, and so should not excessively dilute their value.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "043500147ba45fb468c09241f8672542",
"text": "\"In most cases, the other classes of shares are preferred stock (example, JPM-F). Preferred stock usually pays higher dividends and shareholders get preferential treatment in the event that the company goes under. (Preferred shareholders are behind bondholders in line, but ahead of common stock holders) In other cases, different classes of shares have different voting rights or pricing. Examples include Berkshire Hathaway B shares. In the case of Berkshire Hathaway B shares, the stock has 1/500th of the rights and 1/10,000th of the voting rights of an \"\"A\"\" share. You need to be cautious about investing in anything other than common stock -- make sure that you understand what you are getting into. This is not to say that other share classes are 'bad' -- just that many preferred stocks are thinly traded and are difficult to buy and sell.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9abfc64181ca579f248d202f1c5b5194",
"text": "Fully Paid up Partly Paid up: A company may issue stock to you which is only partly paid up, for example, a company may issue a stock of face value 10 to you and ask you to pay 5 now and other 5 will be adjusted later by some other mechanism. This stock shall be partly paid up. Usually, these stocks are issued in different circumstances, for example as part payment for debentures, preference shares or other capital structuring. On the other hand for a fully paid up share no more money needs to be paid by you or no other adjustments need to be made. So, above, the company is issuing you with stocks for which you will need to pay no further money, they are fully paid for. Authorized Capital: Authorized capital of a company is the amount of money a company can raise by selling stock (not debt, equity). This number is registered when the company is incorporated, subsequently, this number can be revised upward by applying to the registrar of companies. Now, this means that at max. the company is authorized to raise this much capital and no more. However, a company may raise less than this, which is called Issued Capital. In your case, the company is raising its authorized capital by applying to the registrar of companies, though in this case they are looking at their full authorized capital to be issued capital, it was not necessary to do so. Increase of Authorized capital: The main benefit is that the company can get more money in form of equity and utilize the same, perhaps, for expansion of business etc., that is the primary benefit. Bonus Share: Usually, companies keep some surplus as reserve, this money comes out of the profit the company makes and is essentially money of the shareholders. This reserve surplus is maintained for situations, when the money may be required for exigencies. However, this surplus grows over a few years and the company usually the company plans for an expansion of business. However, this money cannot be just taken, as it belongs to the shareholder, so shareholders are issued extra equity in proportion to their current holding and this surplus is capitalized i.e. used as part of the company's equity capital. Bonus declaration does not add t o the value of the company and the share prices fall in proportion (but not quite) to the bonus.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c2f56d31a1d5f3179d02c614b68b291c",
"text": "It's impossible to know for sure, which I'm sure you know, but paying these large debts all at once will leave very little assets in comparison to what they had. Issuing new shares like this is called dilution which means the price will be forced downward because the same (or in this case less) net earnings must be divided by more shares outstanding. A secondary offering almost always lowers stock price. http://wiki.fool.com/What_Happens_to_the_Share_Price_When_New_Shares_Are_Issued%3F",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1236af8e4e462d79ee4767c881cb6c3e",
"text": "All shares of the same class are considered equal. Each class of shares may have a different preference in order of repayment. After all company liabilities have been paid off [including bank debt, wages owing, taxes outstanding, etc etc.], the remaining cash value in a company is distributed to the shareholders. In general, there are 2 types of shares: Preferred shares, and Common shares. Preferred shares generally have 3 characteristics: (1) they get a stated dividend rate every year, sometimes regardless of company performance; (2) they get paid out first on liquidation; and (3) they can only receive their stated value on liquidation - that is, $1M of preferred shares will be redeemed for at most $1M on liquidation, assuming the corporation has at least that much cash left. Common Shares generally have 4 characteristics: (1) their dividends are not guaranteed (or may be based on a calculation relative to company performance), (2) they can vote for members of the Board of Directors who ultimately hire the CEO and make similar high level business decisions; (3) they get paid last on liquidation; and (4) they get all value remaining in the company once everyone else has been paid. So it is not the order of share subscription that matters, it is the class. Once you know how much each class gets, based on the terms listed in that share subscription, you simply divide the total class payout by number of shares, and pay that much for each share a person holds. For companies organized other-than as corporations, ie: partnerships, the calculation of who-gets-what will be both simpler and more complex. Simpler in that, generally speaking, a partnership interest cannot be of a different 'class', like shares can, meaning all partners are equal relative to the size of their partnership interest. More complex in that, if the initiation of the company was done in an informal way, it could easily become a legal fight as to who contributed what to the company.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "84a8c379b6f77302a89c99b6816ec0ad",
"text": "I once bought both preferred and common shares in a bankrupt company. It is true that those preferred shares had less potential for appreciation than the common shares. The reason is because the preferred shares were trading around $50 and had a face value of $1000. This means that if the bankruptcy proceedings ended up finding enough assets to make the preferred shares whole, then the preferred shareholders would be paid $1000 per share and no more than that. So if you bought the preferred shares at $50 and received $1000 per share for them, then you made a 1900% gain. But if the bankruptcy proceedings found enough assets to pay not just the preferred shareholders but also the common shareholders, then the common shareholders had the potential for a greater gain than the preferred shareholders. The common stock was trading around 20 cents at the time, and if enough assets were found to pay $10 per share to the common shareholders, then that would have been a 4900% gain. The preferred shares were capped by their face value, but the common shares had no limit on how high they could go.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5ca9adafc2dd1effc7b43af95f937c0c",
"text": "\"This is a great question. I've participated in a deal like that as an employee, and I also know of friends and family who have been involved during a buyout. In short: The updated part of your question is correct: There is no single typical treatment. What happens to unvested restricted stock units (RSUs), unvested employee stock options, etc. varies from case to case. Furthermore, what exactly will happen in your case ought to have been described in the grant documentation which you (hopefully) received when you were issued restricted stock in the first place. Anyway, here are the two cases I've seen happen before: Immediate vesting of all units. Immediate vesting is often the case with RSUs or options that are granted to executives or key employees. The grant documentation usually details the cases that will have immediate vesting. One of the cases is usually a Change in/of Control (CIC or COC) provision, triggered in a buyout. Other immediate vesting cases may be when the key employee is terminated without cause, or dies. The terms vary, and are often negotiated by shrewd key employees. Conversion of the units to a new schedule. If anything is more \"\"typical\"\" of regular employee-level grants, I think this one would be. Generally, such RSU or option grants will be converted, at the deal price, to a new schedule with identical dates and vesting percentages, but a new number of units and dollar amount or strike price, usually so the end result would have been the same as before the deal. I'm also curious if anybody else has been through a buyout, or knows anybody who has been through a buyout, and how they were treated.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5f66ae91750684fb0c60a2d4db4cbfe4",
"text": "1) Explicitly, how a company's share price in the secondary market affects the company's operations. (Simply: How does it matter to a company that its share price drops?) I have a vague idea of the answer, but I'd like to see someone cover it in detail. 2) Negative yield curves, or bonds/bills with negative yields Thanks!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "e5e3dade8a05f62c1c0225500bd5eb9b",
"text": "This would be governed by bankruptcy law... there is no reason a healthy company would take such action. This would be a long drawn process generally amongst debtor the taxes have higher claim, then Sunday debtors (payable), then bank loans... This is followed by loan raised by company deposits then debentures... even among share holders there can be special shares... More often most shares are equal and the balance is distributed to all.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7357993aa3e3e8e6d746463fbc6fefa2",
"text": "Shares often come associated with a set of rights, such as ability to vote in the outcome of the company. Some shares do not have this right, however. With your ability to vote in the outcome of the company, you could help dictate that the company paid dividends at a point in time. Or many other varieties of outcomes. Also, if there were any liquidity events due to demand of the shares, this is typically at a much higher price than the shares are now when the company is private/closely held.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
2db23764d57aa105a85d65c2a5722f4c
|
What is the US tax owed when gifting India Shares to my brother?
|
[
{
"docid": "32440138360a245a86874a9d91b4be38",
"text": "Here's an excerpt from the Charles Schwab website which I think will help evaluate your position: The simple answer to your question is no, the value of a gift of stock for gift tax liability is NOT the donor's cost basis, but rather the fair market value of the stock at the time the gift is given. So let's say you purchased 100 shares of XYZ stock at $50 a share. Your cost basis is $5,000. Now the stock is $80 a share and you give it as a gift. The value of your gift for gift tax purposes is $8,000. In 2015, you can give up to $14,000 to an unlimited number of individuals each year without paying a gift tax or even reporting the gifts. If you give over that amount to any individual, however, you must report the gift on your tax return, but you don't have to pay taxes until you give away more than the current lifetime limit of $5,430,000—for the amount above and beyond $14,000 per person per year. So in the example above, there would be no gift tax liability. However, if the stock happened to be $150 a share, the value of the gift would be $15,000. You'd then have to report it and $1,000 would be applied toward your $5,430,000 lifetime exclusion. You will need to pay a gift tax on the current value of the stock. I'm not familiar with the tax laws in India, but if your brother was in the US, he wouldn't pay taxes on that gift until he sells the stock. The recipient doesn’t have to worry about gift taxes. It's when the recipient decides to sell the stock that the issue of valuation comes up—for income taxes. And this is where things can get a bit more complicated. In general, when valuing a gift of stock for capital gains tax liability, it's the donor's cost basis and holding period that rules. As an example, let's say you receive a gift of stock from your grandfather. He bought it for $10 a share and it's worth $15 a share on the day you receive it. If you then sell the stock, whether for a gain or a loss, your cost basis will be the same as your grandfather’s: $10 per share. Sell it at $25 and you'll pay tax (at the short- or long-term rate, depending on how long he owned the stock) on a gain of $15 a share; sell it at $8 and your capital loss will be $2 a share. Ultimately, with a gift this large that also crosses international borders, you really should hire a professional who is experienced with these types of transactions. Their fees/commission will be completely offset by the savings in risk and paperwork. http://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/nn/articles/How-Do-You-Value-a-Gift-of-Stock-It-Depends-on-Whether-You-re-the-Giver-or-the-Receiver",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "12b4f4f7f150ce05f9d9ea84943c6811",
"text": "Whether the amount so received from my son is taxable as my income in India ? No there is no tax liability for you. The money you received from you son would be treated as Gift and would come under Gift-Tax rules. As per current Gift Tax rules, you can receive unlimited funds from close relative, like your son. Any income you generate on these funds, i.e. interest on savings account, FD, etc is taxable to you. Your son maybe liable for taxes in US as in US Gift tax is on donor [i.e. your son]. The yearly limit is $14000 per person after which it can be deducted from estate limit or taxes paid.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "78f687ce5e8b62990e65e9e7a541eea3",
"text": "\"If I understand you correctly, your logic goes wrong right at the beginning. It sounds like you think one could avoid the income tax that would otherwise be owed to the US because of earning the money that was sent as a gift. That's not normally true. From the IRS's Gift Tax FAQ: May I deduct gifts on my income tax return? Making a gift or leaving your estate to your heirs does not ordinarily affect your federal income tax. You cannot deduct the value of gifts you make (other than gifts that are deductible charitable contributions). So the person who sends $10k to their parents doesn't pay any less income tax than if they had kept the $10k in the US, or had just send the $10k overseas directly to their own bank account. Gifting and re-gifting didn't accomplish anything from the point of view of IRS taxes. You may have been confused by the \"\"annual exclusion\"\" that's mentioned on that same page. This exclusion is an exclusion for the gift tax. This is a separate tax on gifts, usually paid by the person who gives the gift. If it weren't for the exclusion, one would pay taxes twice on the money sent to their parents: first, when the money is earned, and then again when the gift is given. The exclusion helps avoid this second tax.\"",
"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": "0bf9df35234c55b80d26c47745d7db62",
"text": "If you're a non resident then you owe no capital gains tax to Canada. Most banks won't let you make trades if you're a non-resident. They may not have your correct address on file so they don't realize this. This is not tax law but just OSC (or equivalent) regulations. You do have to fill out paperwork for withholding tax on OAS/CPP payments. This is something you probably already do but here's a link . It's complicated and depends on the country you live in. Of course you may owe tax in Thailand, I don't know their laws.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "29072a5d38bc60ace3fc0fbba2e862b9",
"text": "You're asking whether the shares you sold while being a US tax resident are taxable in the US. The answer is yes, they are. How you acquired them or what were the circumstances of the sale is irrelevant. When you acquired them is relevant to the determination of the tax treatment - short or long term capital gains. You report this transaction on your Schedule D, follow the instructions. Make sure you can substantiate the cost basis properly based on how much you paid for the shares you sold (the taxable income recognized to you at vest).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "433529c4b8e1900a77957c95767846f2",
"text": "Should we have to prepare any documents or deed or we simply asked our son to send on line a scanned copy on simple paper signed by him to declare that this amt is given as gift which is gifted to us through this cheque number/date/bank etc? Depending on amount, if few thousands don't bother. If few lacs get it on a simple plain paper, if in crores, get a proper gift deed executed. There is no tax for you. My son wants to remit some money in his mother's account jointly with me(father). It is very much clear that it will be tax free in india being a gift but how will this amt be treated as gift in the eyes of income tax people? Should we have to prepare any documents or deed or we simply asked our son to send on line a scanned copy on simple paper signed by him to declare that this amt is given as gift which is gifted to us through this cheque number/date/bank etc? Whether our son shows that amt as gift in his yearly return or not. what are the implications to his tax return due to gifted As your son is US citizen, he can only gift USD 14,000 to you and equal amount to your mother in a year. Similarly your daughter in law can give you both 14000 each. If it is more, he has to pay taxes or claim it against life time exemption of 1 million (?) USD",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c75d0c4b25992b394197d4d4feaa9f05",
"text": "As I understand it, capital gains from real estate sales in India can be shielded from income tax entirely if the proceeds of the sale are invested in certain specific types of bonds (Rural Highway Contruction Authority of India?) for a period of three years beginning no later than x months (6 months?) after completion of the sale. Perhaps this applies to sales of inherited real estate only and not to commercial property or residential property acquired by purchase since there is no step-up of basis on death as occurs in the US, and in all likelihood, records of the purchase price of the inherited property are lost in the mists of time, and so the basis of the investment is effectively zero (or treated as such by the revenue authorities) The interest paid by these bonds is included in taxable income. Perhaps @Dheer will be willing to correct any mistakes in the above. So, it may be necessary to check whether (a) the interest income from the bonds was declared on Form 1040 Schedule B for each year (b) whether the appropriate boxes (the ones that ask whether the taxpayer has signature authority over foreign accounts etc) were checked on Schedule B or not, (c) whether Form TD 90-22.1 was filed each year or not (this is the FBAR requirement) Note that if the total value of the accounts is less than US $10K during the entire year, then the taxpayer is supposed to check NO on Schedule B and need not file Form TD 90-22.1. Also, there is a separate requirement to file a Form 8938 for certain specific types of investments. There was a two-part article describing these rules in Forbes magazine some time ago, and this is available on-line (Part 1 and Part II) As @superjessi says, the IRS might be lenient if the only issue is not filing the forms in timely fashion, and the taxpayer is voluntarily coming into compliance even though the filing is late. They are likely to be less forgiving if the foreign income was not reported, and still remains unreported even after filing the various forms.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ec3d14f8d9e15d3aab6f98d3a9cf46fd",
"text": "If you are tax-resident in the US, then you must report income from sources within and without the United States. Your foreign income generally must be reported to the IRS. You will generally be eligible for a credit for foreign income taxes paid, via Form 1116. The question of the stock transfer is more complicated, but revolves around the beneficial owner. If the stocks are yours but held by your brother, it is possible that you are the beneficial owner and you will have to report any income. There is no tax for bringing the money into the US. As a US tax resident, you are already subject to income tax on the gain from the sale in India. However, if the investment is held by a separate entity in India, which is not a US domestic entity or tax resident, then there is a separate analysis. Paying a dividend to you of the sale proceeds (or part of the proceeds) would be taxable. Your sale of the entity containing the investments would be taxable. There are look-through provisions if the entity is insufficiently foreign (de facto US, such as a Subpart-F CFC). There are ways to structure that transaction that are not taxable, such as making it a bona fide loan (which is enforceable and you must pay back on reasonable terms). But if you are holding property directly, not through a foreign separate entity, then the sale triggers US tax; the transfer into the US is not meaningful for your taxes, except for reporting foreign accounts. Please review Publication 519 for general information on taxation of resident aliens.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "79eabf0ae820460afcb4fd80cb9bcae9",
"text": "Essentially you can send a Check by mail, you brother deposits into Bank account. It costs very little, the time required would be around 1-2 months. You can do International Wire [Via SWIFT] it would reach in few days, fees are high. You can use specialized remittance services like Money2india, remit2india, or western union etc. The fees are low and generally funds reach in a week.",
"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": "48d078eaeee0aa1923acf87fffb4f798",
"text": "1.What are the tax implications - income tax, gift tax, wealth tax etc. for the money credited in the NRO Account? As the funds are transferred by your wife to you, there is NO Income. Hence Income Tax rules don't apply. It would be treated as GIFT and come uder Gift Act. As per gift Act, one can transfer unlimited amount between close releatives. The defination of close relative as per Income Tax includes parents, spouse, siblings etc. The interest you earn in NRO account is taxable in India. 2.Can I transfer this money to my parents and would that attract any tax?. I understand my parents will have bear any tax based on income they earn on my transfer... Are there any tax implications for me? You can transfer this money to your parents. This will not be taxable to you. It will not be taxable to your parents as its Gift. Any income earned by your parents on this will ofcourse be taxable. 3.Can I move this money to NRE account and what is the process for that and how easy it is? Its best if you had your wife send funds into NRE account. Direct transfer as much as know is not allowed. Having said that, it is possible to transfer funds out of India via proper paperwork, there is also a limit [quite large] on the amount that can be transferred a year. Get a CA to help you with the paperwork.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "43472cc06b776959ce29094afae95155",
"text": "Assuming you are Indian Citizen / Resident for Tax purposes. Your friend in US Citizen / Resident for tax purposes. As you are borrowing these funds and returning, this would NOT be treated as Gift but as Loan. Ensure that you have the right documentation in place. There is no tax when you receive the funds/loan or rebate when you pay back the loan. From India FEMA (Foreign Exchange Management Act) point of view, if you take loan from friends, you cannot by default repatriate funds. You have to take special permission to repatriate the funds out of India.",
"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": "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": ""
},
{
"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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
8a56e447020c8b578000c9ed39b1efec
|
What does it mean to invest in potatoes?
|
[
{
"docid": "bfeeb1c021ac05161f366794e88d048e",
"text": "\"In order for a commodity to be offered as a future, the exact specifications must be specified by the exchange. This includes not only the particular grade, strain, etc (depending on what we are talking about) but also the exact delivery location (otherwise transportation costs is an issue as you noticed). Once there is a standardized contract, the exchange can match up buyers and sellers who are agreeing to the terms of the contract. From a fun little article on commodities: ... you will have to go either to Europe to trade European Processing Potato futures on Eurex [...], or to India, to the Multi Commodity Exchange of India (MCX). [...] On the MCX, two different types of potato are deliverable, \"\"Agra\"\" potatoes with the 3797 as its \"\"basis variety\"\" of potato and \"\"Tarkeshwar\"\" potatoes with the Kufri Jyoti as its \"\"basis variety.\"\" So let's look at an example, the Agra future contract on MCX. It specifies (size measured from at least one side by way of passing through sieve) • Acceptable size 4–8 cm • Rejected If below 4 cm and above 8 cm exceeds 5% ... and more details regarding the financials.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0616fcf276868444ecbd6dd0d38ee6dd",
"text": "comments discuss investing in potato futures. Learn / ready about commodity trading or commodity futures. An investopedia article How To Invest In Commodities is a good start. There are quite a few commodities offered for normal trade or as futures. Potatos may not be offered on quite a few exchanges. Found some here Investing in commodities is fraught with quite a bit of risk, some like you have already pointed out. Of course you can't eat all and have to sell.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "8ecc829e44d10e0c8b04e51d2ec5afa0",
"text": "I'd say that the assets are 'invested' in non-productive sectors of the economy such as the finance sector. Also in pure market speculation and in revolving corporate acquisitions which inflate the nominal money supply but don't increase either physical production or services delivered by one thimble or one minute.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5b2c550bd058fda7226dd6707d56a57e",
"text": "\"RBL is likely *reserve based lending*, which is a type of asset-based financing in oil&gas world where debt is secured by oil reserves. Presumably context is that have an oil&gas company that the analyst thinks should be acquiring other companies. To fund that, the analyst is saying the parent company should borrow money against their reserves (should be relatively inexpensive capital b/c asset-backed) and then using it to fund acquisitions. For the target's capital structure, those amounts are equity infused by the Parent (even though the Parent got the money by borrowing it). The Target can then borrow money against its own operations... this borrowed money will \"\"gear\"\" up the Target -- gearing is just a term for leverage, typically specifically debt-to-equity ratio. So to fund the acquisition, the Parent is (1) going to borrow using a RBL on Parent's assets to come up with equity to put into target and (2) going to borrow against Target's business. Presumably today Target is relatively debt free or even cash heavy.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "87f3299669175f2ba326371f00e92c4a",
"text": "\"This is what is called \"\"weasel words\"\". They're trying to put some authority into their ad, but since they don't have any - they're putting meaningless words that sound important. Monetary policy is the state/central bank policy to control the supply of the available currency. Cannot think of a way to connect it to private investments.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4e6792d81a3496a978744ac6a70587f4",
"text": "\"What does this mean and how do you do it? Consider that there are may be more than a few different objectives when it comes to investing: Each of these is a different objective that can have different timelines, objectives for the money as well as possible accounts and investment choices. In a sense the question could be stated as \"\"How much money do you need and when do you need it?\"\" Is it trying to figure out how much money you hope to have for retirement, or does it include short term expenses The objective could be retirement but doesn't have to be. The short term expenses can be included in various ways. The retirement funds could include what kind of method would be used to make sure expenses can be met as if one is looking at retirement just a few years away the \"\"short term expenses\"\" may come up as part of the retirement living.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5fe8deec27a0ed2312c70246cbca7f76",
"text": "\"There's an old saying: \"\"Never invest in anything that eats or needs maintenance.\"\" This doesn't mean that a house or a racehorse or private ownership of your own company is not an investment. It just points out that constant effort is needed on your part, or on the part of somebody you pay, just to keep it from losing value. Common stock, gold, and money in the bank are three things you can buy and leave alone. They may gain or lose market value, but not because of neglect on your part. Buying a house is a complex decision. There are many benefits and many risks. Other investments have benefits and risks too.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "266c117fa6dfc4542c2d7e578963d8eb",
"text": "Investing in commodities is iffy in the best of times. Potash already has expectations priced in, so I prefer to play CNI, the railroad doing most of the hauling. Uranium? No. Uranium has been touted for a decade or more without results. Thorium is the preferable future nuclear fuel, and there is lots of it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1780c956b6e79156a96d46a6b5e1ce97",
"text": "\"Remind him that, over the long-term, investing in safe-only assets may actually be more risky than investing in stocks. Over the long-term, stocks have always outperformed almost every other asset class, and they are a rather inflation-proof investment. Dollars are not \"\"safe\"\"; due to inflation, currency exchange, etc., they have some volatility just like everything else.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "371ce6015819881c94020bd216929abd",
"text": "Wine is often invested, as is whisky and some other spirits And fortified wines that have particular vintages, such as port. You need to be particular about which ones to invest in though. Top vintages of wine and port can rocket in value, to make the big profits you need to buy the new vintage before everyone realises it is going to be a top year and sell it some years later when it is approaching its peak. This is obviously quite tricky to do. It is fairly common to buy a share in a particular batch of whisky (proper Scottish single malt), then after 12-18 years when it is matured you can take your share in bottles or cash.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8e437a2c62972a44657f449075e12786",
"text": "\"Debt is nominal, which means when inflation happens, the value of the money owed goes down. This is great for the borrower and bad for the lender. \"\"Investing\"\" can mean a lot of different things. Frequently it is used to describe buying common stock, which is an ownership claim on a company. A company is not a nominally fixed asset, by which I mean if there was a bunch of inflation and nothing else happened (i.e., the inflation was not the cause or result of some other economic change) then the nominal value of the company will go up along with the prices of other things. Based on the above, I'd say you are incorrect to treat debt and investment returns the same way with respect to inflation. When we say equity returns 9%, we mean it returns a real 7% plus 2% inflation or whatever. If the rate of inflation increased to 10% and nothing else happened in the economy, the same equity would be expected to return 17%. In fact, the company's (nominally fixed) debts would be worth less, increasing the real value of the company at the expense of their debt-holders. On the other hand, if we entered a period of high inflation, your debt liability would go way down and you would have benefited greatly from borrowing and investing at the same time. If you are expecting inflation in the abstract sense, then borrowing and investing in common stock is a great idea. Inflation is frequently the result (or cause) of a period of economic trouble, so please be aware that the above makes sense if we treat inflation as the only thing that changed. If inflation came about because OPEC makes oil crazy expensive, millennials just stop working, all of our factories got bombed to hades, or trade wars have shut down international commerce, then the value of stocks would most definitely be affected. In that case it's not really \"\"inflation\"\" that affected the stock returns, though.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "63b921517ad5513d18082e989ad94171",
"text": "\"Investing in a business can be daunting and risky, so it is not for everyone. The most common pitfalls are mentioned here: Beyond that: It all sounds a bit like \"\"Don't trust anyone\"\" and sadly, this is true when there's a lot of money involved. So be prepared and do your homework, this sometimes will save you more money than you gain with your investments :) Good luck!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2e8427f6c06c93827246c711c98b9cb6",
"text": "\"I've mostly seen this term peddled by those with large portfolios in gold/commodities. The incentive for these guys, who for example may have a large portfolio in gold, is to drive demand for gold up - which in turn drives the value of the gold they're holding up and makes their assets more valuable. The easiest way to get a large amount of people to invest in gold is to scare them into thinking the whole market is going to fall apart and that gold is their best/only option. I personally think that the path we're on is not particularly sustainable and that we're heading for a large correction/recession anyways - but for other reasons. **Example:** [Peter Shiff YouTube Channel called \"\"The Economist\"\" with conspiracy videos](https://www.youtube.com/user/PeterSchiffChannel/videos) [Actual \"\"The Economist\"\" magazine researching the market](https://www.youtube.com/user/EconomistMagazine/videos) (edit: formatting)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "80ccc6f1c6b0f9d238426febd4303db4",
"text": "\"Generally investing in index-tracking funds in the long term poses relatively low risk (compared to \"\"short term investment\"\", aka speculation). No-one says differently. However, it is a higher risk than money-market/savings/bonds. The reason for that is that the return is not guaranteed and loss is not limited. Here volatility plays part, as well as general market conditions (although the volatility risk also affects bonds at some level as well). While long term trend may be upwards, short term trend may be significantly different. Take as an example year 2008 for S&P500. If, by any chance, you needed to liquidate your investment in November 2008 after investing in November 1998 - you might have ended up with 0 gain (or even loss). Had you waited just another year (or liquidated a year earlier) - the result would be significantly different. That's the volatility risk. You don't invest indefinitely, even when you invest long term. At some point you'll have to liquidate your investment. Higher volatility means that there's a higher chance of downward spike just at that point of time killing your gains, even if the general trend over the period around that point of time was upward (as it was for S&P500, for example, for the period 1998-2014, with the significant downward spikes in 2003 and 2008). If you invest in major indexes, these kinds of risks are hard to avoid (as they're all tied together). So you need to diversify between different kinds of investments (bonds vs stocks, as the books \"\"parrot\"\"), and/or different markets (not only US, but also foreign).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "21bbfda9282a3b50c549c8c53e021dcd",
"text": "The term 'interest' tends to be used loosely when discussing valuation of stocks. Especially when referring to IRAs which are generally the purvey of common-folk who aren't in the finance industry. Often it is used colloquially to include: Using this definition (which is what I'm guessing your IRA Calculator is doing), your stock would have increased in value by a total of $26 over the course of 10 months. Still not terribly good (only a couple percent increase), but certainly not a couple cents.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e1d2542f162fa792e10a2de8cfec475c",
"text": "Because so many businesses make some money through some form of compound interest, like a business that saves its earnings in a business account that pays interest, it heavily depends on how strict you interpret this law. Some Muslims I know interpret it to mean directly and indirectly, while for some it's just direct interest earned. What I would suggest is either a direct investment in agriculture or a share in agriculture, where you are directly paid from your share in the investment and not through money that comes from a bank account earning interest. If you do a direct investment in agriculture, like owning livestock, you will be paid money in the form of food, which compounds through reproduction and can sell the offspring to others and collect the money. Year to date, agriculture is crushing the S&P 500 and many places around the world are facing shortages in food, like sugar and corn. If you don't have enough money for a direct investment, you can try the share route where you own a share of a direct investment. Rather than go through stock exchanges, where many of these companies make money indirectly through interest also, you can negotiate directly with farmers, ranchers, livestock owners, etc. Some of these individuals are looking to diversify their money, so they may be willing to let you own a fraction of what they produce and pay you directly. All of this comes with risk, of course. Livestock and plants die for a variety of reasons, but none of it will be interest from lending whether to individuals or through a bank. In addition, if we experience very high inflation in the future, livestock and plants do very well in this environment.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a9fbecc1d92c0b3bd76afe5bde24a1a8",
"text": "The key to good investing is you need to understand what you are investing in. That is, if you are buying a company that makes product X, you need to understand that. It is a good idea to buy stock in good companies but that is not sufficient. You need to buy stock in good companies at good prices. That means you need to understand things like price to earnings, price to revenue and price to book. Bob",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
ba6816d9cec6e7e1daf10f3068ea2e45
|
What price can *I* buy IPO shares for?
|
[
{
"docid": "104d9230bb7c2710413f9a8b3498be85",
"text": "\"If you participate in an IPO, you specify how many shares you're willing to buy and the maximum price you're willing to pay. All the investors who are actually sold the shares get them at the same price, and the entity managing the IPO will generally try to sell the shares for the highest price they can get. Whether or not you actually get the shares is a function of how many your broker gets and how your broker distributes them - which can be completely arbitrary if your broker feels like it. The price that the market is willing to pay afterward is usually a little higher. To a certain extent, this is by design: a good deal for the shares is an incentive for the big (million/billion-dollar) financiers who will take on a good bit of risk buying very large positions in the company (which they can't flip at the higher price, because they'd flood the market with their shares and send the price down). If the stock soars 100% and sticks around that level, though, the underwriting bank isn't doing its job very well: Investors were willing to give the company a lot more money. It's not \"\"stealing\"\", but it's definitely giving the original owners of the company a raw deal. (Just to be clear: it's the existing company's owners who suffer, not any third party.) Of course, LinkedIn was estimated to IPO at $30 before they hiked it to $45, and plenty of people were skeptical about it pricing so high even then, so it's not like they didn't try. And there's a variety of analysis out there about why it soared so much on the first day - fewer shares offered, wild speculative bubbles, no one could get a hold of it to short-sell, et cetera. They probably could have IPO'd for more, but it's unlikely there was, say, $120/share financing available: just because one sucker will pay the price doesn't mean you can move all 7.84 million IPO shares for it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "537fe4429469a56a85183cb3273bbacf",
"text": "Some brokers have a number of shares they can offer their customers, but the small guy will get 100, not as many as they'd like. In the Tech bubble of the late 90's I was able to buy in to many IPOs, but the written deal from the broker is that you could not sell for 30 days or you'd be restricted from IPO purchases for the next 90. No matter what the stock opened at, there were a fair number of stocks thay were below IPO issue price after 30 days had passed. I haven't started looking at IPOs since the tech flameout, but had I gotten in to LinkedIn it would have been at that $45 price. Let's see if it stays at these levels after 30 days. Edit - This is the exact cut/paste from my broker's site : Selling IPO Shares: While XXX customers are always free to sell shares purchased in a public offering at any time, short holding periods of less than 31 calendar days will be a factor in determining whether XXX allocates you shares in future public offerings. Accordingly, if you sell IPO shares purchased in a public offering within 30 calendar days of such purchase, you will be restricted from participating in initial and secondary public offerings through XXX for a period of 3 months. (I deleted the broker name) I honestly don't know if I'd have gotten any LI shares. Next interesting one is Pandora.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c2f5def027a81c2bd2a43665ac808a3c",
"text": "It depends a large part on your broker's relationship with the issuing bank how early you can participate in the IPO round. But the nature of the stock market means the hotter the stock and the closer to the market (away from the issuing bank) you have to buy the higher the price you'll pay. The stock market is a secondary market, meaning the only things for sale are shares already owned by someone. As a result, for a hot stock the individual investor will have to wait for another investor (not the issuing bank) to trade (sell) the stock.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "e5ea9507f84a7d9d67b9491567de3e0f",
"text": "New to investing... when I buy/sell a stock can I buy/sell at the exact market price whenever I'd like or is there more to it? Does there need to be a demand for when I'm trying to sell or am I just forcing the company to buy back my shares? Sorry if confusing/rookie question",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "baaa7713a2c8c8deb3f42ac237a5b04b",
"text": "The IPO price is set between the underwriters and the specialist in the NASDAQ. There are a lot of complexities on how to get to this price, everyone is trying to pull to their own side. In the Facebook example, the price was $38 for all IPO participants. Then, once the IPO went to the secondary market, the bid/ask drove the pricing. At the secondary market the price is driven by the demand and offer of the stock. That is, people who wanted to buy right after the IPO likely drove the initial price up.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b14dd8648d5c653d81d1eed23318e43d",
"text": "This can arise with very thinly traded stocks for large blocks of shares. If the market only has a few thousand dollars available at between 8.37 and 12.5 the price is largely meaningless for people who want to invest in hundreds of thousands/millions of dollars worth, as the quoted price can't get them anywhere near the number of shares they want. How liquid is the stock in question?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3277a1ff72241f4c3dda8e6a7305a0d7",
"text": "By definition, an IPO'd stock is publicly traded, and you can buy shares if you wish. There's often an excitement on the first day that doesn't carry over to the next days or weeks. The opening price may be well above the IPO price, depending on that demand.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "82fd28a1365ba647adc6c8d74dc38fe2",
"text": "The least expensive way to buy such small amounts is through ING's Sharebuilder service. You can perform a real-time trade for $9, or you can add a one-time trade to their investment schedule for $4 (transaction will be processed on the next upcoming Tuesday morning). They also allow you to purchase fractional shares.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e656547f1bc1d937b6442ccc45a63ab2",
"text": "When a stock is going to become public there's a level of analysis required to figure out the range of IPO price that makes sense. For a company that's somewhat mature, and has a sector to compare it to, you can come up with a range that would be pretty close. For the recent linkedin, it's tougher to price a somewhat unique company, running at a loss, in a market rich with cash looking for the next great deal. If one gives this any thought, an opening price that's so far above the IPO price represents a failure of the underwriters to price it correctly. It means the original owners just sold theirvshares for far less than the market thought they were worth on day one. The day of IPO the stock opens similar to how any stock would open at 9:30, there are bids and asks and a price at which supply (the ask) and demand (bid) balance. For this IPO, it would appear that there were enough buyers to push the price to twice the anticipated open and it's maintained that level since. It's possible to have a different system in which a Dutch auction is used to make the shares public, in theory this can work, it's just not used commonly.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d7af8c4b587fe8ce6deb5e701031c30f",
"text": "You can purchase stock immediately in the open market on the day of the IPO when market opens. Below link gives you more information. http://finance.zacks.com/buy-ipo-stock-3903.html",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "225f4633fccc7c851fcc68c4be913d31",
"text": "When a company IPOs the underwriters sell a given percentage on IPO day and shortly thereafter. Whatever is sold on IPO day trades freely. Insiders, employees and investors who bought before the IPO only sell a percentage of their shares on IPO day. They all also agree to 'lock up' the remainder for a period of time, so that not everyone is rushing to the exits right away. Well, if you're an employee you don't per-se agree, it's just how your stock options are setup and you don't really have a say in the matter.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5f99c60c56919e92f08c683b1e2d5532",
"text": "A rough estimate of the money you'd need to take a position in a single stock would be: In the case of your Walmart example, the current share price is 76.39, so assuming your commission is $7, and you'd like to buy, say, 3 shares, then it would cost approximately (76.39 * 3) + 7 = $236.17. Remember that the quoted price usually refers to 100-share lots, and your broker may charge you a higher commission or other fees to purchase an odd lot (less than 100 shares, usually). I say that the equation above gives an approximate minimum because However, I second the comments of others that if you're looking to invest a small amount in the stock market, a low cost mutual fund or ETF, specifically an index fund, is a safer and potentially cheaper option than purchasing individual stocks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "23497b6f874834bdef745b5d043aa47b",
"text": "\"I have an account with ETrade. Earlier this week I got an offer to participate in the IPO proper (at the IPO price). If Charles Schwab doesn't give you the opportunity, that's a shortcoming of them as a brokerage firm; there are definitely ways for retail investors to invest in it, wise investment or no. (Okay, technically it wasn't an offer to participate, it was a notice that participation was possibly available, various securities-law disclaimers etc withstanding. \"\"This Web site is neither an offer to sell nor a solicitation to buy these securities. The offer is by prospectus only. This Web site contains a preliminary prospectus for each offering.\"\" etc etc).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"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": "c47b52ea6e8fadc7db739bf74c559735",
"text": "\"You will almost certainly be able to sell 10,000 shares at once. The question is a matter of price. If you sell \"\"at market\"\" then you may get a lower price for each \"\"batch\"\" of the stock sold (one person buys 50, another buys 200, another buys 1000 etc) at varying prices. Will you be able to execute a single order to sell them all at the same price at the same time? Nobody can say, and it's not really a function of the company size. The exchange has what's called \"\"open interest\"\" which roughly correlates to how many people have active orders in at a given price. This number is constantly changing alongside the bid and ask (particularly for active stocks). So let's say you have 10,000 shares and you want to sell them for $100 each. What you need is at least 10,000 in open interest at $100 bid to execute. By contrast let's say you issue a limit order at $100 for 10,000 shares. Your ask will stay outstanding at that price and you'll be filled at that price if there are enough buyers. I you have a limit sell order at $100 for 10,000 shares the strike price of the stock cannot go to $100.01 until all of your sell orders are filled.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8694e43bff6988ceb43ffa191cd56b5d",
"text": "Is the stock's price at any given moment the price at which all shares could be sold to new investors? No. For the simple fact that the current bid/offer always have sizes associated. What you should be looking at is the consolidated price to buy/sell X shares (10bn doesn't really work as not everyone is willing to sell/buy). If you look at the spread of the consolidated price at your quantity level, you'd notice it would be in stark contrast to the spread of the best bid/offer but (by definition) that would be the price to buy or sell X shares to new investors. Edit Calculation of the consolidated price of X shares: You go through the order book and calculate the size-weighted average price until you covered X. Example: So the consolidated price for 3000 shares would be $39.80, the consolidated price for 2000 shares would be $39.90.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1c984b3ec76abda18d2df1676240ad13",
"text": "its the best investment you can have specially with the company you work for and IPO, if i was you i would invest in more then just the minimum since its IPO. ask you your manager or supervisor how much are they buying the stocks for if they are doing it the go for it you'll be okay just keep track of it regular sometime you can invest more as time go by. You can get the idea by how much production your company is doing, if your company's profit going up chances are you need to buy more.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "65acc04ee19efe73f16b1ede4223dbd8",
"text": "Should I invest money in the pre-IPO stocks soon to be offered by the company that I work for? Is it wise to do this? What should I be thinking about? What are the risks? The last time I was offered pre-IPO friends and family stock, I purchased half of my allotment, and had my parents purchase the other half. Since I had a 6-month blackout period, I had to hold my portion. My parents sold their portion one day after the IPO. The price went up dramatically for about a day and a half, then dived continuously. My portion ended up being worthless. My parents made a few bucks. Good for them. Not a huge deal either way, since my cost was relatively low. If I had a chance to do it again, I'd give it all to friends or family instead of splitting it, and have them sell quickly if they realized a profit. You might be luckier than I was.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
9fd789279619abc629129178076a779c
|
Right account for local purchases, loan EMI, and investments
|
[
{
"docid": "01a2b716f7f0535081fdb143919b550a",
"text": "What is the best and most economical way for me to pay the loan EMIs directly? (whether from a Singapore account or a NRE/NRO account) It is advisable to have it via the NRE account as this would be easier. If you already have funds in NRO account, you can use that before you use the funds from NRE account. For all expenses I make in India (e.g shopping, general expenses in India visits) what account should I be using, ideally? Is the route to transfer into NRE then NRO and then withdraw from NRO? Whatever is convenient. Both are fine. If I plan to make any investments in SIPs/Stock markets, should I link my NRE account with a demat account and directly use that? If I sell the shares will the earnings come back into NRO or NRE? You need to open a DEMAT PINS Account and link it to NRE account. You are sell and repatriate the funds without any issue from PINS account. Related question Indian Demat account",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "3a867c6f052ff0ca6c6709e1a4dfacbe",
"text": "The LLC portion is completely irrelevant. Don't know why you want it. You can create a joint/partnership trading account without the additional complexity of having LLC. What liability are you trying to limit here? Her sisters will file tax returns in the us using the form 1040NR, and only reporting the dividends they received, everything else will be taxed by Vietnam. You'll have to investigate how to file tax returns there as well. That said, you'll need about $500,000 each to invest in the regional centers. So you're talking about 1.5 million of US dollars at least. From a couple of $14K gifts to $1.5M just by trading? I don't see how this is feasible.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3167b26b3d85953e30d252c7ae9aa5d5",
"text": "You can look into specific market targeted mutual funds or ETF's. For Norway, for example, look at NORW. If you want to purchase specific stocks, then you'd better be ready to trade on local stock exchanges in local currency. ETrade allows trading on some of the international stock exchanges (in Asia they have Hong Kong and Japan, in Europe they have the UK, Germany and France, and in the Americas they have the US and Canada). Some of the companies you're interested in might be trading there.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0239db99a14304f9c2d2c4e5f0e8cc2e",
"text": "\"We use Cater Allen for our business banking (recommended/introduced by our accountants so we've saved the standard \"\"minimum funds per month\"\" limit) which was set up all remotely - our accountants sent us the forms (which you can get from Cater Allen's site), we photocopied the identity documents (driving licence etc) and sent them off. Within a couple of weeks we had the account open. Cater Allen hasn't got any physical branches, so that's \"\"one way\"\" of working around the \"\"come into a branch\"\" solution - pick a bank without branches! Girobank (which became Alliance and Leicester Business Banking and then became part of Santander) used to allow all account creations remotely - but that was back in the 90s and I've got no idea if Santander still do. Since you've setup an Ltd company, you are probably looking for an accountant too (even if it just to do your year end or payroll) - ask them for their recommendations.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "24bb18e4837526c4fedf26ad190601c7",
"text": "Yup, if he/she is talking about a broker/dealer, but if he's talking to an RIA and is trying to find out who the custodian is then he won't have a statement yet. I don't think he has opened the account yet, but I'm not sure and could be totally misunderstanding the question.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "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": "98a527b30097928edd73bebb529339ae",
"text": "This discussion indicates that the accounts are not reported to credit agencies, but the post is also over a year old, and who knows how reliable the information is (it's fairly well-traveled, though). It's based on one person calling up Trans Union and E-Trade and asking people directly.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ca5d202b93c164af5f61d58a5cd0aa01",
"text": "Here's what the GnuCash documentation, 10.5 Tracking Currency Investments (How-To) has to say about bookkeeping for currency exchanges. Essentially, treat all currency conversions in a similar way to investment transactions. In addition to asset accounts to represent holdings in Currency A and Currency B, have an foreign exchange expenses account and a capital gains/losses account (for each currency, I would imagine). Represent each foreign exchange purchase as a three-way split: source currency debit, foreign exchange fee debit, and destination currency credit. Represent each foreign exchange sale as a five-way split: in addition to the receiving currency asset and the exchange fee expense, list the transaction profit in a capital gains account and have two splits against the asset account of the transaction being sold. My problems with this are: I don't know how the profit on a currency sale is calculated (since the amount need not be related to any counterpart currency purchase), and it seems asymmetrical. I'd welcome an answer that clarifies what the GnuCash documentation is trying to say in section 10.5.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ecd8bd38a8923493a989fd91c8d71b8e",
"text": "In the U.S. it is typical that a stock brokerage account can be set up to buy stock with up to half the cost being borrowed from the broker. This is called a margin account. The stock purchased must remain in the account until sold (or the loan is paid off), as it serves as built-in collateral for the loan. If the market price for the stock goes down too much, you will be required to add money, or the stock will be sold to cover the loan. See this question for some more information.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1f29a91f8306aa4d1ac166445ac5fc43",
"text": "\"I think that your best option is to use the internet to look for sites comparing the various features of accounts, and especially forums that are more focused on discussion as you can ask about specific banks and people who have those accounts can answer. \"\"Requests for specific service provider recommendations\"\" are off-topic here, so I won't go into making any of my own bank recommendations, but there are many blogs and forums out there focusing on personal finance.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0c4ff7b7c5d61828a76f1e9edafbbe34",
"text": "\"I live near historic Concord, Massachusetts, and frequently drive past Walden Pond. I'm reminded of Henry David Thoreau's words, \"\"Simplify, simplify, simplify.\"\" In my opinion, fewer is better. 2 checkbooks? I don't see how that makes budgeting any easier. The normal set of expenses are easily kept as one bucket, one account. The savings 2&3 accounts can also be combined and tracked if you really want to think of them as separate accounts. Now, when you talk about 'Retirement' that can be in tax-wise retirement accounts, e.g. 401(k), IRA, etc. or post tax regular brokerage accounts. In our situation, the Schwab non-retirement account was able to handle emergency (as money market funds) along with vacation/rainy day, etc, in CDs of different maturities. As an old person, I remember CDs at 10% or higher, so leaving money in lower interest accounts wasn't good. Cash would go to CDs at 1-5 year maturities to maximize interest, but keep money maturing every 6-9 months. Even with the goal of simplifying, my wife and I each have a 401(k), an IRA, and a Roth IRA, I also have an inherited Roth, and I manage my teen's Roth and brokerage accounts. That's 9 accounts right there. No way to reduce it. To wrap it up, I'd go back to the first 4 you listed, and use the #4 checking attached to the broker account to be the emergency fund. Now you're at 3. Any higher granularity can be done with a spreadsheet. Think of it this way - the day you see the house you love, will you not be so willing to give up that year's vacation?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "63d8fa789d9630d7dd5568579e40c6f1",
"text": "No it is not. If you are able to afford the EMI on the gold loan, just increase the EMI on your home loan and you will save more. Example: If your home loan EMI is say 65000, and the EMI for 10 lacs Gold loan is 15000, increase the Home loan EMI to 80000....",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9021ee044ffe953dad127d98ff65fa9e",
"text": "\"I don't think it would be counted as income, and if it's a short-term loan it doesn't really matter as the notional interest on the loan would be negligible. But you can avoid any possible complications by just having two accounts in the name of the person trying to get the account benefits, particularly if you're willing to just provide the \"\"seed\"\" money to get the loop started.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d4204f26bc88bab658ce2be226976e79",
"text": "\"Since I, personally, agree with the investment thesis of Peter Schiff, I would take that sum and put it with him in a managed account, and leave it there. I'm not sure how to find a firm that you like the investment strategy of. I think that it's too complicated to do as a side thing. Someone needs to be spending a lot of time researching various instruments and figuring out what is undervalued or what is exposed to changing market trends or whatever. I basically just want to give my money to someone and say \"\"I agree with your investment philosophy, let me pay you to manage my money, too.\"\" No one knows who is right, of course. I think Schiff is right, so that's where I would put the amount of money you're talking about. If you disagree with his investment philosophy, this doesn't really make any sense to do. For that amount of money, though, I think firms would be willing to sit down with you and sell you their services. You could ask them how they would diversify this money given the goals that you have for it, and pick one that you agree with the most.\"",
"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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
eb6ec453ac5f7ee357f1160ca8317233
|
How should I begin investing real money as a student?
|
[
{
"docid": "18e0d4fcfddabe3813084cf1370d791f",
"text": "\"Without knowing what you are trying to achieve - make a bit of pocket money, become financially independent, invest for retirement, learn trading to become a trader - I'll give you a few thoughts ... The difficulty you will have trading with $400-600 is that brokerage will be a high proportion of your \"\"profits\"\". I'm not sure of the US (assuming US rather than AU, NZ, etc) rates for online brokers, but UK online brokers are the order of £6-10 / trade. Having a quick read suggests that the trading is similar $6-10/trade. With doing day trades you will be killed by the brokerage. I'm not sure what percent of profitable trades you have, but if it is 50% (e.g.), you will need to make twice the brokerage fees value on each profitable trade before you are actually making a profit. There can be an emotional effect that trips you up. You will find that trading with your own real money is very different to trading with fake money. Read up about it, this brief blog shows some personal thoughts from someone I read from time to time. With a $10 brokerage, I would suggest the following Another option, which I wouldn't recommend is to leverage your money, by trading CDFs or other derivatives that allow you to trade on a margin. Further to that, learn about trading/investing Plus other investment types I have written about earlier.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3ea390af4c36f7d00ae4953829b23ff9",
"text": "I like your enthusiasm and initiative. However, there are a few things you need to consider that you haven't yet thought about. First, it is important to remember that trading with fake money is not the same as trading with real money. In the fake world, you have $100k. With this fake money, you can do reckless things with it, such as put it all on one stock. If you lose, it costs you nothing, so you don't have an emotional attachment to it. With real money, it will feel different, and that is something you haven't experienced yet. Second, you mentioned that you are good at making picks. With all due respect, I suggest that you aren't old enough to make that determination. You haven't been trading for long enough to determine if you are doing well at it. :) That having been said, I don't want to completely discourage you from trying something new. Third, you mentioned long-term investing, but you also said that you need to make your money back quick and mentioned trading daily. Those things aren't really compatible. I wouldn't consider what you are doing as long-term investing. With the type of investing you are doing, picking individual stocks and hoping for the value to go up in a relatively short time-frame, it is similar to gambling. The risk of losing is very much there, and you shouldn't be investing money this way that you aren't prepared to lose. If you need the money for something soon, don't put it in the stock market. Never forget this. What can happen is that you start with small amounts of money, do well, and then, thinking that you are good at this, put in larger amounts of money. You will eventually lose. If you put in money that you need for something else, you have a problem. If you are trying this out for education and entertainment purposes, that is great. But when it starts to get serious, make sure that you are aware of the risks. Educate yourself and be smart. Here is what I would suggest: If you want to try this short-term day-trading type investing, and you understand that the money can easily be lost, I would balance that with investing in a more traditional way: Set aside an amount each month to put in a low-expense index mutual fund. Doing this will have several benefits for you: As for your specific questions about stock trading with small amounts: Yes, you can trade with small amounts; however, every time you trade, you will be paying a commission. Even with a discount broker, if you are trading frequently, the commissions you will be paying will be very significant at the dollar amounts you are talking about. The only way I can see around this would be to try the Robinhood app, which allows you to trade without paying sales commission. I have no experience with that app.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ecb75d2726ee4013356d44966d872ac0",
"text": "I started my account with $500 so I know where you're coming from. For the words of caution, in about 2009 we entered a pretty significant bull market. During this period you could basically buy almost any big name company and do pretty well for yourself. So don't be too cocky about your ability to pick winners in the middle of a bull market. Over the last few years you'd have to try pretty hard to consistently pick losers. I absolutely think you should put real money in the game when you have this sort of interest. However, at your $400-600 level broker fees will eat any sort of active trading or short term profit you could muster. Stock trading is not a great way to make money in the short term. If you're looking to save for something specific you should put that money in a zero risk savings account. You should do more research on brokers. Find the lowest possible trade commission at an organization where you can meet the account opening minimum. A $10 commission is 11% more than a $9 commission.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "14dc35868b7480da0985d6b8c5fec786",
"text": "\"I think you have a really good idea, kudos to it. It will be difficult to break eve, and while you stressed the fact that you are ready to part with this money, it would be interesting for you not to part with this money just for the sake of trading. You will be frustrated because you are \"\"winning\"\" and breaking even or even losing money in the process. Think about that. For somebody with limited experience the derivatives market carries a very high risk also as everything in this matters carries high or very high yield. Trading futures on margin can actually work but I think you will need a bit more money. Check the mini contracts of infinity futures and calculate the commissions. You will be paying more for a contract, yes. you will need more money for your maintenance margin, yes, but if you day-trade and you have a cheapo broker this will be substantially lower. Gold contracts pay about 10 to 1 so a mini contract of 33 ounces will pay you 33 dollars per 1 dollar move. Your commissions will be about 4/5 usd in a discount broker and you will need to pay some exchange house fees, maybe about 15% of your trade will be fees. Check the contract specs and costs. As somebody said before, they wouldn't recommend trading on margin but with an account of that side I wouldn't know anything else. Trading physical gold on margin could also be an option. Just my 2 cents.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "058e215d5be465980bc95ee53006eb09",
"text": "For some ideas on investing priority guidelines, see Oversimplify it for me: the correct order of investing. Congratulations on being debt free! My advice to you is to do what you can to remain debt free. You could certainly invest the money; it will earn much more over the long-term in a stock mutual fund than it would left in a savings account. However, if you need any of this money in the next few years, it would be a shame if it lost money in the short-term. How much do you need to finish grad school? Don't invest that money in the stock market, because you will need it over the next few years. Likewise, think about other expenses that are coming up. Will your car need to be replaced in the next couple of years? Will you have enough income to meet your living expenses while you are in grad school, or will you need some of this to money to help with that? Finally, it would be good to keep some extra as an emergency fund, so you can easily pay for any unexpected expenses that come up. If you can make it through grad school debt free, you will be much better off than if you invest all the money but take out student loans in the process. After you've accounted for all of that, whatever is left of the money could definitely be invested. If your goal is to start a retirement fund, an index mutual fund invested inside a Roth IRA is a great place to start.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a12a08c1ab1f090461328b8bd919817b",
"text": "\"Your questions seek answers to specifics, but I feel that you may need more general help. There are two things, I feel, that you need to learn about in the general category of personal finance. Your asking questions about investing, but it is not as important, IMHO, as how you manage your day-to-day operations. For example, you should first learn to budget. In personal finance often times \"\"living on a budget\"\" equates to poor, or low income. That is hardly the case. A budget is a plan on how to spend money. It should be refreshed each and every month and your income should equal your expenses. You might have in your budget a $1200 trip into the city to see a concert, hardly what a low income person should have in theirs. Secondly you need to be deliberate about debt management. For some, they feel that having a car payment and having student loans are a necessary part of life and argue that paying them off is foolish as you can earn more from investments. Others argue for zero debt. I fall in the later. Using and carrying a balance on high interest CCs and having high leases or car payments are just dumb. They are also easy to wander into unless you are deliberate. Third you need to prepare for emergencies. Engineers still get laid off and hurt where they are unable to work. They get sued. Having the proper insurance and sufficient reserves in the bank help prevent debt. Now you can start looking into investments. Start off slow and deliberate with investing. Put some in your company 401K or open some mutual funds on the side. You can read about them and talk with advisers, for free, at Fidelity and Vanguard. Read books from the library. Most of all don't get caught up in too much hype. Things like Forex, options, life insurance, gold/silver, are not investments. They are tools for sales people to make fat commissions off the ignorant. You are fortunate in that Engineers are very likely to retire wealthy. They are part of the second largest demographic of first generation rich. The first is small business owners. To start out I would read Millionaire Next Door and Stop Acting Rich. For a debt free approach to life, check out Financial Peace University (FPU) by Dave Ramsey (video course). His lesson on insurance is excellent. I am an engineer, and my wife a project manager we found FPU life changing and regretted not getting on board sooner. Along these lines we have had some turmoil, recently, that became little more than an inconvenience because we were prepared.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2a6cd61ce8fa41b425943eed0b91bad2",
"text": "Investing is really about learning your own comfort level. You will make money and lose money. You will make mistakes but you will also learn a great deal. First off, invest in your own financial knowledge, this doesn't require capital at all but a commitment. No one will watch or care for your own money better than yourself. Read books, and follow some companies in a Google Finance virtual portfolio. Track how they're doing over time - you can do this as a virtual portfolio without actually spending or losing money. Have you ever invested before? What is your knowledge level? Investing long term is about trying to balance risk while reducing losses and trying not to get screwed along the way (by people). My personal advice: Go to an independent financial planner, go to one that charges you per hour only. Financial planners that don't charge you hourly get paid in commissions. They will be biased to sell you what puts the most money in their pockets. Do not go to the banks investment people, they are employed by the banks who have sales and quota requirements to have you invest and push their own investment vehicles like mutual funds. Take $15k to the financial planner and see what they suggest. Keep the other $5K in something slow and boring and $1k under your mattress in actual cash as an emergency. While you're young, compound interest is the magic that will make that $25k increase hand over fist in time. But you need to have it consistently make money. I'm young too and more risk tolerant because I have time. While I get older I can start to scale back my risk because I'm nearing retirement and preserve instead of try to make returns.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c57729cf0043a40ec5c398a84e76d568",
"text": "What is the best form of investment? It only depends on your goals... The perfect amount of money depends also on your particular situation. The first thing you should start getting familiar with is the notion of portfolio and diversification. Managing risk is also fundamental especially with the current market funkiness... Start looking at index based ETFs -Exchange Traded Funds- and Balanced Mutual Funds to begin with. Many discounted online brokerage companies in the USA offer good training and knowledge centers. Some of them will also let you practice with a demo account that let you invest virtual money to make you feel comfortable with the interface and also with investing in general.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9171ded8dbd337e2bc5882b928fee24e",
"text": "Get a job, get a car, get a better job, save more money, invest that money in a high yield savings account, keep adding to that account until you turn 18. Start buying in bulk from China and reselling on eBay or Amazon for a 200-500% mark up, put that money in savings, ????, Profit. You can easily make 7-10 grand a year while still going to school, just save it all. Don't spend a dime unless you absolutely have to.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "26939aa6eeca2b834916babe29f760bf",
"text": "At this stage of the game your best investment is yourself. Rather than putting it in stocks, use any spare money you have to get yourself the best education you can. See if you can drop that part-time job and give yourself more time to study. Or maybe you can go to a better, more expensive college. Or maybe college will give you some opportunity to travel and learn more that way. You don't want to exclude yourself from those opportunities by not having enough spare cash. So in short, spend what you need to get yourself the best education you can, and keep any spare money you have somewhere you can use it to take advantage of any opportunities that come your way.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5441f74c31fd065e750dc107af1495a4",
"text": "\"This may be a great idea, or a very bad one, or it may simply not be applicable to you, depending on your personal circumstances and interests. The general idea is to avoid passive investments such as stocks and bonds, because they tend to grow by \"\"only\"\" a few percent per year. Instead, invest in things where you will be actively involved in some form. With those, much higher investment returns are common (but also the risk is higher, and you may be tied down and have to limit the traveling you want to do). So here are a few different ways to do that: Get a college degree, but only if you are interested in the field, and it ends up paying you well. If you aren't interested in the field, you won't land the $100k+ jobs later. And if you study early-childhood education, you may love the job, but it won't pay enough to make it a good investment. Of course, it also has to fit with your life plans, but that might be easier than it seems. You want to travel. Have you thought about anthropology, marine biology or archeology? Pick a reputable, hard-to-get-into, academic school rather than a vocation-oriented oe, and make sure that they have at least some research program. That's one way to distinguish between the for-profit schools (who tend to be very expensive and land you in low-paying jobs), and schools that actually lead to a well-paying future. Or if your interest runs more in a different direction: start a business. Your best bet might be to buy a franchise. Many of the fast-food chains, such as McDonalds, will let you buy as long as you have around $300k net worth. Most franchises also require that you are qualified. It may often make sense to buy not just one franchised store, but several in an area. You can increase your income (and your risk) by getting a loan - you can probably buy at least $5 million worth of franchises with your \"\"seed money\"\". BTW, I'm only using McDonalds as an example. Well-known fast food franchises used to be money-making machines, but their popularity may well have peaked. There are franchises in all kinds of industries, though. Some tend to be very short-term (there is a franchise based on selling customer's stuff on ebay), while others can be very long-lived (many real-estate brokerages are actually franchises). Do be careful which ones you buy. Some can be a \"\"license to print money\"\" while others may fail, and there are some fraudsters in the franchising market, out to separate you from your money. Advantage over investing in stocks and bonds: if you choose well, your return on investment can be much higher. That's generally true for any business that you get personally involved in. If you do well, you may well end up retiring a multimillionaire. Drawback: you will be exposed to considerable risk. The investment will be a major chunk of your net worth, and you may have to put all your eggs in none basket. If your business fails, you may lose everything. A third option (but only if you have a real interest in it!): get a commercial driver's license and buy an 18-wheeler truck. I hear that owner-operators can easily make well over $100k, and that's with having to pay off a bank loan. But if you don't love trucker culture, it is likely not worth doing. Overall, you probably get the idea: the principle is to use your funds as seed money to launch something profitable and secure, as well as enjoyable for you.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bac44a8c730685829aae631e9b51a6dc",
"text": "\"Okay. Savings-in-a-nutshell. So, take at least year's worth of rent - $30k or so, maybe more for additional expenses. That's your core emergency fund for when you lose your job or total a few cars or something. Keep it in a good savings account, maybe a CD ladder - but the point is it's liquid, and you can get it when you need it in case of emergency. Replenish it immediately after using it. You may lose a little cash to inflation, but you need liquidity to protect you from risk. It is worth it. The rest is long-term savings, probably for retirement, or possibly for a down payment on a home. A blended set of stocks and bonds is appropriate, with stocks storing most of it. If saving for retirement, you may want to put the stocks in a tax-deferred account (if only for the reduced paperwork! egads, stocks generate so much!). Having some money (especially bonds) in something like a Roth IRA or a non-tax-advantaged account is also useful as a backup emergency fund, because you can withdraw it without penalties. Take the money out of stocks gradually when you are approaching the time when you use the money. If it's closer than five years, don't use stocks; your money should be mostly-bonds when you're about to use it. (And not 30-year bonds or anything like that either. Those are sensitive to interest rates in the short term. You should have bonds that mature approximately the same time you're going to use them. Keep an eye on that if you're using bond funds, which continually roll over.) That's basically how any savings goal should work. Retirement is a little special because it's sort of like 20 years' worth of savings goals (so you don't want all your savings in bonds at the beginning), and because you can get fancy tax-deferred accounts, but otherwise it's about the same thing. College savings? Likewise. There are tools available to help you with this. An asset allocation calculator can be found from a variety of sources, including most investment firms. You can use a target-date fund for something this if you'd like automation. There are also a couple things like, say, \"\"Vanguard LifeStrategy funds\"\" (from Vanguard) which target other savings goals. You may be able to understand the way these sorts of instruments function more easily than you could other investments. You could do a decent job for yourself by just opening up an account at Vanguard, using their online tool, and pouring your money into the stuff they recommend.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "115b453515feb1bf42529cdfab419280",
"text": "I switched from engineering into finance, into an entry level position as an analyst on the investment side. I can tell you about my experience and how I did it. Yes, it is incredibly hard to get a position on the buyside. Investment management doesn't scale well with numbers, adding more analysts typically doesn't improve results (i.e. Buffett and Munger made all the investment decisions at Berkshire Hathaway, the most successful investment team is a two man team running more than a hundred billion dollars of assets). So teams are very small. A large amount of money goes through the hands of very few people, so naturally the pay is very big. The recruiters are not lying when they say there are hundreds of applicants chasing each one of those jobs. I tried asking my friends and family, but being a first generation American, most of the people I know are blue-collar types that work with their hands. I had some success tapping into the alumni network, I got many responses with advice but no interviews. It doesn't help that the finance world is currently shrinking and there are talented people losing their jobs. I had the most success attending my schools career fair. If you graduated from one of the top schools, the firms that are recruiting will still show up. Also, check your schools career office. All the top schools I know of have on-campus interviews. They are generally open to alumni. It is summer right now, but on-campus recruiting season will start in the fall. You should be able to get some interviews through your school. Now the most important thing you need to do is to differentiate yourself. What are you doing right now? Are you working in some other area of finance or a different field altogether? I think the best way to do it (and it is how I did it) is to invest your own money. If you are in an interview and you say you invest your own money, you are pretty much guaranteed that you will be explaining one of your investment theses for the next half hour. This is effectively what you will be doing in the real job if you get it. Firms want to hire someone who can start working, they don't want to pay you that big money only to find that you can't do anything for the next year or two before they cut you. So you have to prove that you can do the job. Interns do it by working for cheap for a summer or two. Someone who graduated already can do it by claiming that they do it on the side, and then backing that up by being able to explaining positions intelligently (you will NOT get the job if it looks anything like /r/investing). There is also something hypocritical if you say that you should be paid boatloads of money because you are capable of managing money well (that is what you are claiming by applying to an investment job) and you don't manage your own money and you haven't formulated any investment theses. Students typically won't be able to do this because they don't have any money to invest, so they get their jobs through the internship route.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "41bf5cbee4234ed07d164d694903290a",
"text": "\"My basic rule I tell everyone who will listen is to always live like you're a college student - if you could make it on $20k a year, when you get your first \"\"real\"\" job at $40k (eg), put all the rest into savings to start (401(k), IRA, etc). Gradually increase your lifestyle expenses after you hit major savings goals (3+ month emergency fund, house down payment, etc). Any time you get a raise, start by socking it all into your employer's 401(k) or similar. And repeat the above advice.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4d7c296e95cd75c05300362e900b9e5b",
"text": "It sounds like you are interested in investing in the stock market but you don't want to take too much risk. Investing in an Index EFT will provide some diversification and can be less risky than investing in individual stocks, however with potentially lower returns. If you want to invest your money, the first thing you should do is learn about managing your risk. You are still young and you should spend your time now to increase your education and knowledge. There are plenty of good books to start with, and you should prepare an investment plan which incorporates a risk management strategy. $1000 is a little low to start investing in the stock market, so whilst you are building your education and preparing your plan, you can continue building up more funds for when you are ready to start investing. Place your funds in an high interest savings account for now, and whilst you are learning you can practice your strategies using virtual accounts. In fact the ASX has a share market game which is held 2 or 3 times per year. The ASX website also has some good learning materials for novices and they hold regular seminars. It is another good source for improving your education in the subject. Remember, first get educated, then plan and practice, and then invest.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "152b637940a0aa25faccd23d12b3fb4e",
"text": "\"Place your savings into safe interest-bearing accounts. Take out the loans. Keep constant track of your net worth. Having 100,000$ and 80,000$ in interest free debt is better than having 20,000$. You can always convert money + debt into less money and less debt, but you cannot always convert less money and less debt into more money and more debt. Now, there are risks; that is why you want an interest-bearing account to place your savings in to offset the debt. This minimizes the risk. It also reduces the return. It is arguable that you should be at your most financially risky at a young age. I'd argue that your future earnings are your by far largest asset at this point, and as a high school student going into college those future earnings have extremely high variability. Your financial situation is extremely unpredictable; being conservative about your high-leverage student-loan + education investments is probably justified. The fact you can manage arbitrage here means you should; and if you are careful, you can eliminate risk and get almost risk-free profit from the maneuver. If your money is in less than perfectly safe accounts, you are now doing leveraged investing and magnifying the risk and return of said investments. If your money must be spent on college or you'll be financially punished, then you may want to consider pulling it out before the last possible legal point just in case something goes wrong. Apparently 529 plans may not treat \"\"paying off student loans\"\" as a valid way to spend the money. You may need to talk to a lawyer or accountant about the legality of using these plans to pay off student loans, and the tax/penalties involved.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2e0e28f088f2ad5624434a638e3881f3",
"text": "Secondly, should we pay off his student loans before investing? The subsidized loans won't be gaining any interest until he graduates so I was wondering if we should just pay off the unsubsidized loans and keep the subsidized ones for the next two years? From a purely financial standpoint, if the interest you gain on your savings is higher than the interest of the debt, then no. Otherwise, yes. If we were to keep 5,000 in savings and pay of the 3,000 of unsubsidized loans as I described above, that would leave us with about 15,000 dollars that is just lying around in my savings account. How should I invest this? Would you recommend high risk or low risk investments? I'm not from the US so take my answer with caution, but to me $15,000 seems a minimum safety net. Then again, it depends very much on any external help you can get in case of an emergency.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fedc731ab6ca2dc898e6b0f3972279a9",
"text": "\"Put it in a Vanguard fund with 80% VTI and 20% VXUS. That's what you'll let set for 10-15 years. For somebody that is totally new to investing, use \"\"play money\"\" in the stock market. It's easy for young people to get dreams of glory and blow it all on some stock tip they've seen on Twitter.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5f6a9c142bc341ae805ef7da8e9e3b71",
"text": "There are several assumptions you made, that don't match the current laws: Costs: COBRA:",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
3bf730c0b95c4f6e32e6fb72aea6d3f8
|
Retirement Savings vs. Student Loan payments
|
[
{
"docid": "d549935b0d5e2906febccf145bed1559",
"text": "You can play with the numbers all you like (and that's good), however, here is a different way to look at it. The debt you have is risk. It limits your choices and eats your cash flow. Without the debt, you can invest at a much greater rate. It frees up you cash flow for all the things you might want to do, or decide in the future you might want to do. Right now is the easiest time for you to focus on debt repayment. It sounds like you are not married and have no children. It is much easier now to cut back your lifestyle and concentrate on paying off this $50k of student debt. This will get harder as your responsibility increases. Build up a small amount of cash for emergencies and put the rest at the debt. You can keep contributing to your 401k to the match if you want. This will give you 2 benefits: Patience. When you actually DO start investing, you will have a new appreciation for the money you are using. If you sacrifice to pay off $50k now, you wont look at money the same for the rest of your life. Drive. If you see the debt as a barrier to achieving your goals, you will work harder to get out of debt. These are all things I would tell my 23 year-old self if i could go back in time. Good luck!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8133d6a9ecbe9ede5f95a4d892211277",
"text": "Your plan sounds quite sound to me. I think that between the choices of [$800 for Loans, $300 for Retirement] and [$1100 for loans], both are good choices and you aren't going to go wrong either way. Some of the factors you might want to consider: I like your retirement savings choices - I myself use the admiral version of VOO, plus a slightly specialized but still large ETF that allows me to do a bit of shifting. Having something that's at least a bit counter-market can be helpful for balancing (so something that will be going up some when the market overall is down some); I wouldn't necessarily do bonds at your age, but international markets are good for that, or a stock ETF that's more stable than the overall market. If you're using Vanguard, look at the minimums for buying Admiral shares (usually a few grand) and aim to get those if possible, as they have significantly lower fees - though VOO seems to pretty much tie the admiral version (VFIAX) so in that case it may not matter so much. As far as the target retirement funds, you can certainly do those, but I prefer not to; they have somewhat higher (though for Vanguard not crazy high) expense ratios. Realistically you can do the same yourself quite easily.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "4b9b57c631289fcd2c862379e592700e",
"text": "Basically you have 4 options: Use your cash to pay off the student loans. Put your cash in an interest-bearing savings account. Invest your cash, for example in the stock market. Spend your cash on fun stuff you want right now. The more you can avoid #4 the better it will be for you in the long term. But you're apparently wise enough that that wasn't included as an option in your question. To decide between 1, 2, and 3, the key questions are: What interest are you paying on the loan versus what return could you get on savings or investment? How much risk are you willing to take? How much cash do you need to keep on hand for unexpected expenses? What are the tax implications? Basically, if you are paying 2% interest on a loan, and you can get 3% interest on a savings account, then it makes sense to put the cash in a savings account rather than pay off the loan. You'll make more on the interest from the savings account than you'll pay on interest on the loan. If the best return you can get on a savings account is less than 2%, then you are better off to pay off the loan. However, you probably want to keep some cash reserve in case your car breaks down or you have a sudden large medical bill, etc. How much cash you keep depends on your lifestyle and how much risk you are comfortable with. I don't know what country you live in. At least here in the U.S., a savings account is extremely safe: even the bank goes bankrupt your money should be insured. You can probably get a much better return on your money by investing in the stock market, but then your returns are not guaranteed. You may even lose money. Personally I don't have a savings account. I put all my savings into fairly safe stocks, because savings accounts around here tend to pay about 1%, which is hardly worth even bothering. You also should consider tax implications. If you're a new grad maybe your income is low enough that your tax rates are low and this is a minor factor. But if you are in, say, a 25% marginal tax bracket, then the effective interest rate on the student loan would be more like 1.5%. That is, if you pay $20 in interest, the government will then take 25% of that off your taxes, so it's the equivalent of paying $15 in interest. Similarly a place to put your money that gives non-taxable interest -- like municipal bonds -- gives a better real rate of return than something with the same nominal rate but where the interest is taxable.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9582508ff18f868305f5e696269c7552",
"text": "\"Assuming the numbers work out roughly the same (and you can frankly whip up a spreadsheet to prove that out), a defined benefit scheme that pays out an amount equal to an annuitized return from a 401(k) is better. The reason is not monetary - it is that the same return is being had at less risk. Put another way, if your defined benefit was guaranteed to be $100/month, and your 401(k) had a contribution that eventually gets to a lump sum that, if annuitized for the same life expectancy gave you $100/month, the DB is better because there is less chance that you won't see the money. Or, put even simpler, which is more likely? That New York goes Bankrupt and is relieved of all pension obligations, or, the stock market underperforms expectations. Neither can be ruled out, but assuming even the same benefit, lower risk is better. Now, the complication in your scenario is that your new job pays better. As such, it is possible that you might be able to accumulate more savings in your 401(k) than you might in the DB scheme. Then again, even with the opportunity to do so, there is no guarantee that you will. As such, even modelling it out really isn't going to dismiss the key variables. As such, can I suggest a different approach? Which job is going to make you happier now? Part of that may be money, part of that may be what you are actually doing. But you should focus on that question. The marginal consideration of retirement is really moot - in theory, an IRA contribution can be made that would equalize your 401(k), negating it from the equation. Grant you, there is very slightly different tax treatment, and the phaseout limits differ, but at the salary ranges you are looking at, you could, in theory, make decisions that would have the same retirement outcome in any event. The real question is then not, \"\"What is the effect in 20 years?\"\" but rather, which makes you happier now?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e46084d5a6e96f26658a4f9534720a48",
"text": "You mention only two debts, mortgage and student loan, but you mention $19K in savings, which suggests that you are a saver, and likely do not have other debts. You did not mention your (net) income and expenses (income statement), but since you have substantial savings, you likely live within your means (income > expenses). Since you mention $38K in retirement, we might conclude you are regularly saving for retirement (are you saving 10% toward retirement)? You did not mention any medical condition or other debts, that might require a large savings, so I would suggest having 6 months savings ($2.5K x 6 = $15K) but should your net expenses be less, you might reduce this ($2K x 6 = $12K). You do not mention any investment you might want to make, but since you did not mention any candidate investments, we can assume you have no (specific) investments you find particularly attractive. You did not mention anything you were saving to purchase that you might want to purchase. You have combined $19K + $50K = $69K savings, and $15K would be a comfortable emergency savings, leaving $54K you could use to reduce mortgage or student loan debt. The mortgage debt interest @4.5%, is higher, so paying that debt off would be like earning 4.5% guaranteed return on your money, tax-free. At your income, your marginal tax rate is low enough that the mortgage interest deduction (if you do itemize) would not reduce this return much (15% if you itemize). The student loan debt interest @2.8%, would be like earning 2.8% guaranteed return on your money, tax-free. Clearly the higher return on your 'investment' in paying off debt would be reducing your mortgage balance (over 50% higher return on investment, compared to the student loan debt). You did not mention any circumstance that might cause the student loan rate to increase, the mortgage rate to increase, nor did you mention any difficulty making both the mortgage and student loan payments, the amounts of either payment, nor the number of years remaining to pay on either. Should you need (or desire) to reduce your payments, you could choose to payoff the student loan to eliminate one payment, and thus decrease your expenses. Or you could choose to pay down the mortgage, and refinance (or refactor) the mortgage to obtain a smaller payment. Another strategy (assuming you have had your house for 5-7 years), might be to pay the mortgage down enough to refinance into a 15 year loan, and (assuming you have a good credit score) obtain a lower (3%) rate. But I am going to suggest you consider a blended approach. Combine the Dave Ramsey Debt Snowball approach with the reduce the interest rate approach. Take the $54K ($57K?) available (after reserving 6 months emergency fund), and split between both. You pay your mortgage down by $27K and your student loan debt down by $27K. Your blended return on investment is (2.8+4.5)/2 = 3.65%, and you have the following Balance Sheet: Assets: Debts: The next steps would be to, There are two great reasons for paying off the student loan debt. One is the Dave Ramsey Debt Snowball approach which is that this is the smaller debt, and thus represents a psychological win, and the other is that student loan debt has special treatment even in bankruptcy.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f0662076b1674fa6b76dfec12a25d62e",
"text": "\"Which option will save you the most money in the long run? That is tough. Assuming you stay healthy, don't lose your job, don't experience a pay cut or any major emergency that drains your savings, then applying the $6000 to the higher interest loan will save you more money in the long run. However, the difference in savings is a few hundred dollars. Not much really. So, in this case, I'd put the $6k towards the smaller loan. Why? Because then you'd pay it off faster. Once that's done, you open up your cash flow by the minimum monthly payment you would have had on that loan. Assuming they both have the same or similar number of months left, by paying the smaller loan off sooner, you'd open up $X month, where $X is your minimum monthly payment. This could be useful to you if you want to take on some other debt (like buying a house) because it lowers your debt to income ratio. If you put that money towards the higher loan, your DTI won't change until the normal time you would have paid off the smaller loan. Even if you are not looking to purchase anything that requires you to have a lower DTI, paying the smaller loan off sooner increases your cash flow sooner (because your monthly payment on the higher loan doesn't change just because you lowered the balance by $6k). So you'd be more robust to emergencies if your current income doesn't allow for much savings. A major emergency could wipe out all savings from paying down the bigger balance. So, I'd suggest: Edit: TripeHound asked a question, pretty much requesting more details for why I was biased towards paying off the smaller loan first. What follows is my response, with a bit of reorganization: Typically, people asking these questions don't have so much wealth that \"\"which loan to pay first?\"\" is an academic question. They need to make smart financial decisions. While paying the highest interest loan saves the most money in interest - that only occurs under the assumption that nothing bad will ever happen to you until the loans are paid off. In reality, other things happen. Tires blow out, children get sick, you get laid off and so the \"\"best\"\" thing to do is the one that maximizes your long term financial health, even if it comes at the expense of a few $k more interest. Each loan has a minimum monthly payment. Let's assume, barring any windfalls of additional cash, you will just make the minimum payments each month towards a loan. If you pay off the smaller loan first, that increases your available monthly cash flow. At that point, you can put extra towards the other loan. However, if an emergency should come up, or you need to save for a vacation, you can do that, without negatively impacting the second loan, because you'd just drop back to its minimum payment. Putting the money towards the higher balance loan would mean it takes you longer to reach this point as the time to reach payoff on the first loan will not change ($6k only reduces the $25.6k loan to $19.6k) so you never gain the flexibility of additional cash flow until the time you would have paid off the $13.5k originally. I'd rather have a few hundred dollars each month that I can choose to use to make additional loan payments, eat out, pay for car repairs, pay for emergencies than be forced to dip into credit or worse, pay day loans, should an emergency happen.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ac229dd060b9828d15a3f414b30a5cff",
"text": "\"If I had to guess (since you provided little information about your loan repayment), I'd guess that you're on the \"\"Extended\"\" repayment plan for your $72k loan, and the \"\"Standard\"\" plan for your $30k loan. In general, there are 4 main kinds of student loan repayment plans This holds true for federal loans (Direct/Stafford/PLUS). Private loans may not have all of these options, or they may have more. Running your numbers, I get 300 payments of $500/mo at 6.8% interest for a $72,000 loan, and 120 payments of $345/mo at 6.8% interest for a $30,000 loan. Now, to address your issue of interest vs principal, you should notice that each month you pay, the interest payment is slightly lower, and the principal slightly higher. And if you make bi-weekly payments, you'll see that change a LITTLE bit more quickly (slightly smaller balance accruing interest for 14 days of the month) and you'll also pay slightly less over time.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "140add684e81369c5d46fa6354930056",
"text": "Do you think your 403b will earn more than the mortgage interest rate? If so, then mortgage seems the way to go. Conservative investment strategies might not earn much more than a 3-4% mortgage, and if you're paying 5-6% it's more likely you'll be earning less than the mortgage. From another point of view, though, I would probably take a loan anyway just from a security standpoint - you have more risk if you put a third of your retirement savings into one purchase directly, whereas if you do a 10-15 year loan, you'll have more of a cushion. Also, if you don't outlive the mortgage, you'll have had use of more of your retirement income than otherwise - though I do wonder if it puts you at some risk if you have significant medical bills (which might require you to liquidate your 403b but wouldn't require you to sell your house, so paying it off has some upside). Also, as @chili555 notes in comments, you should consider the taxation of your 403(b) income. If you pull it out in one lump sum, some of it may be taxed at a higher rate than if you pulled it out more slowly over time, which will easily overwhelm any interest rate differences. This assumes it's not a Roth 403(b) account; if it is Roth then it doesn't matter.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e4ad5de991424ab48e01a72ac5cbd3ac",
"text": "\"I'll assume you live in the US for the start of my answer - Do you maximize your retirement savings at work, at least getting your employer's match in full, if they do this. Do you have any other debt that's at a higher rate? Is your emergency account funded to your satisfaction? If you lost your job and tenant on the same day, how long before you were in trouble? The \"\"pay early\"\" question seems to hit an emotional nerve with most people. While I start with the above and then segue to \"\"would you be happy with a long term 5% return?\"\" there's one major point not to miss - money paid to either mortgage isn't liquid. The idea of owing out no money at all is great, but paying anything less than \"\"paid in full\"\" leaves you still owing that monthly payment. You can send $400K against your $500K mortgage, and still owe $3K per month until paid. And if you lose your job, you may not so easily refinance the remaining $100K to a lower payment so easily. If your goal is to continue with real estate, you don't prepay, you save cash for the next deal. Don't know if that was your intent at some point. Disclosure - my situation - Maxing out retirement accounts was my priority, then saving for college. Over the years, I had multiple refinances, each of which was a no-cost deal. The first refi saved with a lower rate. The second, was in early 2000s when back interest was so low I took a chunk of cash, paid principal down and went to a 20yr from the original 30. The kid starts college, and we target retirement in 6 years. I am paying the mortgage (now 2 years into a 10yr) to be done the month before the kid flies out. If I were younger, I'd be at the start of a new 30 yr at the recent 4.5% bottom. I think that a cost of near 3% after tax, and inflation soon to near/exceed 3% makes borrowing free, and I can invest conservatively in stocks that will have a dividend yield above this. Jane and I discussed the plan, and agree to retire mortgage free.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "64bf683b2cb764773bfa0664236dc782",
"text": "Others have suggested paying off the student loan, mostly for the satisfaction of one less payment, but I suggest you do the math on how much interest you would save by paying early on each of the loans: When you do the calculations I think you'll see why paying toward the debt with the highest interest rate is almost always the best advice. Whether you can refinance the mortgage to a lower rate is a separate question, but the above calculation would still apply, just with different amortization schedules.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bd2c760fd2623b74d1039a4c8cc7b271",
"text": "One other factor to consider is that Mortgage debt can be wiped out in a bankruptcy, but student loan debt can not. Financially it is simple math to figure out which one makes more sense to pay off based on the total expenditures on interest minus tax savings from deductible mortgage interest. However, in terms of risk it might be best to pay off the student loans first.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8033624fc2318ca5fab4a1acb6610b6f",
"text": "It's pretty simple. The 10% is any savings for retirement. Preferably, it's in a retirement account, but that's not mandatory. It's great that you save for a vacation, computer, house deposit,etc, but that's not what these articles are referencing. Edit (in response to the running comments on @BrenBarn's answer) The mortgage issue is worth further discussion. I'm saving toward a home purchase, it may be $50K saved. But that's not money for retirement, the house savings never is. I get the $200K mortgage, my balance sheet is net neutral (less fees, closing costs, of course) but my retirement savings again is unchanged. I put $10K toward principal, the balance sheet again is $10K better, but retirement account, unchanged. Last, I pay off the mortgage. Retirement account unchanged. But, my retirement budget requirement is $1000/mo less (The mortgage payment), and my 'number' drops by $300K or so. (This is based on the 4% rule. To withdraw $1000/mo requires $300K in retirement assets.) It may seem pedantic, but there's an important distinction to be made here. It's easy to distinguish retirement savings from all other wise financial transactions. Paying debt off is wise but not retirement savings. Any actions that reduce your ongoing expenses? Clearly, wise. And it reduces the number needed to cover your retirement budget, but it's distinct from 'retirement savings.' For those that enjoy the intellectual exercise of insisting there's always a grey area, I'll give it to you. The family with 3 kids, in the $1.2M 5 bedroom house. The parents know they will move into their paid off summer house upon retiring, and sell this family house. In his wisdom, hubby has planned for the mortgage to be paid in full well ahead of retirement, and for purposes of planning, only view the house as worth $900K. The house does have a relationship to the retirement savings. But the action of planning for Alice's retirement (the maid they will no longer need once they move) is not savings, but rather, an adjustment down in their retirement budget. I think you'll find most conflicts regarding this issue resolved by understanding this distinction.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7e7ceeaf5fcf46a657a8e4ae1a79cb77",
"text": "\"One can generalize on Traditional vs Roth flavors of accounts, I suggest Roth for 15% money and going pretax to avoid 25% tax. If the student loan is much over 4%, it may make sense to put it right after emergency fund. For emergency fund priority - I'm assuming EF really requires 2 phases, the $2500 broken transmission/root canal bill, and the lose your job, or need a new roof level bills. I'm in favor of doing what let's you sleep well. I'm also quick to point out that if you owe $2500 at 18%, yet have $2500 in your emergency fund, you're really throwing away $450 in interest each year. There's an ongoing debate of \"\"credit card as emergency fund.\"\" No, I don't claim that your cards should be considered an emergency fund, per se, but I would prioritize knocking off the 18% debt as a high priority. Once that crazy interest debt is gone, fund the ER, and find a balance for savings and the next level ER, the 6-9mo of expenses one. One can choose to fund a Roth IRA, but keep the asset out of retirement calculations. It's simply an emergency account returning tax free interest, and if never used, it eventually is retirement money. A Roth permits withdrawal of deposited funds with no tax or penalty, just tracking it each year. This actually rubs some people the wrong way as it sounds like tapping your retirement account for emergencies. For my purpose, it's a tax free emergency fund. Not retirement, unless and until you are saving so much in the 401(k) you need more tax favored retirement money. I wrote an article some time ago, the Roth Emergency Fund which went into a bit more detail. Last - keep in mind, this is my opinion. I can intelligently argue my case, but at some point, it's up to the individual to do what feels right. Paying 18% debt off a bit slower, say 4 years instead of 3, in favor of funding the matched 401(k), to me, you run the numbers, watch the 401(k) balance grow by 2X your pretax deposits, and see that in year 3, your retirement account is jump-started and far, far more than your remaining 18% cards. Those who feel the opposite and wish to be debt free first are going to do what they want. And the truth is, if this lets you sleep better at night, I'm in favor of it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0b9b09480180e3d1bd2933988607e7ea",
"text": "I think the discrepancy you are seeing is in the detail of what happens once you pay off your student loan. If you take your monthly payment for your student loan, and apply that to your mortgage once the student loan is payed off, paying the highest interest loan will cone out ahead. If, on the other hand, you take your student loan payment and do something else with it (not pay down your mortgage), you would be better off paying on your mortgage. Say you have $1000 to put towards either loan, and there is 5 years to pay on the student loan, and 25 years to pay on the mortgage. By paying on the student loan you are, roughly, saving 5 years of 5% interest on that $1000. By paying on the mortgage, you are saving 25 years of 3% interest.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b57b3a32bfd52fec3ec9ac55da0dc76a",
"text": "Kudos to you on having money in a retirement account as early as after college. Many people don't start investing towards retirement until far to late and compound interest makes a major difference in those early years. Ideally, neither withdraw nor borrow from these accounts. Withdrawing from your 403b will incur a 10% penalty unless you are over the minimum age on top of the normal tax on that income. With a 401K loan you're putting yourself at risk if you run into a situation where you can't pay the loan back of incurring the same penalties as an early withdrawal. This article covers the concerns well. In general, you want to view your retirement money as untouchable until the distributions need to start coming in retirement. It's your future in there. Of course, this doesn't help the short term cash need. Do you have money in an emergency fund somewhere? Could a relative loan you money? Can you move to a less expensive place in advance and squirrel away some of what would have been your rent cash? Can you cut back to bare necessities and do the same? Do you have some nice stuff sitting around that you could sell to make up that needed cash? Will your current employer pay out unused vacation or are you getting any severance from this situation? Will you qualify for unemployment? I other words, think about what you would do to get the money if your retirement accounts weren't there. Then do that - as long as it's legal and doesn't involve running up debt on high interest lines of credit - instead of borrowing against your future.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7d6960968bae59a344da844853fb3054",
"text": "These are plans similar to 401k plans. 457(b) plans available for certain government and non-profit organizations, 403(b) available for certain educational, hospital, religious and non-profit organizations. Your school apparently fits into both classes, so it has both. These plans don't have to allow ROTH contributions, but they may, so you have to check if there's an option. The main (but not only) difference from IRA is the limit: for 401(k), 403(b) and 457(b) plans the contribution limit is $17500, while for IRA its $5500 (for 2013). Additional benefit of 457(b) plan is that there's no 10% penalty on early withdrawal, just taxes (at ordinal rates).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b80c6e6280015f1dd52b1e5f806bf886",
"text": "Here's what I'd do. Show these figures to your bank, and ask if they can offer you some type of account with a small overdraft, say up to $2000. Typically this won't pay the same kind of interest as your savings account, but it doesn't matter. If such an account is available, then yes, dump most of your savings into the student loan, and keep a few hundred in your new account. The overdraft on this account is your emergency fund. This means that in the more likely scenario (no emergencies) you're saving yourself 6% interest on something like $4000 to $4500. In the case of an emergency, you're still covered; but you'll be paying a larger amount of interest. Let's say you have an emergency cost and need to dip into the overdraft for $1000. If the interest is 15%, then you've cost yourself an extra 9% on that $1000 over leaving that debt in the student loan. This seems to me like a really good gamble - more likely to gain 6% of $4000, less likely to lose 9% of $1000. If your bank won't give you a low-interest account with a small overdraft, then use your credit card as your emergency fund. The same kind of logic applies; but since credit card interest rates are typically higher than overdraft interest rates, you'll want to keep slightly more in your savings account. About $1200 to $1500 feels right to me; and move the remaining $3500 to $3800 to your student loan. So yes, pay off the student loan. That 6% interest really is worth having, even if you'd be taking a small gamble. Edit - Alexander Kosubek has suggested that I should compare this to matched retirement plans. The 100% gain in a matched retirement plan isn't 100% per annum; it's 100% divided across the length of time you have to wait until you can get your hands on that money. Suppose the money is accessible when you turn 60 - a matched plan is a good deal if you're in your 50's, but not so good if you're in your 20's. The 100% matching is equivalent to 6% interest per annum compounded over slightly under 12 years. So if you're less than 12 years away from retiring, go for the matched plan. Otherwise, pay off your student loan first.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
ddfb5d9227eb0bbd9095d123103c539a
|
Employer reported ESPP ordinary income on wrong year's W-2
|
[
{
"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": "9dab4f4eba07fe5cdd610a1ed0521d85",
"text": "You mentioned that the 1099B that reports this sale is for 2014, which means that you got the proceeds in 2014. What I suspect happened was that the employer reported this on the next available paycheck, thus reporting it in the 2015 period. If this ends up being a significant difference for you, I'd argue the employer needs to correct both W2s, since you've actually received the money in 2014. However, if the difference for you is not substantial I'd leave it as is and remember that the employer will not know of your ESPP sales until at least several days later when the report from the broker arrives. If you sell on 12/31, you make it very difficult for the employer to account correctly since the report from the broker arrives in the next year.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "77d21de280c5002caced348149bc390e",
"text": "\"QUICK ANSWER What @Mike Haskel wrote is generally correct that the indirect method for cash flow statement reporting, which most US companies use, can sometimes produce different results that don't clearly reconcile with balance sheet shifts. With regards to accounts receivables, this is especially so when there is a major increase or decrease in the company's allowances for doubtful accounts. In this case, there is more to the company's balance sheet and cash flow statements differences per its accounts receivables than its allowances for doubtful accounts seems responsible for. As explained below, the difference, $1.25bn, is likely owing more to currency shifts and how they are accounted for than to other factors. = = = = = = = = = = DIRTY DETAILS Microsoft Corp. generally sells to high-quality / high-credit buyers; mostly PC, server and other devices manufacturers and licensees. It hence made doubtful accounts provisions of $16mn for its $86,833mn (0.018%) of 2014 sales and wrote off $51mn of its carrying balance during the year. Its accounting for \"\"Other comprehensive income\"\" captures the primary differences of many accounts; specifically in this case, the \"\"foreign currency translation\"\" figure that comprises many balance sheet accounts and net out against shareholders' equity (i.e. those assets and liabilities bypass the income statement). The footnotes include this explanation: Assets and liabilities recorded in foreign currencies are translated at the exchange rate on the balance sheet date. Revenue and expenses are translated at average rates of exchange prevailing during the year. Translation adjustments resulting from this process are recorded to other comprehensive income (“OCI”) What all this means is that those two balance sheet figures are computed by translating all the accounts with foreign currency balances (in this case, accounts receivables) into the reporting currency, US dollars (USD), at the date of the balance sheets, June 30 of the years 2013 and 2014. The change in accounts receivables cash flow figure is computed by first determining the average exchange rates for all the currencies it uses to conduct business and applying them respectively to the changes in each non-USD accounts receivables during the periods. For this reason, almost all multinational companies that report using indirect cash flow statements will have discrepancies between the changes in their reported working capital changes during a period and the dates of their balance sheet and it's usually because of currency shifts during the period.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "559e3242a47e027a1305f24643f9a308",
"text": "No, unvested money returns to the employer, its not yours. They should send you W2 which will only show the actual (vested) monies you got.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "edb005ea7461d6a53124407aca06bab5",
"text": "After reading OP Mark's question and the various answers carefully and also looking over some old pay stubs of mine, I am beginning to wonder if he is mis-reading his pay stub or slip of paper attached to the reimbursement check for the item(s) he purchases. Pay stubs (whether paper documents attached to checks or things received in one's company mailbox or available for downloading from a company web site while the money is deposited electronically into the employee's checking account) vary from company to company, but a reasonably well-designed stub would likely have categories such as Taxable gross income for the pay period: This is the amount from which payroll taxes (Federal and State income tax, Social Security and Medicare tax) are deducted as well as other post-tax deductions such as money going to purchase of US Savings Bonds, contributions to United Way via payroll deduction, contribution to Roth 401k etc. Employer-paid group life insurance premiums are taxable income too for any portion of the policy that exceeds $50K. In some cases, these appear as a lump sum on the last pay stub for the year. Nontaxable gross income for the pay period: This would be sum total of the amounts contributed to nonRoth 401k plans, employee's share of group health-care insurance premiums for employee and/or employee's family, money deposited into FSA accounts, etc. Net pay: This is the amount of the attached check or money sent via ACH to the employee's bank account. Year-to-date amounts: These just tell the employee what has been earned/paid/withheld to date in the various categories. Now, OP Mark said My company does not tax the reimbursement but they do add it to my running gross earnings total for the year. So, the question is whether the amount of the reimbursement is included in the Year-to-date amount of Taxable Income. If YTD Taxable Income does not include the reimbursement amount, then the the OP's question and the answers and comments are moot; unless the company has really-messed-up (Pat. Pending) payroll software that does weird things, the amount on the W2 form will be whatever is shown as YTD Taxable Income on the last pay stub of the year, and, as @DJClayworth noted cogently, it is what will appear on the W2 form that really matters. In summary, it is good that OP Mark is taking the time to investigate the matter of the reimbursements appearing in Total Gross Income, but if the amounts are not appearing in the YTD Taxable Income, his Payroll Office may just reassure him that they have good software and that what the YTD Taxable Income says on the last pay stub is what will be appearing on his W2 form. I am fairly confident that this is what will be the resolution of the matter because if the amount of the reimbursement was included in Taxable Income during that pay period and no tax was withheld, then the employer has a problem with Social Security and Medicare tax underwithholding, and nonpayment of this tax plus the employer's share to the US Treasury in timely fashion. The IRS takes an extremely dim view of such shenanigans and most employers are unlikely to take the risk.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ee7d29d8d03cac74c46e680675b027e5",
"text": "These unclaimed wages were presumably yours for the taking in Year X when employer paid your other wages. Maybe this is just about uncashed paychecks. In that case, they would have appeared on your W-2 for that year. If you filed your return including that W-2 income, then this is likely not new income. This would be a constructive receipt evaluation. Income occurs when you have the right to income, whether or not you have actual receipt of it. For example, if you are paid via cash drops into a piggy bank but you wait a week (for the start of a new tax period) to withdraw your cash from the piggy bank, then the money was constructively received on the day it went into the piggy bank. This prevents taxpayers from structuring their actual receipt of income, for tax purposes or otherwise, in ways at odds with their true economic position. You can't delay taxable income that is legally yours simply by refusing to accept it when you have the right to it. The wages were income at the time your employer proffered the paycheck. You did not cash it, but I suspect that you filed it on that year's taxes. There's a slight wrinkle that when the check went stale your ability to access the money was not so straightforward. However, you still had the legal right to the money, so my perspective is that the analysis did not change when the check went stale.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "91ffa5ed8478fc188d5928f275b34075",
"text": "What happened is that they do not track (and report) your original cost basis for 1099-B purposes. That is because it is an RSU. Instead, they just reported gross proceeds ($5200) and $0 for everything else. On your Schedule D you adjust the basis to the correct one, and as a comment you add that it was reported on W2 of the previous year. You then report the correct $1200 gain. You keep the documentation you have to back this up in case of questions (which shouldn't happen, since it will match what was indeed reported on your W2).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a3b95031eb506b30bf9d5cc055cbaba9",
"text": "You should consult a US CPA to ensure your situation is handled correctly. It appears, the money is Israel source income and not US source income regardless if you receive it while living in the U.S. If you file the correct form, I suspect the form is 1040NR and your state form to disclose your income, if any, in 2015 and 2016, it should not be a problem. Having said that, if you do earn any type of income while in the U.S. , you are required to disclose it to both the IRS and state.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "abd138c01e6d5a971c99c8f92350dfec",
"text": "\"That's a tricky question and you should consult a tax professional that specializes on taxation of non-resident aliens and foreign expats. You should also consider the provisions of the tax treaty, if your country has one with the US. I would suggest you not to seek a \"\"free advice\"\" on internet forums, as the costs of making a mistake may be hefty. Generally, sales of stocks is not considered trade or business effectively connected to the US if that's your only activity. However, being this ESPP stock may make it connected to providing personal services, which makes it effectively connected. I'm assuming that since you're filing 1040NR, taxes were withheld by the broker, which means the broker considered this effectively connected income.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "60133db85fa32dcba648d638d9e7cc85",
"text": "Your withholding is taken out of your pay. So if you do YTD+withholding - you count the withholding twice, that's why it doesn't add up for you. The simple answer is to check your written contract/offer letter. See if it matches what you see, or what you expected to see. If the offer/contract states $36K - check with the payroll person at work why the discrepancy. If you don't have any written proof of the agreed amounts (don't know if it is legal, check local laws on the requirements of documenting employment terms), then it is up to you and your employer to sort it out. However, keep in mind: if you don't have any written proof and the employer is unwilling to adjust - one (judge?) would wonder: you've been getting paychecks monthly, which clearly state that your annual salary is $35K. Why did you wait so long to sort this out?",
"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": "4867627f8a0ac6019c5a4cb6e87e0422",
"text": "Unfortunately, the tax system in the U.S. is probably more complicated than it looks to you right now. First, you need to understand that there will be taxes withheld from your paycheck, but the amount that they withhold is simply a guess. You might pay too much or too little tax during the year. After the year is over, you'll send in a tax return form that calculates the correct tax amount. If you have paid too little over the year, you'll have to send in the rest, but if you've paid too much, you'll get a refund. There are complicated formulas on how much tax the employer withholds from your paycheck, but in general, if you don't have extra income elsewhere that you need to pay tax on, you'll probably be close to breaking even at tax time. When you get your paycheck, the first thing that will be taken off is FICA, also called Social Security, Medicare, or the Payroll tax. This is a fixed 7.65% that is taken off the gross salary. It is not refundable and is not affected by any allowances or deductions, and does not come in to play at all on your tax return form. There are optional employee benefits that you might need to pay a portion of if you are going to take advantage of them, such as health insurance or retirement savings. Some of these deductions are paid with before-tax money, and some are paid with after tax money. The employer will calculate how much money they are supposed to withhold for federal and state taxes (yes, California has an income tax), and the rest is yours. At tax time, the employer will give you a form W-2, which shows you the amount of your gross income after all the before-tax deductions are taken out (which is what you use to calculate your tax). The form also shows you how much tax you have paid during the year. Form 1040 is the tax return that you use to calculate your correct tax for the year. You start with the gross income amount from the W-2, and the first thing you do is add in any income that you didn't get a W-2 for (such as interest or investment income) and subtract any deductions that you might have that are not taxable, but were not paid through your paycheck (such as moving expenses, student loan interest, tuition, etc.) The result is called your adjusted gross income. Next, you take off the deductions not covered in the above section (property tax, home mortgage interest, charitable giving, etc.). You can either take the standard deduction ($6,300 if you are single), or if you have more deductions in this category than that, you can itemize your deductions and declare the correct amount. After that, you subtract more for exemptions. You can claim yourself as an exemption unless you are considered a dependent of someone else and they are claiming you as a dependent. If you claim yourself, you take off another $4,000 from your income. What you are left with is your taxable income for the year. This is the amount you would use to calculate your tax based on the bracket table you found. California has an income tax, and just like the federal tax, some state taxes will be deducted from your paycheck, and you'll need to fill out a state tax return form after the year is over to calculate the correct state tax and either request a refund or pay the remainder of the tax. I don't have any experience with the California income tax, but there are details on the rates on this page from the State of California.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2d36d0c9bf5b74b3b2aba95a3a46d601",
"text": "There are still ways that the default values on the W4 can lead you to get a refund or owe the IRS. If there was a big delta in your paychecks, it can lead to problems. If you make 260,000 and get 26 paychecks that means each check had a gross of 10,000. Your company will withhold the same amount from each check. But If you earned a big bonus then the smaller regular paychecks may not have been withholding enough. When bonus checks are involved the payroll office has to treat them as irregular pay to be able to make it work out. Some companies don't do this, so you may under or over pay during the year. If you changed companies during the year, this can lead to under or over payment. The lower paying company would not know about the higher rate of pay at the other company. so at one you would under pay, and the other you would over pay. There are also social security issues with more than one employer.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b107f0cef24f9d51830447421b8b2582",
"text": "This answer fills in some of the details you are unsure about, since I'm further along than you. I bought the ESPP shares in 2012. I didn't sell immediately, but in 2015, so I qualify for the long-term capital gains rate. Here's how it was reported: The 15% discount was reported on a W2 as it was also mentioned twice in the info box (not all of my W2's come with one of these) but also This showed the sale trade, with my cost basis as the discounted price of $5000. And for interests sake, I also got the following in 2012: WARNING! This means that just going ahead and entering the numbers means you will be taxed twice! once as income and once as capital gains. I only noticed this was happening because I no longer worked for the company, so this W2 only had this one item on it. This is another example of the US tax system baffling me with its blend of obsessive compulsive need for documentation coupled with inexplicably missing information that's critical to sensible accounting. The 1099 documents must (says the IRS since 2015) show the basis value as the award price (your discounted price). So reading the form 8949: Note: If you checked Box D above but the basis reported to the IRS was incorrect, enter in column (e) the basis as reported to the IRS, and enter an adjustment in column (g) to correct the basis. We discover the number is incorrect and must adjust. The actual value you need to adjust it by may be reported on your 1099, but also may not (I have examples of both). I calculated the required adjustment by looking at the W2, as detailed above. I gleaned this information from the following documents provided by my stock management company (you should the tax resources section of your provider):",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e14cb4c06d785d9ab927ff0914196dcc",
"text": "This is wrong. It should be or Now, to get back to self-employment tax. Self-employment tax is weird. It's a business tax. From the IRS perspective, any self-employed person is a business. So, take your income X and divide by 1.0765 (6.2% Social Security and 1.45% Medicare). This gives your personal income. Now, to calculate the tax that you have to pay, multiply that by .153 (since you have to pay both the worker and employer shares of the tax). So new calculation or they actually let you do which is better for you (smaller). And your other calculations change apace. And like I said, you can simplify Q1se to and your payment would be Now, to get to the second quarter. Like I said, I'd calculate the income through the second quarter. So recalculate A based on your new numbers and use that to calculate Q2i. or Note that this includes income from both the first and second quarters. We'll reduce to just the second quarter later. This also has you paying for all of June even though you may not have been paid when you make the withholding payment. That's what they want you to do. But we aren't done yet. Your actual payment should be or Because Q2ft and Q2se are what you owe for the year so far. Q1ft + Q1se is what you've already paid. So you subtract those from what you need to pay in the second quarter. In future quarters, this would be All that said, don't stress about it. As a practical matter, so long as you don't owe $1000 or more when you file your actual tax return, they aren't going to care. So just make sure that your total payments match by the payment you make January 15th. I'm not going to try to calculate for the state. For one thing, I don't know if your state uses Q1i or Q1pi as its base. Different states may have different rules on that. If you can't figure it out, just use Q1i, as that's the bigger one. Fix it when you file your annual return. The difference in withholding is going to be relatively small anyway, less than 1% of your income.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "97330482e6e670d33a0ce5701967eabd",
"text": "\"How/when does my employer find out? Do they get a report from their bank stating that \"\"check 1234 for $1212.12 paid to John Doe was never deposited\"\" or does it manifest itself as an eventual accounting discrepancy that somebody has to work to hunt down? The accounting department or the payroll company they use will report that the check was not deposited. The bank has no idea that a check was written, but the accounting deportment will know. The bank reports on all the checks that were cashed. Accounting cares because the un-cashed check for $1212.12 is a liability. They have to keep enough money in the bank to pay all the liabilities. It shouldn't be hard for them to track down the discrepancy, they will know what checks are outstanding. Can my employer punish me for refusing the money in this way? Do they have any means to force me to take what I am \"\"owed?\"\" They can't punish you. But at some time in the future they will will tell their bank not to honor the check. They will assume that it was lost or misplaced, and they will issue a new one to you. When tax time comes, and I still have not accepted the money, would it be appropriate to adjust my reported income down by the refused amount? You can't decide not to report it. The company knows that in year X they gave you a check for the money. They are required to report it, since they also withheld money for Federal taxes, state taxes, payroll taxes, 401K, insurance. They also count your pay as a business expense. If you try and adjust the numbers on the W-2 the IRS will note the discrepancy and want more information. Remember the IRS get a copy of every W-2. The employer has to report it because some people who aren't organized may not have cashed a December check before the company has to generate the W-2 in late January. It would confuse everything if they could skip reporting income just because a check wasn't cashed by the time they had to generate the W-2.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ef7121e54517f6a7a6f3d61ced60d90a",
"text": "It sounded an interesting question, so I looked it up. The reason I asked about the tax years is because it matters. If the bonus was paid, and then returned in the same year - it should not appear on your W2 at all, and your taxes would be calculated accordingly. You might end up with overpayment of FICA taxes, but you can get that credited on your tax return. If, however, the repayment is not in the same year as the payment, it becomes more complicated. The code section that deals with it is 26 USC § 1341. What it says, in short, is this: you can deduct the repaid amount from your current taxable income, but only if its more than $3000. The tax benefit of such deduction cannot exceed the actual tax paid on this in the year when you got the bonus (i.e.: you need to calculate that year with the amount, and without the amount - the credit cannot exceed the difference). But it can also not exceed the amount you would be paying on that amount in the current year (i.e.: if current taxes are less than that year - you lost the difference). If the signing bonus is less than $3000 and it spans across tax years - you cannot deduct it. Bummer.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
1c19685fdea5316769e87d1a8f67218d
|
Why I cannot buy at ask price?
|
[
{
"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": "cb660aaba77a61eab011bdf138688b57",
"text": "Some platforms/brokers have HTB indication for a stock symbol, meaning Hard To Borrow. That usually means you can't sell it short at the moment.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "588a62112e06e2f523e41aa2c6cb88ac",
"text": "You are better off just placing a market order if you want to buy or sell straight away and avoid the queues. A market order will guarantee the purchase or sale of your shares, but it won't guarantee the price.",
"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": "bbd9140f2be2d991c2da8d182d63bf9c",
"text": "You can*, if the market is open, in a normal trading phase (no auction phase), works, and there is an existing bid or offer on the product you want to trade, at the time the market learns of your order. Keep in mind there are 2 prices: bid and offer. If the current bid and current offer were the same, it would immediately result in a trade, and thus the bid and offer are no longer the same. Market Makers are paid / given lower fees in order to maintain buy and sell prices (called quotes) at most times. These conditions are usually all true, but commonly fail for these reasons: Most markets have an order type of market order that says buy/sell at any price. There are still sanity checks put in place on the price, with the exact rules for valid prices depending on the stock, so unless it's a penny stock you won't suddenly pay ten times a stock's value. *The amount you can buy sell is limited by the quantity that exists on the bid and offer. If there is a bid or offer, the quantity is always at least 1.",
"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": "de44418b1a4e0c4e0b86ac2e3c8cc274",
"text": "\"During market hours, there are a lot of dealers offering to buy and sell all exchange traded stocks. Dealers don't actually care about the company's fundamentals and they set their prices purely based on order flow. If more people start to buy than sell, the dealer notices his inventory going down and starts upping the price (both his bid and ask). There are also traders who may not be \"\"dealers\"\", but are willing to sell if the price goes high enough or buy if the price goes low enough. This keeps the prices humming along smoothly. During normal trading hours, if you buy something and turn around and sell it two minutes later, you'll probably be losing a couple cents per share. Outside normal market hours, the dealers who continue to have a bid and ask listed know that they don't have access to good price information -- there isn't a liquid market of continuous buying and selling for the dealer to set prices he considers safe. So what does he do? He widens the spread. He doesn't know what the market will open tomorrow at and doesn't know if he'll be able to react quickly to news. So instead of bidding $34.48 and offering at $34.52, he'll move that out to $33 and $36. The dealer still makes money sometimes off this because maybe some trader realized that he has options expiring tomorrow, or a short position that he's going to get a margin call on, or some kind of event that pretty much forces him to trade. Or maybe he's just panicking and overreacting to some news. So why not trade after hours? Because there's no liquidity, and trading when there's no liquidity costs you a lot.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "591f5e587da93d2643580b54097602c9",
"text": "I have done this, and the reason is to make sure that I don't run out of money in my account to place the order if there is an unexpected upswing in price. Suppose I have $1000 in my account and I want to buy 10 shares of ABCD that are currently at $99. If the price doesn't change, then I am all set, but if the price goes up to $101 then I don't have sufficient funds to make the purchase. By placing a limit order at $100 I can ensure that I have enough money to place the order. In general, it is a rather unlikely scenario that it could happen, but placing the limit order is easy to do and it gives me peace of mind. I don't know what you mean about bypassing the queue.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "50c1c77c490d96692be687075e977e86",
"text": "You can make a purchase at the after market price by sending an order that gets executed in after market. Often times these are called Extended orders, or EXT. With an EXT limit order it will place the bid on the after market hours order book. If you get filled, then you have the shares. This is the answer.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e5ea9507f84a7d9d67b9491567de3e0f",
"text": "New to investing... when I buy/sell a stock can I buy/sell at the exact market price whenever I'd like or is there more to it? Does there need to be a demand for when I'm trying to sell or am I just forcing the company to buy back my shares? Sorry if confusing/rookie question",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d10c8b7a4299530928fef1d78120afc5",
"text": "Looking at the SPY option chain you posted, all of the call options with a strike price of 199.50 or higher have a bid of N/A. That's because the ask price for all of those options is 0.01, and the bid price has to be less than the ask price, but buyers are not allowed to bid 0.00. It's not accurate to say that no one wants to buy those calls - anyone who wanted to buy one of those calls would just buy it at the ask price of 0.01. So why are people selling those calls for just 0.01? The further out of the money you go as you get closer to expiration, the less likely the underlying stock or ETF (SPY in this case) will go over the strike price, and the less you can sell it for. SPY closed yesterday at about 195, and it would have to go up almost 2.5% today for the 199.50 calls to be in the money, and a 2.5% move in one day is extremely unlikely.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2c641d6c1e0a8f0b07c0d7f8dc9cbeb3",
"text": "Stop order is triggered when the market reaches the price you set. Until then - its not on the books. Your understanding is wrong in that you don't go to read the definition of the term.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "89e3beda30f53ba8ac2de67b874e8dd3",
"text": "This question is impossible answer for all markets but there are 2 more possibilities in my experience:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "75375de293abe96061cee543b642dae5",
"text": "Oh really. I will have to check into that. It would be a bummer if that is the case. Something I will need to look into. If you don't need margin and are not trading the underlying asset (which I could see being a problem), then I don't see what the problem is. But I shall see. Thanks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d735ddb8da3e41c19041337cdf051c7c",
"text": "Rule 610 (Google for it) stands that if Bid and Ask are the same, the market is considered Locked, and the exchange must stop all trading. So the same person can't quote the same bid and ask price. However, HFTs have found ways to circumvent this limitation when exchanges created special order types for them, e.g. Spam-and-Cancel",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
960df300941fe963468dc26e543ceac5
|
Short term cutting losses in a long term investment
|
[
{
"docid": "a9aa4ec6f87b8f797f24108808a2ab3b",
"text": "What you are suggesting would be the correct strategy, if you knew exactly when the market was going to go back up. This is called market timing. Since it has been shown that no one can do this consistently, the best strategy is to just keep your money where it is. The market tends to make large jumps, especially lately. Missing just a few of these in a year can greatly impact your returns. It doesn't really matter what the market does while you hold investments. The important part is how much you bought for and how much you sold for. This assumes that the reasons that you selected those particular investments are still valid. If this is not the case, by all means sell them and pick something that does meet your needs.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f721f620e679c516aabc50115b8c3d77",
"text": "If you are investing for 10 years, then you just keep buying at whatever price the fund is at. This is called dollar-cost averaging. If the fund is declining in value from when you first bought it, then when you buy more, the AVERAGE price you bought in at is now lower. So therefore your losses are lower AND when it goes back up you will make more. Even if it continues to decline in value then you keep adding more money in periodically, eventually your position will be so large that on the first uptick you will have a huge percent gain. Anyway this is only suggested because you are in it for 10 years. Other people's investment goals vary.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2849d184039e125ed07adb201bbeba4d",
"text": "What might make more sense is to 'capture' your losses. Sell out the funds you have, move into something else that is different enough that the IRS won't consider it a wash sale, and you can then use those losses to offset gains (you can even carry them forward) You would still be in the market, just having made a sort of 'sideways move'. A month or two later (once you are clear of wash sale rules) you could shift back to your original choices. (this answer presumes you are in the US, or somewhere that lets you use losses to offset gains)",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "6241d19ae4f4a34d2000f940bf82e549",
"text": "The issue is the time frame. With a one year investment horizon the only way for a fund manager to be confident that they are not going to lose their shirt is to invest your money in ultra conservative low volatility investments. Otherwise a year like 2008 in the US stock market would break them. Note if you are willing to expand your payback time period to multiple years then you are essentially looking at an annuity and it's market loss rider. Of course those contacts are always structured such that the insurance company is extremely confident that they will be able to make more in the market than they are promising to pay back (multiple decade time horizons).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fe72286db97efd593f55374538a2eb10",
"text": "\"Most markets around the world have been downtrending for the last 6 to 10 months. The definition of a downtrend is lower lows and lower highs, and until you get a higher low and confirmation with a higher high the downtrend will continue. If you look at the weekly charts of most indexes you can determine the longer term trend. If you are more concerned with the medium term trend then you could look at the daily charts. So if your objective is to try and buy individual stocks and try to make some medium to short term profits from them I would start by first looking at the daily charts of the index your stock belongs to. Only buy when the intermediate trend of the market is moving up (higher highs and higher lows). You can do some brief analysis on the stocks your interested in buying, and two things I would add to the short list in your question would be to check if earnings are increasing year after year. The second thing to look at would be to check if the earnings yield is greater than the dividend yield, that way you know that dividends are being paid out from current earnings and not from previous earning or from borrowings. You could then check the daily charts of these individual stocks and make sure they are uptrending also. Buy uptrending stocks in an uptrending market. Before you buy anything write up a trading plan and develop your trading rules. For example if price breaks through the resistance line of a previous high you will buy at the open of the next day. Have your money management and risk management rules in place and stick to your plan. You can also do some backtesting or paper trading to check the validity of your strategy. A good book to read on money and risk management is - \"\"Trade your way to Financial Freedom\"\" by Van Tharp. Your aim should not be to get a winner on every trade but to let your winners run and keep your losses small.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "afd55a620b8f7f4be8eb0f72d72178f2",
"text": "\"Being \"\"long\"\" - expecting the price to go up to make a profit - is a two step process: 1) buy 2) sell Being \"\"short\"\" - expecting the price to go down to make a profit - is a 5 step process: 1) borrow someone else's asset 2) sell their asset on the open market to somebody else a third party 3) pocket the proceeds of the sell for your own account 4) buy an identical asset for a cheaper price 5) return this identical asset to the person that let you borrow their asset if this is successful you keep the difference between 3) and 4)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e513341e209384d5bbea0f450c9ce437",
"text": "An alternative options strategy to minimize loss of investment capital is to buy a put, near the money around your original buy price, with a premium less than the total dividend. The value of the put will increase if the stock price falls quickly. Likely, a large portion of your dividend will go towards paying the option premium, this will however ensure that your capital doesn't drop much lower than your buy price. Continued dividend distributions will continue to pay to buy future put options. Risks here are if the stock does not have a very large up or down movement from your original buy price causing most of the dividend to be spent on insuring your position. It may take a few cycles, but once the stock has appreciated in value say 10% above buying price, you can consider either skipping the put insurance so you can pocket the dividend, or you can bu ythe put with a higher strike price for additional insurance against a loss of gains. Again, this sacrifices much of the dividend in favor of price loss, and still is open to a risk of neutral price movement over time.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "afb2b27ef5043f88ddb4453d7898f1c5",
"text": "\"If you're talking about a single stock, you greatly underestimate the chances of it dropping, even long-term. Check out the 12 companies that made up the first Dow Jones Industrial Average in 1896. There is probably only one you've heard of: GE. Many of the others are long gone or have since been bought up by larger companies. And remember these were 12 companies that were deemed to be the most representative of the stock market around the turn of the 20th century. Now, if you're talking about funds that hold many stocks (up to thousands), then your question is a little different. Over the long-term (25+ years), we have never experienced a period where the overall market lost value. Of course, as you recognize, the psychology of investors is a very important factor. If the stock market loses half of its value in a year (as it has done a few times), people will be inundated with bad news and proclamations of \"\"this time it's different!\"\" and explanations of why the stock market will never recover. Perhaps this may be true some day, but it never has been thus far. So based on all the evidence we have, if you hold a well-diversified fund, the chances of it going down long-term (again, meaning 25+ years) are basically zero.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "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": "05df34a65fa32fa9dd56f84f73990c16",
"text": "\"If you're asking this question, you probably aren't ready to be buying individual stock shares, and may not be ready to be investing in the market at all. Short-term in the stock market is GAMBLING, pure and simple, and gambling against professionals at that. You can reduce your risk if you spend the amount of time and effort the pros do on it, but if you aren't ready to accept losses you shouldn't be playing and if you aren't willing to bet it all on a single throw of the dice you should diversify and accept lower potential gain in exchange for lower risk. (Standard advice: Index funds.) The way an investor, as opposed to a gambler, deals with a stock price dropping -- or surging upward, or not doing anything! -- is to say \"\"That's interesting. Given where it is NOW, do I expect it to go up or down from here, and do I think I have someplace to put the money that will do better?\"\" If you believe the stock will gain value from here, holding it may make more sense than taking your losses. Specific example: the mortgage-crisis market crash of a few years ago. People who sold because stock prices were dropping and they were scared -- or whose finances forced them to sell during the down period -- were hurt badly. Those of us who were invested for the long term and could afford to leave the money in the market -- or who were brave/contrarian enough to see it as an opportunity to buy at a better price -- came out relatively unscathed; all I have \"\"lost\"\" was two years of growth. So: You made your bet. Now you have to decide: Do you really want to \"\"buy high, sell low\"\" and take the loss as a learning experience, or do you want to wait and see whether you can sell not-so-low. If you don't know enough about the company to make a fairly rational decision on that front, you probably shouldn't have bought its stock.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "a2dde5ad88962880589d29a60a1fa5ae",
"text": "Buying a put is hedging. You won't lose as much if the market goes down, but you'll still lose capital: lower value of your long positions. Buying an ultrashort like QID is safer than shorting a stock because you don't have the unlimited losses you could have when you short a stock. It is volatile. It's not a whole lot different than buying a put; it uses futures and swaps to give the opposing behavior to the underlying index. Some places indicate that the tax consequences could be severe. It is also a hedge if you don't sell your long positions. QID opposes the NASDAQ 100 which is tech-heavy so bear (!) that in mind. Selling your long positions gets you out of equities completely. You'll be responsible for taxes on capital gains. It gets your money off of the table, as opposed to playing side bets or buying insurance. (Sorry for the gambling analogy but that's a bit how I feel with stock indices now :) ).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4c6dd2d49fe387974d70a9f22ca9e5f4",
"text": "\"This doesn't make sense to me. Writing a covered call gives him a long delta position - the exact opposite of what he wants. And the tax losses won't turn a losing position into a winning one. Is there something I'm missing? Edit: Also, doesn't \"\"shorting against the box\"\" mean he has to have a long position, and short against that? That means you've got zero net delta, which isn't very useful at all...\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "8fd24a7a18ae6dee7c86ef01815fefa1",
"text": "\"The emphasis of \"\"stop loss\"\" is \"\"stop\"\", not \"\"loss\"\". Stop and long term are contradictory. After you stop, what are you going to do with your cash? Since it's long term, you still have 5+ years to before you use the money, do you simply park everything in 0.5% savings account? On the other hand, if your investment holds N stocks and one has dropped a lot, you are free to switch to another one. This is just an investment strategy and you are still in the market.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3e0cc51cddecc1fe58524e39c9897ba2",
"text": "It would involve manual effort, but there is just a handful of exclusions, buy the fund you want, plug into a tool like Morningstar Instant X Ray, find out your $10k position includes $567.89 of defense contractor Lockheed Martin, and sell short $567.89 of Lockheed Martin. Check you're in sync periodically (the fund or index balance may change); when you sell the fund close your shorts too.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "80ccc6f1c6b0f9d238426febd4303db4",
"text": "\"Generally investing in index-tracking funds in the long term poses relatively low risk (compared to \"\"short term investment\"\", aka speculation). No-one says differently. However, it is a higher risk than money-market/savings/bonds. The reason for that is that the return is not guaranteed and loss is not limited. Here volatility plays part, as well as general market conditions (although the volatility risk also affects bonds at some level as well). While long term trend may be upwards, short term trend may be significantly different. Take as an example year 2008 for S&P500. If, by any chance, you needed to liquidate your investment in November 2008 after investing in November 1998 - you might have ended up with 0 gain (or even loss). Had you waited just another year (or liquidated a year earlier) - the result would be significantly different. That's the volatility risk. You don't invest indefinitely, even when you invest long term. At some point you'll have to liquidate your investment. Higher volatility means that there's a higher chance of downward spike just at that point of time killing your gains, even if the general trend over the period around that point of time was upward (as it was for S&P500, for example, for the period 1998-2014, with the significant downward spikes in 2003 and 2008). If you invest in major indexes, these kinds of risks are hard to avoid (as they're all tied together). So you need to diversify between different kinds of investments (bonds vs stocks, as the books \"\"parrot\"\"), and/or different markets (not only US, but also foreign).\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
b459b91d2fbd286680e924904c4145c6
|
How can it be possible that only ~10% of options expire worthless, and only ~10% are exercised?
|
[
{
"docid": "8384d354271018c0de0dce360c7a96e0",
"text": "\"Consider the futures market. Traders buy and sell gold futures, but very few contracts, relatively speaking, result in delivery. The contracts are sold, and \"\"Open interest\"\" dwindles to near zero most months as the final date approaches. The seller buys back his short position, the buyer sells off his longs. When I own a call, and am 'winning,' say the option that cost me $1 is now worth $2, I'd rather sell that option for even $1.95 than to buy 100 shares of a $148 stock. The punchline is that very few option buyers actually hope to own the stock in the end. Just like the futures, open interest falls as expiration approaches.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bc78b0f8d3c3be9d6bcf9cf4bf54a761",
"text": "\"You gave your own answer - the 80% is positions, not contracts. Most actors on the option market have no interest in the underlying asset. They want \"\"just\"\" exposure to its price movement. It makes more sense to close your position than to be handed over bushels of wheat or whatever.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "bf7ccbc105437f3d6bfe35d321e0db6c",
"text": "Really all you need to know is that American style can be exercised at any point, European options cannot be exercised early. Read on if you want more detail. The American style Call is worth more because it can be exercised at any point. And when the company pays a dividend, and your option is in the money, if the extrinsic value is worth less than the dividend you can be exercised early. This is not the case for a European call. You cannot be exercised until expiration. I trade a lot of options, you wont be exercised early unless the dividend scenario I mentioned happens. Or unless the extrinsic value is nothing, but even then, unless the investor really wants that position, he is more likely to just sell the call for an equivalent gain on 100 shares of stock.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "95990e2deb47c699cd1bc4ea73f3996b",
"text": "As other uses have pointed out, your example is unusual in that is does not include any time value or volatility value in the quoted premiums, the premiums you quote are only intrinsic values. For well in-the-money options, the intrinsic value will certainly be the vast majority of the premium, but not the sole component. Having said that, the answer would clearly be that the buyer should buy the $40 call at a premium of $10. The reason is that the buyer will pay less for the option and therefore risk less money, or buy more options for the same amount of money. Since the buyer is assuming that the price will rise, the return that will be realised will be the same in gross terms, but higher in relative terms for the buyer of the $40 call. For example, if the underlying price goes to $60, then the buyer of the $40 call would (potentially) double their money when the premium goes from $10 to $20, while the buyer of the $30 call would realise a (potential) 50% profit when the premium goes from $20 to $30. Considering the situation beyond your scenario, things are more difficult if the bet goes wrong. If the underlying prices expires at under $40, then the buyer of the $40 call will be better off in gross terms but may be worse off in relative terms (if it expires above $30). If the underlying price expires between $40 and $50, then the buy of the $30 will be better off in relative term, having lost a smaller percentage of their money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "49fbb72ed332e7fb662e054bc6b27475",
"text": "\"An option is an instrument that gives you the \"\"right\"\" (but not the obligation) to do something (if you are long). An American option gives you more \"\"rights\"\" (to exercise on more days) than a European option. The more \"\"rights,\"\" the greater the (theoretical) value of the option, all other things being equal, of course. That's just how options work. You could point to an ex post result, and and say that's not the case. But it is true ex ante.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0315bd1936a6266908a8860a20c83429",
"text": "Think of it this way, if you traveled back through time one month - with perfect knowledge of AAPL's stock price over that period - which happens to peak viciously then return to its old price at the end of the period - wouldn't you pay more for an American option? Another way to think about options is as an insurance policy. Wouldn't you pay more for a policy that covered fire and earthquake losses as opposed to just losses from earthquakes? Lastly - and perhaps most directly - one of the more common reasons people exercise (as opposed to sell) an American option before expiration is if an unexpected dividend (larger than remaining time value of the option) was just announced that's going to be paid before the option contract expires. Because only actual stockholders get the dividends, not options holders. A holder of an American option has the ability to exercise in time to grab that dividend - a European option holder doesn't have that ability. Less flexibility (what you're paying for really) = lower option premium.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0400607794f04d15bf9fdfe8a22e00b3",
"text": "\"I thought the other answers had some good aspect but also some things that might not be completely correct, so I'll take a shot. As noted by others, there are three different types of entities in your question: The ETF SPY, the index SPX, and options contracts. First, let's deal with the options contracts. You can buy options on the ETF SPY or marked to the index SPX. Either way, options are about the price of the ETF / index at some future date, so the local min and max of the \"\"underlying\"\" symbol generally will not coincide with the min and max of the options. Of course, the closer the expiration date on the option, the more closely the option price tracks its underlying directly. Beyond the difference in how they are priced, the options market has different liquidity, and so it may not be able to track quick moves in the underlying. (Although there's a reasonably robust market for option on SPY and SPX specifically.) Second, let's ask what forces really make SPY and SPX move together as much as they do. It's one thing to say \"\"SPY is tied to SPX,\"\" but how? There are several answers to this, but I'll argue that the most important factor is that there's a notion of \"\"authorized participants\"\" who are players in the market who can \"\"create\"\" shares of SPY at will. They do this by accumulating stock in the constituent companies and turning them into the market maker. There's also the corresponding notion of \"\"redemption\"\" by which an authorized participant will turn in a share of SPY to get stock in the constituent companies. (See http://www.spdrsmobile.com/content/how-etfs-are-created-and-redeemed and http://www.etf.com/etf-education-center/7540-what-is-the-etf-creationredemption-mechanism.html) Meanwhile, SPX is just computed from the prices of the constituent companies, so it's got no market forces directly on it. It just reflects what the prices of the companies in the index are doing. (Of course those companies are subject to market forces.) Key point: Creation / redemption is the real driver for keeping the price aligned. If it gets too far out of line, then it creates an arbitrage opportunity for an authorized participant. If the price of SPY gets \"\"too high\"\" compared to SPX (and therefore the constituent stocks), an authorized participant can simultaneously sell short SPY shares and buy the constituent companies' stocks. They can then use the redemption process to close their position at no risk. And vice versa if SPY gets \"\"too low.\"\" Now that we understand why they move together, why don't they move together perfectly. To some extent information about fees, slight differences in composition between SPY and SPX over time, etc. do play. The bigger reasons are probably that (a) there are not a lot of authorized participants, (b) there are a relatively large number of companies represented in SPY, so there's some actual cost and risk involved in trying to quickly buy/sell the full set to capture the theoretical arbitrage that I described, and (c) redemption / creation units only come in pretty big blocks, which complicates the issues under point b. You asked about dividends, so let me comment briefly on that too. The dividend on SPY is (more or less) passing on the dividends from the constituent companies. (I think - not completely sure - that the market maker deducts its fees from this cash, so it's not a direct pass through.) But each company pays on its own schedule and SPY does not make a payment every time, so it's holding a corresponding amount of cash between its dividend payments. This is factored into the price through the creation / redemption process. I don't know how big of a factor it is though.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "96e142303cb6650812333485d62f01ca",
"text": "Out of the money options often have the biggest changes in value, when the stock moves upward. This person could also gain, by the implied (underlying) volatility of the stock rising if it moves erratically to either side. Still seems to be a very risky game, given only 4 days to expiry.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fecb1d27cdd5485f92f5bf5206921510",
"text": "Equity options, at least those traded in the American exchanges, actually expire the Saturday after the 3rd Friday of the month. However, the choice to trade or exercise the options must be specified by the 3rd Friday. This is outlined by the CBOE, who oversees the exchange of equity options. Their FAQ regarding option expiration can be found at http://www.cboe.com/LearnCenter/Concepts/Beyond/expiration.aspx.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d10c8b7a4299530928fef1d78120afc5",
"text": "Looking at the SPY option chain you posted, all of the call options with a strike price of 199.50 or higher have a bid of N/A. That's because the ask price for all of those options is 0.01, and the bid price has to be less than the ask price, but buyers are not allowed to bid 0.00. It's not accurate to say that no one wants to buy those calls - anyone who wanted to buy one of those calls would just buy it at the ask price of 0.01. So why are people selling those calls for just 0.01? The further out of the money you go as you get closer to expiration, the less likely the underlying stock or ETF (SPY in this case) will go over the strike price, and the less you can sell it for. SPY closed yesterday at about 195, and it would have to go up almost 2.5% today for the 199.50 calls to be in the money, and a 2.5% move in one day is extremely unlikely.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fd2294bc0725eaa66e949c23084be42a",
"text": "I'm sorry, but your math is wrong. You are not equally likely to make as much money by waiting for expiration. Share prices are moving constantly in both directions. Very rarely does any stock go either straight up or straight down. Consider a stock with a share price of $12 today. Perhaps that stock is a bad buy, and in 1 month's time it will be down to $10. But the market hasn't quite wised up to this yet, and over the next week it rallies up to $15. If you bought a European option (let's say an at-the-money call, expiring in 1 month, at $12 on our start date), then you lost. Your option expired worthless. If you bought an American option, you could have exercised it when the share price was at $15 and made a nice profit. Keep in mind we are talking about exactly the same stock, with exactly the same history, over exactly the same time period. The only difference is the option contract. The American option could have made you money, if you exercised it at any time during the rally, but not the European option - you would have been forced to hold onto it for a month and finally let it expire worthless. (Of course that's not strictly true, since the European option itself can be sold while it is in the money - but eventually, somebody is going to end up holding the bag, nobody can exercise it until expiration.) The difference between an American and European option is the difference between getting N chances to get it right (N being the number of days 'til expiration) and getting just one chance. It should be easy to see why you're more likely to profit with the former, even if you can't accurately predict price movement.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8ebc0d563942a7e7a4eaad423af5d9fa",
"text": "First, in the money options are scarcely created because most options trade at the money with the rest evenly distributed between in and out, so they are at best half the market when created. They are also closed before expiration. The reason is still unknown, but one theory is: Barely in the money options carry enormous exercise risk because the chance that could be turned into a potentially solvency threatening unhedged liability is great; therefore, option sellers prefer to close barely in the money options so not to take on unhedged liability risk. Statistically, option sellers are risk avoiders.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4a80711ceb6fd70f6930a17b1ec00e4a",
"text": "In the first case, if you wish to own the stock, you just exercise the option, and buy it for the strike price. Else, you can sell the option just before expiration, it will be priced very close to its in-the-money value.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "00771613db87e52247eb87c2df4d12f8",
"text": "If you are in the money at expiration you are going to get assigned to the person on the other side of the contract. This is an extremely high probability. The only randomness comes from before expiration. Where you may be assigned because a holder exercised the option before expiration, this can unbalance some of your strategies. But in exchange, you get all the premium that was still left on the option when they exercised. An in the money option, at expiration, has no premium. The value of your in the money option is Current Stock price - Strike Price, for a call. And Strike price - Current Stock price, for a put. Thats why there is no free lunch in this scenario.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f1b15d3c89a8523b3646b0385fbb85f7",
"text": "\"The answer to the question, can I exercise the option right away? depends on the exercise style of the particular option contract you are talking about. If it's an American-style exercise, you can exercise at any moment until the expiration date. If it's an European-style exercise, you can only exercise at the expiration date. According to the CME Group website on the FOPs on Gold futures, it's an American-style exercise (always make sure to double check this - especially in the Options on Futures world, there are quite a few that are European style): http://www.cmegroup.com/trading/metals/precious/gold_contractSpecs_options.html?optionProductId=192#optionProductId=192 So, if you wanted to, the answer is: yes, you can exercise those contracts before expiration. But a very important question you should ask is: should you? Option prices are composed of 2 parts: intrinsic value, and extrinsic value. Intrinsic value is defined as by how much the option is in the money. That is, for Calls, it's how much the strike is below the current underlying price; and for Puts, it's how much the strike is above the current underlying price. Extrinsic value is whatever amount you have to add to the intrinsic value, to get the actual price the option is trading at the market. Note that there's no negative intrinsic value. It's either a positive number, or 0. When the intrinsic value is 0, all the value of the option is extrinsic value. The reason why options have extrinsic value is because they give the buyer a right, and the seller, an obligation. Ie, the seller is assuming risk. Traders are only willing to assume obligations/risks, and give others a right, if they get paid for that. The amount they get paid for that is the extrinsic value. In the scenario you described, underlying price is 1347, call strike is 1350. Whatever amount you have paid for that option is extrinsic value (because the strike of the call is above the underlying price, so intrinsic = 0, intrinsic + extrinsic = value of the option, by definition). Now, in your scenario, gold prices went up to 1355. Now your call option is \"\"in the money\"\", that is, the strike of your call option is below the gold price. That necessarily means that your call option has intrinsic value. You can easily calculate how much: it has exactly $5 intrinsic value (1355 - 1350, undelrying price - strike). But that contract still has some \"\"risk\"\" associated to it for the seller: so it necessarily still have some extrinsic value as well. So, the option that you bought for, let's say, $2.30, could now be worth something like $6.90 ($5 + a hypothetical $1.90 in extrinsic value). In your question, you mentioned exercising the option and then making a profit there. Well, if you do that, you exercise your options, get some gold futures immediately paying $1350 for them (your strike), and then you can sell them in the market for $1355. So, you make $5 there (multiplied by the contract multiplier). BUT your profit is not $5. Here's why: remember that you had to buy that option? You paid some money for that. In this hypothetical example, you payed $2.30 to buy the option. So you actually made only $5 - $2.30 = $2.70 profit! On the other hand, you could just have sold the option: you'd then make money by selling something that you bought for $2.30 that's now worth $6.90. This will give you a higher profit! In this case, if those numbers were real, you'd make $6.90 - $2.30 = $4.60 profit, waaaay more than $2.70 profit! Here's the interesting part: did you notice exactly how much more profit you'd have by selling the option back to the market, instead of exercising it and selling the gold contracts? Exactly $1.90. Do you remember this number? That's the extrinsic value, and it's not a coincidence. By exercising an option, you immediately give up all the extrinsic value it has. You are going to convert all the extrinsic value into $0. So that's why it's not optimal to exercise the contract. Also, many brokers usually charge you much more commissions and fees to exercise an option than to buy/sell options, so there's that as well! Always remember: when you exercise an option contract, you immediately give up all the extrinsic value it has. So it's never optimal to do an early exercise of option contracts and individual, retail investors. (institutional investors doing HFT might be able to spot price discrepancies and make money doing arbitrage; but retail investors don't have the low commissions and the technology required to make money out of that!) Might also be interesting to think about the other side of this: have you noticed how, in the example above, the option started with $2.30 of extrinsic value, and then it had less, $1.90 only? That's really how options work: as the market changes, extrinsic value changes, and as time goes by, extrinsic value usually decreases. Other factors might increase it (like, more fear in the market usually bring the option prices up), but the passage of time alone will decrease it. So options that you buy will naturally decrease some value over time. The closer you are to expiration, the faster it's going to lose value, which kind of makes intuitive sense. For instance, compare an option with 90 days to expiration (DTE) to another with 10 DTE. One day later, the first option still has 89 DTE (almost the same as 90 DTE), but the other has 9 DTE - it relatively much closer to the expiration than the day before. So it will decay faster. Option buyers can protect their investment from time decay by buying longer dated options, which decay slower! edit: just thought about adding one final thought here. Probabilities. The strategy that you describe in your question is basically going long an OTM call. This is an extremely bullish position, with low probability of making money. Basically, for you to make money, you need two things: you need to be right on direction, and you need to be right on time. In this example, you need the underlying to go up - by a considerable amount! And you need this to happen quickly, before the passage of time will remove too much of the extrinsic value of your call (and, obviously, before the call expires). Benefit of the strategy is, in the highly unlikely event of an extreme, unanticipated move of the underlying to the upside, you can make a lot of money. So, it's a low probability, limited risk, unlimited profit, extremely bullish strategy.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a5a762c3b03def85a56560b80be50f9b",
"text": "The options market requires much more attention to avoid the situation you're describing. An overnight $10 ask will remain on the books most likely as Good-Til-Canceled. The first to bid the low order gets it. If traders are paying attention, which they probably are then they will bid at $10. If not, they will bid immediately at $20. If they crossed the order, it would be filled at their higher than $10 bid. This is all governed by the exchange where the ask is posted, and most implement price-time priority.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a20065d917fb18d76572c8a226091329",
"text": "\"Seems like you are concerned with something called assignment risk. It's an inherent risk of selling options: you are giving somebody the right, but not the obligation, to sell to you 100 shares of GOOGL. Option buyers pay a premium to have that right - the extrinsic value. When they exercise the option, the option immediately disappears. Together with it, all the extrinsic value disappears. So, the lower the extrinsic value, the higher the assignment risk. Usually, option contracts that are very close to expiration (let's say, around 2 to 3 weeks to expiration or less) have significantly lower extrinsic value than longer option contracts. Also, generally speaking, the deeper ITM an option contract is, the lower extrinsic value it will have. So, to reduce assignment risk, I usually close out my option positions 1-2 weeks before expiration, especially the contracts that are deep in the money. edit: to make sure this is clear, based on a comment I've just seen on your question. To \"\"close out an options position\"\", you just have to create the \"\"opposite\"\" trade. So, if you sell a Put, you close that by buying back that exact same put. Just like stock: if you buy stock, you have a position; you close that position by selling the exact same stock, in the exact same amount. That's a very common thing to do with options. A post in Tradeking's forums, very old post, but with an interesting piece of data from the OCC, states that 35% of the options expire worthless, and 48% are bought or sold before expiration to close the position - only 17% of the contracts are actually exercised! (http://community.tradeking.com/members/optionsguy/blogs/11260-what-percentage-of-options-get-exercised) A few other things to keep in mind: certain stocks have \"\"mini options contracts\"\", that would correspond to a lot of 10 shares of stock. These contracts are usually not very liquid, though, so you might not get great prices when opening/closing positions you said in a comment, \"\"I cannot use this strategy to buy stocks like GOOGL\"\"; if the reason is because 100*GOOGL is too much to fit in your buying power, that's a pretty big risk - the assignment could result in a margin call! if margin call is not really your concern, but your concern is more like the risk of holding 100 shares of GOOGL, you can help manage that by buying some lower strike Puts (that have smaller absolute delta than your Put), or selling some calls against your short put. Both strategies, while very different, will effectively reduce your delta exposure. You'd get 100 deltas from the 100 shares of GOOGL, but you'd get some negative deltas by holding the lower strike Put, or by writing the higher strike Call. So as the stock moves around, your account value would move less than the exposure equivalent to 100 shares of stock.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
facb28207e3c3211affb79ad1fc56140
|
Getting a USD cheque, without too many fees, and with a sensible exchange rate?
|
[
{
"docid": "b5a5158de606e7e460cd70ae9d56b730",
"text": "\"UPDATE: Unfortunately Citibank have removed the \"\"standard\"\" account option and you have to choose the \"\"plus\"\" account, which requires a minimum monthly deposit of 1800 sterling and two direct debits. Absolutely there is. I would highly recommend Citibank's Plus Current Account. It's a completely free bank account available to all UK residents. http://www.citibank.co.uk/personal/banking/bankingproducts/currentaccounts/sterling/plus/index.htm There are no monthly fees and no minimum balance requirements to maintain. Almost nobody in the UK has heard of it and I don't know why because it's extremely useful for anyone who travels or deals in foreign currency regularly. In one online application you can open a Sterling Current Account and Deposit Accounts in 10 other foreign currencies (When I opened mine around 3 years ago you could only open up to 7 (!) accounts at any one time). Citibank provide a Visa card, which you can link to any of your multi currency accounts via a phone call to their hotline (unfortunately not online, which frequently annoys me - but I guess you can't have everything). For USD and EUR you can use it as a Visa debit for USD/EUR purchases, for all other currencies you can't make debit card transactions but you can make ATM withdrawals without incurring an FX conversion. Best of all for your case, a free USD cheque book is also available: http://www.citibank.co.uk/personal/banking/international/eurocurrent.htm You can fund the account in sterling and exchange to USD through online banking. The rates are not as good as you would get through an FX broker like xe.com but they're not terrible either. You can also fund the account by USD wire transfer, which is free to deposit at Citibank - but the bank you issue the payment from will likely charge a SWIFT fee so this might not be worth it unless the amount is large enough to justify the fee. If by any chance you have a Citibank account in the US, you can also make free USD transfers in/out of this account - subject to a daily limit.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "49be636cb79217a992a2a5337909c617",
"text": "\"See my comment below about the official exchange rate. There is no \"\"official\"\" exchange rate to apply as far as I'm aware. However the bank is already applying the same exchange rate you can find in the forex markets. They are simply applying a spread (meaning they will add some amount to the exchange rate whichever way you are exchanging currency). You will almost certainly not find a bank that doesn't apply a spread. Of course, their spread might be large, so that's why it is good to compare rates. By the way, 5 GBP/month seems reasonable for a foreign currency (or any) acct. The transaction fees might be cheaper in a different \"\"package\"\" so check. You should consider trying PayPal. Their spread is quite small - and publicly disclosed - and their per-transaction fees are very low. Of course, this is not a bank account. But you can easily connect it to your bank account and transfer the money between accounts quickly. They also offer free foreign currency accounts that you can basically open and close in a click. Transfers are instantaneous. I am based in Germany but I haven't had a problem with clients from various English-speaking countries using PayPal. They actually seem to prefer it in many instances.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ba62c505f4d6f363fe60f7ca52e607cf",
"text": "I regularly transfer money from the US to Europe, and have found a simple US check a pretty useful way (if you are not in a hurry): you write a US dollar based check to yourself, and deposit it to a bank in your new location (which implies you open an account in France, yes). It takes some days (somedays 7 days), and then the money will be deposited. The local bank will convert it (so you can walk around and pick a bank that has a rate concept that pleases you, before you open the account), and there will be no fees on the US side (which means you can get every last dollar out of the account). Also, you have the control over how much you pull when - you can write yourself as many checks as you like (assuming you took your checkbook). This was the best rate I could get, considering that wire transfers cost significant fees. There are probably other options. If you are talking serious money (like 100 k$ or more), there will better ways, but most banks will be eager to help you with that. Note that as long as you make interest income in the US, you are required to file taxes in the US; your visa status and location don't matter.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ac45f2f3493e3a94831f9570e181d4c0",
"text": "in my experience no-cash transactions are the best deal. Take your Portuguese credit card, get some cash ($60) for emergencies. Only pay with your credit card. It's much cheaper because it's all virtual. The best would be to set up an American bank account and transfer the money there. You can also get Paypal account, they offer credit cards too. The virtual banks, credit unions are the best option because they don't charge you for transactions. They don't have expenses with keeping actual money. Find some credit Union that accepts foreigners and take it from there. You can exchange your money on the airport because it's in tax free zone. I recommend the country of the currency since they sell you their 'valuts' and you are buying dollars. Not selling Euros... Make sure to find out what is the best deal.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "81d9292743f49bacb9ab796d577cb2ca",
"text": "\"Some years ago I was in a similar situation with a CAD cheque. I did not experience any reservation period of months. Within Canada, around a week was usual, and as far as I remember that was the case also for the cheque deposited to the EUR account. You could ask your bank whether a certified cheque (has to be done at the \"\"home\"\" bank of the sender) will have the same reservation period and what the processing time will be anyways. I found a large variation of the (large) fees for cashing foreign cheques. It may be worth asking a few different banks for their conditions (both fees and duration for the whole process).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cefda8906aadf05eb9ff42cf1142e13b",
"text": "Give a cheque. You can. Your friend would have to deposit this in a Bank that does this service. Not all Banks offer this service in US. It generally would take 1-3 months for the funds to reach. Give a dollar-denominated cheque You can NOT write check on a Rupee account and put USD. You can definitely buy a USD Draft generally payable in the US. There would be some charge for you here and send it by courier, post. It would get paid into your friends account in about a week. Do a SWIFT transfer Yes you can. You may need to walk into a Branch and fill up forms. If the amount is more than specified limit a CA certificate is required. Am I correct in understanding Yes Use my ATM card in the US Yes you can. Specialised money transfer services like Western Union Transfer money out of India is not allowed by Money Transfer services",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bf9423b9d4b925b1d38d1d09b0f2d4a8",
"text": "\"My solution when I lived in Singapore was to open an account with HSBC, who at the time also had branches in the US. When I was home, I used the same debit card, and the bank only charged a nominal currency exchange fee (since it never had to leave their system, it was lower than had it left their system). Another option, though slightly more costly, is to use Paypal. A third option is to cash-out in CAD and convert to USD at a \"\"large\"\" institution - the larger your deposit/conversion balance, the better the rate you can get. To the best of my knowledge, this shouldn't be taxable - presuming you've paid the taxes on it to start with, and you've been filing your IRS returns every year you've been in Canada.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "457d622371d738723f400eaa2f67c280",
"text": "frostbank.com is the closest thing I've found, so accepting this (my own) answer :) EDIT: editing from my comment earlier: frostbank.com has free incoming international wires, so that's a partial solution. I confirmed this works by depositing $1 (no min deposit requirement) and wiring $100 from a non-US bank. Worked great, no fees, and ACH'd it to my main back, no problems/fees. No outgoing international wires, alas.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "144cce3a1c93590519217a7e460232ff",
"text": "There are a few options that I know of, but pretty much every one of them will cost more than you want to pay in fees, probably. You should be able to write a check/cheque to yourself. You might check with your US bank branch to see how much of a limit they'd have. You can also use a Canadian ATM card at a US ATM. The final option would be to use a Canadian credit card for all of your purchases in the US, and then pay the bill from the Canadian bank account. I don't recommend the last option because if you're not careful to pay off the bill every month, you're running up debt. Also, it's hard to pay some kinds of expenses by credit card, so you'd want a way to have cash available. Another option would be to use a service like Paypal or Hyperwallet to send yourself the money. Again, you'd be paying fees, but these might be cheaper than what the bank would charge. There may be other options, but these are the ones I'm aware of. Whatever you choose, look carefully at what the fees would be, and how long you'd have to wait to get the money. If you can plan ahead a bit, and take larger chunks of money at a time, that should help keep the fees down a bit. I believe there's also a point where you start having to report these transfers to the US government. The number $10,000 stick in my head, but they may have changed that recently.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "73d2f348f3576d5ac88d7a304f9538a9",
"text": "You want to bank with HSBC: From: http://www.offshore.hsbc.com/1/2/international/foreign-exchange-currency/foreign-exchange/faqs HSBC Bank International does not charge ‘commission’, therefore offering 0% commission on foreign currency exchange transactions",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0c2dfe34ea55af11139b3dade5f2cb38",
"text": "I assume the same criteria apply for this as your previous question. You want to physically transfer in excess of 50,000 USD multiple times a week and you want the transportation mechanism to be instant or very quick. I don't believe there is any option that won't raise serious red flags with the government entities you cross the boundaries of. Even a cheque, which a person in the comments of OP's question suggests, wouldn't be sufficient due to government regulation requiring banks to put holds on such large amounts.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "11ae7e9ec09f2cb9a371d6f336c3dd6a",
"text": "Then, is it possible to deposit rubles at the same ATM to get USD in my account at the same rate? No this is not possible. Generally deposits into accounts outside country and not offered.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5d5612af7d495b352eeb63110fcfde9a",
"text": "He can send you a check. This will move the burden of GBP->USD conversion to him (unless the GBP amount is preset, then you'll be the one to pay for conversion either way). You can then deposit the USD check in any Israeli bank (they'll charge commission for the deposit and the USD->ILS conversion). Another, and from my experience significantly cheaper, option would be to wire transfer directly to your account. If you have a USD account and he'll transfer USD out - it will be almost at no cost to you, if you don't have a USD account check with your bank how to open it, or pay for USD->ILS conversion.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fd8b8328d4736d1696c3855cafb9f340",
"text": "My preferred method of doing this is to get a bank draft from the US in Euros and then pay it into the French bank (my countries are Canada and UK, but the principle is the same). The cost of the bank draft is about $8, so very little more than the ATM method. If you use bigger amounts it can be less overall cost. The disadvantage is that a bank draft takes a week or so to write and a few days to clear. So you would have to plan ahead. I would keep enough money in the French account for one visit, and top it up with a new bank draft every visit or two.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "faa197e46e8661ff7a63db1e38c74912",
"text": "\"Simplest is probably international bank transfer. If you don't like those, I had a friend who would buy travelers cheques, endorse them and write in large \"\"Only pay to the order of ****\"\" then send them by mail. Very difficult for anyone other than the recipient to cash, very low fees, and there next day if you send it overnight mail.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5eef390d48857296621a5fd38aab8005",
"text": "Several possibilities come to mind: Several online currency-exchange brokers (such as xe.com and HiFx) offer very good exchange rates and no wire transfer fees (beyond what your own bank might charge you). Get French and American accounts at banks that are part of the Global ATM alliance: BNP Paribas in France and Bank of America in the USA. This will eliminate the ATM fee. Get an account at a bank that has branches in both countries. I've used HSBC for this purpose.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
262287aa98aa8acb6a03e4b2530a42c5
|
What is good growth?
|
[
{
"docid": "e161b90085865041d487f930bd6e12ce",
"text": "If your question is truly just What is good growth? Is there a target return that's accepted as good? I assumed 8% (plus transaction fees). Then I'd have to point out that the S&P has offered a CAGR of 9.77% since 1900. You can buy an S&P ETF for .05%/yr expense. If your goal is to lag the S&P by 1.7%/yr over the long term, you can use a 85/15 mix of S&P and cash, sleep well at night, and avoid wasting any time picking stocks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "04b55d5af7ba90e6e12ace658b6b81f3",
"text": "In One Up on Wall Street, Peter Lynch suggested that there are six major aspects to choosing growth stocks:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2277300a0184c5ae88d09cac947a8835",
"text": "The first issue is if the stock has returned 8% since you purchased it that could be either very good (8% in two days) or very bad (8% over 20 years). Even just measured over the past year it could be relatively very good (up 8% and the market is down 5%) or very bad (up 8% and the market is up 16%). Either way, the good rule of thumb is that you shouldn't choose your positions using the returns of the stock in the past, but only on your view of the future returns of the stock. For instance, if the stock has gone up 8% in two months, but you think it has another 8% to go in the next two months you probably shouldn't take your earnings. As for the $5k, at first glance that is not an unreasonable amount. If you use a discount broker the fees shouldn't be so large that you will eat up any return on a $5k amount. Also, from what you describe it is not such a large amount that mistakes will put your retirement in danger.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "36f2b43894ed30fd935722af2ad6a7f2",
"text": "There isn't a single hard and fast return to expect. Securities, like all things in a free market, compete for your money. As the Fed sets the tone for the market with their overnight Fed funds rate, you might want to use a multiple of the 'benchmark' 10-year T-note yeald. So let's suppose that a good multiple is four. The current yeald on the 10-year T-note is hovering around two. That would give a target yeald of eight. http://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=%24UST10Y&p=W&b=5&g=0&id=p47115669808",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "c3ee2200952b082f62092d65b776999e",
"text": "It's a kook movie made by folks who combine conspiracy quackery with repackaged socialism. If you're into socialist theory, read Marx or some other intellectual socialist. That said, growth and efficiency are not the same thing. If I'm running a lemonade stand, I can grow by hiring more people at $X/hr or increase efficiency by purchasing an electric juicer and hiring fewer people.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7653999c9f52021f431653da7753cb77",
"text": "\"Jesus christ. \"\"We need to consume more or the GROWTH will come to a dramatic halt.\"\" What about fine? What about things being big enough? What about focusing on something other then unhinged growth? Economists may often be better then most people at understanding the big picture, but man sometimes just staring at the numbers makes you so blind.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9cf796c92ec075db88a0620253a15499",
"text": "\"The answer to your question depends on what you mean when you say \"\"growth\"\". If you mean a literal increase in the aggregate market capitalization of companies, across the entire market, then, no, this sort of growth is not possible without concomitant economic growth. The reason why is that the market capitalization of each company is proportional to its gross revenue, and the sum of all revenue from selling \"\"final goods\"\" (i.e., things purchased and used by consumers) is, apart from a few technicalities, the definition of GDP. The exact multiplier might fluctuate up or down depending on investors' expectations about how sales will grow or decline going forward, but in a zero-growth economy this multiplier should be stable over the long run. It might, however, still fluctuate over the short term, but more about that in a minute. Note that all of this applies to aggregate growth across all firms. Individual firms can still grow, of course, but as they must do this by gaining market share from other companies such growth would be balanced by a decline for some other firm. Also, I've assumed zero net exports (that's one of the \"\"technicalities\"\" I mentioned above) because obviously you could have export-driven growth even if the domestic economy were stationary. However, often when people talk about \"\"growth\"\" in the market, what they really mean is \"\"return\"\". That is, how much does your investment earn for you. This isn't really the same thing as growth, but people often think of it that way, particularly in the saving phase of their investing career, when they are reinvesting their returns, and therefore their account balances are growing. It is possible to have a positive return, averaged across the market, even in a stationary economy. The reason why is that there are really only two things a firm can do with its net profits. One possibility is that it could invest it in growing the business. However, there is not much point in doing that in a stationary economy because by assumption no increase in aggregate consumption (and therefore, in the long run, aggregate production) are possible. Therefore, firms are left with only the second option, which is to pay them out to investors as dividends. Those dividends provide a return that is independent of economic growth. Would the stock market still be a good investment in such an economy? Yes. Well, sort of. The rate of return from firms' dividend payouts will depend on investors' demand (in aggregate) for returns on their investments. Stock prices will rise or fall, causing returns to respectively fall or rise, to find that level. If your personal desire for returns is lower than the average across the investing public, then the stock market would look like a good investment. If your desired return is higher than the average, then it will look like a poor investment. The marginal investor will, of course be indifferent. The practical upshot of this is that the people who invest in the stock market in this scenario will be precisely the ones for whom the stock market is a good investment, given their personal propensity to save and desire for returns, and so forth. Finally, you mentioned that in your scenario the GDP stagnation is due to declining population. I am less certain what this means for investment, but my first thought is that you would have a large retired population selling its investments to fund late-life consumption, and you would have a comparatively small (relative to history) working population buying those assets. This would lead to low asset prices, and therefore high rates of return. However, that's assuming that retirees need to sell assets to fund their retirement consumption. If the absolute returns on retirees' assets are large enough to fund their retirement consumption then you would wind up with relatively few sellers, resulting in high prices and therefore relatively low rates of return. It's not obvious to me which effect would dominate, and so it's hard to say whether or not the resulting returns would look attractive to the working-age population.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5e339735f623110bdf034ab57031d132",
"text": "This is supply side nonsense. The primary driver of growth is demand. If demand is growing, then lower taxes will allow the company to meet growing demand faster. However, if demand is stable and currently being met by the company, reducing taxes will only enrich shareholders at the expense of society at large. Unless there is growing demand, a corporation will always choose to allocate profit via tax cuts to shareholders rather than to employees in the form of jobs or raises.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "01a307c4236d58d3e0da1df77541e4a9",
"text": "I didn't take too many finance or economics courses so i can't comment. In my post I recommended the YouTube video or audiobook 'why an economy grows and why it doesn't' I guess it's more economy related than finance related, but is still relevant as it touches on loans and net worth and stuff.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5fd5934bdc397c5a38d18e5334ea2156",
"text": "Monetary base and growth are no longer correlated, at least that's what we know from QE in the US. Source, some research I did as an undergrad and papers I can't cite from my phone. But in all seriousness, I doubt there are many mainstream economists that would cite the monetary base as a key driver of growth.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "68ad2d6cc4afb29c1b2f1b4a8f0d38f1",
"text": "All you have to do is ask Warren Buffet that question and you'll have your answer! (grin) He is the very definition of someone who relies on the fundamentals as a major part of his investment decisions. Investors who rely on analysis of fundamentals tend to be more long-term strategic planners than most other investors, who seem more focused on momentum-based thinking. There are some industries which have historically low P/E ratios, such as utilities, but I don't think that implies poor growth prospects. How often does a utility go out of business? I think oftentimes if you really look into the numbers, there are companies reporting higher earnings and earnings growth, but is that top-line growth, or is it the result of cost-cutting and other measures which artificially imply a healthy and growing company? A healthy company is one which shows year-over-year organic growth in revenues and earnings from sales, not one which has to continually make new acquisitions or use accounting tricks to dress up the bottom line. Is it possible to do well by investing in companies with solid fundamentals? Absolutely. You may not realize the same rate of short-term returns as others who use momentum-based trading strategies, but over the long haul I'm willing to bet you'll see a better overall average return than they do.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fcada1ca8ec573c01699048d4d50fd8e",
"text": "No, it is not. If that were the case, you would have no such thing as a growth stock. Dividends and dividend policies can change at any time. The primary reason for investment in a company is access to a firm's earnings, hence the idea of P/E. Dividends are factored in with capital appreciation, but studies have shown that dividends are actually detrimental to future growth. They tend to allow easier access to shareholders because of the payouts, reducing the cost of equity. But, if you reduce the growth rate as well, sensitivity tables can demonstrate deterioration or stagnation over time. Some good examples are GE and Microsoft.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "83ff91d25d43c5069739a553a5a028ad",
"text": "It is not so useful because you are applying it to large capital. Think about Theory of Investment Value. It says that you must find undervalued stocks with whatever ratios and metrics. Now think about the reality of a company. For example, if you are waiting KO (The Coca-Cola Company) to be undervalued for buying it, it might be a bad idea because KO is already an international well known company and KO sells its product almost everywhere...so there are not too many opportunities for growth. Even if KO ratios and metrics says it's a good time to buy because it's undervalued, people might not invest on it because KO doesn't have the same potential to grow as 10 years ago. The best chance to grow is demographics. You are better off either buying ETFs monthly for many years (10 minimum) OR find small-cap and mid-cap companies that have the potential to grow plus their ratios indicate they might be undervalued. If you want your investment to work remember this: stock price growth is nothing more than You might ask yourself. What is your investment profile? Agressive? Speculative? Income? Dividends? Capital preservation? If you want something not too risky: ETFs. And not waste too much time. If you want to get more returns, you have to take more risks: find small-cap and mid-companies that are worth. I hope I helped you!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "52f5dbdf11819f5558574b5eddcfd402",
"text": "I like your example. My only issue with it is that it's very anthropocentric. Even at a very basic level, we should be teaching that economy is a subset of ecology, not just about human interactions. I think the great economic problem of our age is not how to spur growth, but how to appropriately factor in costs of natural resources and affects to the world ecology.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ed925a4a25be5682c7eb972607f6e37b",
"text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.citylab.com/equity/2017/09/the-how-and-why-of-inclusive-growth/541422/) reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot) ***** > In our increasingly unequal cities, inclusion is good for growth, and growth is good for inclusion. > The report draws from the experience of Brookings Metro Policy Program&#039;s Inclusive Economic Development Lab, a six-month pilot project that worked with regional EDOs in three metros-Indianapolis, Nashville, and San Diego-to develop more effective strategies to frame inclusive growth as an economic imperative. > As one economic development official said to me recently: &quot;For too long we emphasized economic growth, and that has helped accentuate many of the problems our cities and regions now face. Our profession is called economic development and that&#039;s what we should emphasize; not just growth but the full development of our people, neighborhoods and communities.&quot; That&#039;s what the budding movement for inclusive growth and prosperity is about. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/73aqjn/to_fight_inequality_cities_need_inclusive_growth/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~219138 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **growth**^#1 **economic**^#2 **EDO**^#3 **inclusive**^#4 **more**^#5\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e9459148637c87987c229537a4493a9c",
"text": "Inequality is good for everyone. It's extreme inequality and extreme equality that snuff mobility and growth. The sides are strong because they're the height of financial/democratic power. So to support either side means taking from the weaker center. And it's the center that holds the house together.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c605fb562aaa9d64793b16976ff99d90",
"text": "I believe you're looking for some sort of formula that will determine how changes in savings, investing, and spending will affect economic growth. If such a formula existed (and worked) then central planning would work since a couple of people could pull some levers to encourage more savings, or more investing, or more spending - depending on what was needed at that particular time. Unfortunately, no magic formula exists and so no person has enough knowledge to determine what the proper amount of savings, investing, or spending should be at a given time. I found this resource particular helpful in describing the interactions between savings, consumption, and investing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e1ce8250eb72a7472e0fcb696d1dc384",
"text": "\"In general, when dealing with quantities like net income that are not restricted to being positive, \"\"percentage change\"\" is a problematic measure. Even with small positive values it can be difficult to interpret. For example, compare these two companies: Company A: Company B: At a glance, I think most people would come away with the impression that both companies did badly in Y2, but A made a much stronger recovery. The difference between 99.7 and 99.9 looks unimportant compared to the difference between 100,000 and 40,000. But if we translate those to dollars: Company A: Y1 $100m, Y2 $0.1m, Y3 $100.1m Company B: Y1 $100m, Y2 $0.3m, Y3 $120.3m Company B has grown by a net of 20% over two years; Company A by only 1%. If you're lucky enough to know that income will always be positive after Y1 and won't drop too close to zero, then this doesn't matter very much and you can just look at year-on-year growth, leaving Y1 as undefined. If you don't have that guarantee, then you may do better to look for a different and more stable metric, the other answers are correct: Y1 growth should be left blank. If you don't have that guarantee, then it might be time to look for a more robust measure, e.g. change in net income as a percentage of turnover or of company value.\"",
"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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
7c5008560ca719b636cf6a5a5899654f
|
Can my accounting for Tax Basis differ from my broker's
|
[
{
"docid": "69c90279a1829fd8ce58e09cb7fd2a79",
"text": "No. If you didn't specify LIFO on account or sell by specifying the shares you wish sold, then the brokers method applies. From Publication 551 Identifying stock or bonds sold. If you can adequately identify the shares of stock or the bonds you sold, their basis is the cost or other basis of the particular shares of stock or bonds. If you buy and sell securities at various times in varying quantities and you cannot adequately identify the shares you sell, the basis of the securities you sell is the basis of the securities you acquired first. For more information about identifying securities you sell, see Stocks and Bonds under Basis of Investment Property in chapter 4 of Pub. 550. The trick is to identify the stock lot prior to sale.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "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": "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": "a936419d8168fea5981f592849805c79",
"text": "Since you reference SS, I surmise you are in the US. Stock you inherit gets a stepped up basis when it's inherited. (so long as it was not contained within a tax deffered retirement account.) When you sell, the new basis is taken from that day you inherited it. It should be minimal compared to your desire to diversify.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e51fdeb51cecb92c7a69bc78db232a18",
"text": "No, it will show on the LLC tax return (form 1065), in the capital accounts (schedules K-1, L and M-2), attributed to your partner.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b9d65921f3dd4bb75d269ea1873d8ddf",
"text": "The default is FIFO: first in - first out. Unless you specifically instruct the brokerage otherwise, they'll report that the lot you've sold is of Jan 5, 2011. Note, that before 2011, they didn't have to report the cost basis to the IRS, and it would be up to you to calculate the cost basis at tax time, but that has been changed in 2011 and you need to make sure you've instructed the brokerage which lot exactly you're selling. I'm assuming you're in the US, in other places laws may be different.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dc95981f0c9cdf734451c8280615c376",
"text": "The business and investment would be shown on separate parts of the tax return. (An exception to this is where an investment is related and part of your business, such as futures trading on business products) On the business side of it, you would show the transfer to the stocks as a draw from the business, the amount transferred would then be the cost base of the investment. For taxes, you only have to report gains or losses on investments.",
"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": "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": "d129de5049e0ce307a46337a8462b5c2",
"text": "To your first question: YES. Capital gains and losses on real-estate are treated differently than income. Note here for exact IRS standards. The IRS will not care about percentage change but historical (recorded) amounts. To your second question: NO Are you taxed when buying a new stock? No. But be sure to record the price paid for the house. Note here for more questions. *Always consult a CPA for tax advice on federal tax returns.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "af53fe1b8df5ef47b581399e1b92a747",
"text": "\"An investment is sold when you sell that particular stock or fund. It doesn't wait until you withdraw cash from the brokerage account. Whether an investment is subject to long term or short term taxes depends on how long you held that particular stock. Sorry, you can't get around the higher short term tax by leaving the money in a brokerage account or re-investing in something else. If you are invested in a mutual fund, whether it's long or short term depends on when you buy and sell the fund. The fact that the fund managers are buying and selling behind your back doesn't affect this. (I don't know what taxes they have to pay, maybe you really are paying for it in the form of management fees or lower returns, but you don't explicitly pay the tax on these \"\"inner\"\" transactions.) Your broker should send you a tax statement every year giving the numbers that you need to fill in to the various boxes of your income tax form. You don't have to figure it out. Of course it helps to know the rules. If you've held a stock for 11 1/2 months and are planning to sell, you might want to consider waiting a couple of weeks so it becomes a long term capital gain rather than short term and thus subject to lower tax.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "4902a1a39912a3dd74a0f67c18da2907",
"text": "\"If it's fully expensed, it has zero basis. Any sale is taxable, 100%. To the ordinary income / cap gain issue raised in comment - It's a cap gain, but I believe, as with real estate, special rates apply. This is where I am out of my area of expertise, and as they say - \"\"Consult a professional.\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4feee62d05283e344f0ef317796f6d4e",
"text": "Starting of 2011, your broker has to keep track of all the transactions and the cost basis, and it will be reported on your 1099-B. Also, some brokers allow downloading the data directly to your tax software or to excel charts (I use E*Trade, and last year TurboTax downloaded all the transaction directly from them).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
4a11a8082a02510be0e9af708536b208
|
Do marketmakers always quote a bid and ask simultaneously
|
[
{
"docid": "e23e5f9545636f5431c911d953156a45",
"text": "\"Market makers (shortened MM) in an exchange are generally required to list both a bid and ask price to allow both buyers and sellers to trade and keep the market moving. However, a more general idea of a MM may includes companies off an exchange (say large banks acting as broker/dealers in an over-the-counter market) are not required to give a simultaneous bid/ask, but often will on request. So, it might depend on where you are getting this data but likely the bid/ask was quoted simultaneously. An exchange, like the NASDAQ for instance, may have multiple MMs for a given market. The \"\"market\"\" spread will be from the highest bid to the lowest ask over all the MMs. The highest bid and lowest ask may come from different MMs and any particular MM often will have a larger spread. The size of the spread gives a rough idea of how much a MM is trying to make off of a \"\"round trip\"\" trade (buying than immediately selling to someone else or selling than immediately buying from someone else). Of course, immediate round-trip trades are not always possible and there are many other complications. However, half the spread is a rough indicator of how much they hope to make off of a single trade.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"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": "1b09783242853e75216bd2ed42e75a50",
"text": "Actually the insertion part is interesting because they actually aren't middlemen just faster buyer's and sellers on the open market. They just buy what one person is selling and sell it to someone else who is at the same time looking to buy. So I guess the issue is the 'same time' isn't the same for all parties concerned. On the other hand both buyer and seller can set limits on the bounds of the price and only transact when someone meets their terms. If you are willing to accept 'whatever the market will bear' then it seems like you should be OK with getting it.",
"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": "98ca4d549287c7ab43dc505cd88d3e6b",
"text": "Not that I am aware. There are times that an option is available, but none have traded yet, and it takes a request to get a bid/ask, or you can make an offer and see if it's accepted. But the option chain itself has to be open.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "59b6f3eb56c43f3107ec7bcacdb5d90c",
"text": "\"EVERYONE buys at the ask price and sells at the bid price (no matter who you are). There are a few important things you need to understand. Example: EVE bid: 16.00 EVE ask: 16.25 So if your selling EVE at \"\"market price\"\" you are entering an ask equal to the highest bid ($16.00). If you buy EVE at \"\"market price\"\" you are entering a bid equal to the lowest ask price ($16.25). Its key to understand this rule: \"\"An order executes ONLY when both bid and ask meet. (bid = ask).\"\" So a market maker puts in a bid when he wants to buy but the trade only executes when an ASK price meets his BID price. When you see a quote for a stock it is the price of the last trade. So it is possible to have a quote higher or lower then both the bid and the ask.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3be2b64b0a6817534c811ba341dbca23",
"text": "I'm not exactly sure, but it may be due to liquidity preference. SPY has a much higher volume (30d average of roughly 70m vs. 3.3m, 1.9m for IVV, VOO respectively), and similarly has a narrow bid ask spread of about 0.01 compared to 0.02 for the other two. I could be wrong, but I'm going to leave this post up and look in to it later, I'm curious too. The difference is very consistent though, so it may be something in their methodology.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "0e09e504da831f2a596ce992d0226259",
"text": "\"For every buyer there is a seller. That rule refers to actual (historical) trades. It doesn't apply to \"\"wannabees.\"\" Suppose there are buyers for 2,000 shares and sellers for only 1,000 at a given price, P. Some of those buyers will raise their \"\"bid\"\" (the indication of the price they are willing to pay) above P so that the sellers of the 1000 shares will fill their orders first (\"\"sold to the highest bidder\"\"). The ones that don't do this will (probably) not get their orders filled. Suppose there are more sellers than buyers. Then some sellers will lower their \"\"offer\"\" price to attract buyers (and some sellers probably won't). At a low enough price, there will likely be a \"\"match\"\" between the total number of shares on sale, and shares on purchase orders.\"",
"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": "554c3faf49ab2a735c81628c8f6001af",
"text": "I would say it's a bit more complicated than that. Do you understand what a market maker does? An ECN (electronic communication network) is a virtual exchange that works with market makers. Using a rebate structure that works by paying for orders adding liquidity and charges a fee for removing liquidity. So liquidity is created by encouraging what are essentially limit orders, orders that are outside of the current market price and therefore not immediately executable. These orders stay in the book and are filled when the price of the security moves and triggers them. So direct answer is NYSE ARCA is where market makers do their jobs. These market makers can be floor traders or algorithmic. When you send an order through your brokerage, your broker has a number of options. Your order can be sent directly to an ECN/exchange like NYSE ARCA, sent to a market making firm like KCG Americas (formerly Knight Capital), or internalized. Internalization is when the broker uses an in house service to execute your trade. Brokerages must disclose what they do with orders. For example etrade's. https://content.etrade.com/etrade/powerpage/pdf/OrderRouting11AC6.pdf This is a good graphic showing what happens in general along with the names of some common liquidity providers. http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-12-20/how-your-buy-order-gets-filled",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "8f5541e4cd88d0abca3d687a5388e3db",
"text": "\"Yes, this is common and in some cases may be required. They may use it for marketing at some level, but they also use it for risk management in deciding, for example, how much margin to offer and whether to approve access to \"\"riskier\"\" products like stock options.\"",
"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": "fee67ab5c332a44bcc668a9f36bbb341",
"text": "\"At least for liquid markets, the downside of being a market maker is what we call \"\"negative selection\"\". Specifically, if you're both bid and offered in a market, trying to collect your spread, then as the market goes up, you'll tend to sell the whole way up, and vice versa. So if you're not smart about it, you can end up losing a lot of money. Being a good market maker, then, involves either being able to smarter about when to be aggressively bid and offered and when to pull back, or being able to hedge them quickly before they really hurt you. The first probably would require more sophisticated algorithms, while the second requires good speed and execution strategies.\"",
"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": "f4ca4ceb8537d75d6b09d221943b50d5",
"text": "If you are the only one who puts in a large market buy order, then it would definitely push the price up. How much up would depend on how many would be willing to sell at what price point. It would also be possible that your trade will not get executed as there are no sellers. The same would be true if you put in a large sell order, with no buyers. The price would go down or trade not get executed as there aren't enough buyers.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
ca517255ee0717d98a251c70cdee2489
|
Help me understand Forex in Interactive Brokers
|
[
{
"docid": "d5734b807aee32ecde45ad6c7b1473de",
"text": "You're confusing open positions and account balance. Your position in GBP is 1000, that's what you've bought. You then used some of it to buy something else, but to the broker you still have an open position of 1000 GBP. They will only close it when you give them the 1000GBP back. What you do with it until then is none of their business. Your account balance (available funds) in GBP is 10.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "d880b5026c820d20291b65f8cfa7baa5",
"text": "\"I definitely can recommend you a site called babypips. Their beginner course section is great to get a good overview what you \"\"could\"\" do in FOREX trading. For starting out I definitely recommend a dummy account! (NEVER use real money in the beginning!)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3a5e26a54c14df9789647c1dea47ee96",
"text": "There are some brokers in the US who would be happy to open an account for non-US residents, allowing you to trade stocks at NYSE and other US Exchanges. Some of them, along with some facts: DriveWealth Has support in Portuguese Website TD Ameritrade Has support in Portuguese Website Interactive Brokers Account opening is not that straightforward Website",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b235004e22e3e1e2bc35f1b4309da30e",
"text": "\"Brokers need to assess your level of competency to ensure that they don't allow you to \"\"bite off more than you can chew\"\" and find yourself in a bad situation. Some brokers ask you to rate your skills, others ask you how long you've been trading, it always varies based on broker. I use IB and they gave me a questionairre about a wide range of instruments, my skill level, time spent trading, trades per year, etc. Many brokers will use your self-reported experience to choose what types of instruments you can trade. Some will only allow you to start with stocks and restrict access to forex, options, futures, etc. until you ask for readiness and, for some brokers, even pass a test of knowledge. Options are very commonly restricted so that you can only go long on an option when you own the underlying stock when you are a \"\"newbie\"\" and scale out from there. Many brokers adopt a four-tiered approach for options where only the most skilled traders can write naked options, as seen here. It's important to note that all of this information is self-reported and you are not legally bound to answer honestly in any way. If, for example, you are well aware of the risks of writing naked options and want to try it despite never trading one before, there is nothing stopping you from saying you've traded options for 10 years and be given the privilege by your broker. Of course, they're just looking out for your best interest, but you are by no means forced into the scheme if you do not wish to be.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aa1fd4c1ea9ab614af95103a1847a75c",
"text": "Disclosure: I am working for an aggregation startup business called Brokerchooser, that is matching the needs of clients to the right online broker. FxPro and similar brokers are rather CFD/FX brokers. If you want to trade stocks you have to find a broker who is registered member of an exchange like LSE. Long list: http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/traders-and-brokers/membership/member-firm-directory/member-firm-directory-search.html From the brokers we have tested at Brokerchooser.com I would suggest:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "170473bd8e884ff4f8835a20e2c6cc1b",
"text": "Disregarding leverage and things alike, I would like to know what's the difference between opening a position in Forex on a pair through a broker, for example, and effectively buy some currency in a traditional bank-to-bank transition The forex account may pay or charge you interest whereas converting your currency directly will not. Disregarding leverage, the difference would be interest.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d12677c5ce536252d1fb9b80104aee05",
"text": "This is exactly how I started, starting a simulation account on the CBOE website just to see what situation was profitable because it was all greek to me. Actually after learning the greeks, I realize that site was worse and eventually read some books and got better tools. The screenshot you have is telling you the strikes, but unfortunately they are showing you the technical name of the contract on the exchanges. For example, just like you type in AAPL to buy shares of AAPL stock, you can type in VIX1616K16E to get that one particular contract, expiration and strike. So lets break it down just by inferring, because this is what I just did with that picture: You know the current price of VIX, $17.06 Calls expiring November 16th, 2016: What is changing? SYMBOL / YEAR / EXPIRATION DAY / STRIKE / OPTION-STYLE (?) So knowing that in the money options will be more expensive, and near the money options will be slightly cheaper, and out the money will be even cheaper, you can see what is going on, per expiration.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e452b219724c5f5bd7923cc1230effeb",
"text": "Have you looked at ThinkorSwim, which is now part of TD Ameritrade? Because of their new owner, you'll certainly be accepted as a US customer and the support will likely be responsive. They are certainly pushing webinars and learning resources around the ThinkorSwim platform. At the least you can start a Live Help session and get your answers. That link will take you to the supported order types list. Another tab there will show you the currency pairs. USD is available with both CAD and JPY. Looks like the minimum balance requirement is $25k across all ThinkorSwim accounts. Barron's likes the platform and their annual review may help you find reasons to like it. Here is more specific news from a press release: OMAHA, Neb., Aug 24, 2010 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- TD AMERITRADE Holding Corporation (NASDAQ: AMTD) today announced that futures and spot forex (foreign exchange) trading capabilities are now available via the firm's thinkorswim from TD AMERITRADE trading platform, joining the recently introduced complex options functionality.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0eabeb93cababb5106d595ec924f6c44",
"text": "Is my observation that the currency exchange market is indirect correct? Is there a particular reason for this? Why isn't currency traded like stocks? I guess yes. In Stocks its pretty simple where the stock is held with a depository. Hence listing matching is simple and the exchange of money is via local clearing. Currency markets are more global and there is no one place where trades happen. There are multiple places where it happens and is loosely called Fx market place. Building a matching engine is also complex and confusing. If we go with your example of currency pair, matches would be difficult. Say; If we were to say all transactions happen in USD say, and list every currency as item to be purchased or sold. I could put a trade Sell Trade for Quantity 100 Stock Code EUR at Price 1.13 [Price in USD]. So there has to be a buy at a price and we can match. Similarly we would have Stock Code for GBP, AUD, JPY, etc. Since not every thing would be USD based, say I need to convert GBP to EUR, I would have to have a different set of Base currency say GBP. So here the quantity would All currencies except GBP which would be price. Even then we have issues, someone using USD as base currency has quoted for Stock GBP. While someone else using GBP has quoted for Stock USD. Plus moving money internationally is expensive and doing this for small trades removes the advantages. The kind of guarantees required are difficult to achieve without established correspondence bank relationships. One heavily traded currency pair, the exchange for funds happens via CLS Bank.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f9349e5a17f56799ad62bf36addb6df5",
"text": "You've said what's different in your question. There's 330 microseconds of network latency between IEX and anywhere else, so HFTs can't get information about trades in progress on IEX and use it to jump in ahead of those traders on other exchanges. All exchanges should have artificially induced latency of this kind so that if a trade is submitted simultaneously to all exchanges it reaches the furthest away one before a response can be received from the closest one, thus preventing HFT techniques.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2041307b762fa5e48cadb6e57334b1bc",
"text": "You can use interactive brokers. It allows you to have a single account to trade stocks and currencies from several countries.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "30aaa612684f58901097058380ef7de2",
"text": "I'm not disputing whether IB is good to start. I'm disputing that anything going through them is 'low latency.' 50-100ms is a lifetime against high frequency traders. Also, if you're co-locating w/ them and using a direct feed and still getting that latency you're getting ripped off. It should take 100ms *for a message to travel between Chicago and NY*, let alone between your computer and the exchange one at the same colo.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "f0643397497e4dc64d752d89cd18058c",
"text": "It isn't that the companies force traders, it is more the other way around. Traders wouldn't trade without margin. The main reason is liquidity and taking advantage of minor changes in the forex quotes. It goes down to pips and traders make profit(loss) on movement of pips maybe by 1 or 2 and in some cases in 1/1000 or less of a pip. So you need to put in a large amount to make a profit when the quotes move up or down. Supposedly if they have put in all the amount upfront, their trading options are limited. And the liquidity in the market goes out of the window. The banks and traders cannot make a profit with the limited amount of money available at their disposal. So what they would do is borrow from somebody else, so why not the broker itself in this case maybe the forex company, and execute the trades. So it helps everybody. Forex companies make their profit from the fees, more the trades done, more the fees and hence more profit. Traders get to put their fingers in many pies and so their chances of making profits increases. So everybody is happy.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "81c016998574efc6dbf2244659066d3b",
"text": "\"Strategy would be my top factor. While this may be implied, I do think it helps to have an idea of what is causing the buy and sell signals in speculating as I'd rather follow a strategy than try to figure things out completely from scratch that doesn't quite make sense to me. There are generally a couple of different schools of analysis that may be worth passing along: Fundamental Analysis:Fundamental analysis of a business involves analyzing its financial statements and health, its management and competitive advantages, and its competitors and markets. When applied to futures and forex, it focuses on the overall state of the economy, interest rates, production, earnings, and management. When analyzing a stock, futures contract, or currency using fundamental analysis there are two basic approaches one can use; bottom up analysis and top down analysis. The term is used to distinguish such analysis from other types of investment analysis, such as quantitative analysis and technical analysis. Technical Analysis:In finance, technical analysis is a security analysis methodology for forecasting the direction of prices through the study of past market data, primarily price and volume. Behavioral economics and quantitative analysis use many of the same tools of technical analysis, which, being an aspect of active management, stands in contradiction to much of modern portfolio theory. The efficacy of both technical and fundamental analysis is disputed by the efficient-market hypothesis which states that stock market prices are essentially unpredictable. There are tools like \"\"Stock Screeners\"\" that will let you filter based on various criteria to use each analysis in a mix. There are various strategies one could use. Wikipedia under Stock Speculator lists: \"\"Several different types of stock trading strategies or approaches exist including day trading, trend following, market making, scalping (trading), momentum trading, trading the news, and arbitrage.\"\" Thus, I'd advise research what approach are you wanting to use as the \"\"Make it up as we go along losing real money all the way\"\" wouldn't be my suggested approach. There is something to be said for there being numerous columnists and newsletter peddlers if you want other ideas but I would suggest having a strategy before putting one's toe in the water.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
77b5a068ed776b444e2933d8f567075f
|
Against what income are broker fees deducted?
|
[
{
"docid": "a466255400ad63956a96c33886d5dda3",
"text": "\"You don't \"\"deduct\"\" transaction fees, but they are included in your cost basis and proceeds, which will affect the amount of gain/loss you report. So in your example, the cost basis for each of the two lots is $15 (10$ share price plus $5 broker fee). Your proceeds for each lot are $27.50 (($30*2 - $5 )/2). Your gain on each lot is therefore $12.50, and you will report $12.50 in STCG and $12.50 in LTCG in the year you sold the stock (year 3). As to the other fees, in general yes they are deductible, but there are limits and exceptions, so you would need to consult a tax professional to get a correct answer in your specific situation.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "c0b1aab11f4c933674933f8bcf85508c",
"text": "The commission is per trade, there is likely a different commission based on the type of security you're trading, stock, options, bonds, over the internet, on the phone, etc. It's not likely that they charge an account maintenance fee, but without knowing what kind of account you have it's hard to say. What you may be referring to is a fund expense ratio. Most (all...) mutual funds and exchange traded funds will charge some sort of expense costs to you, this is usually expressed as a percent of your holdings. An index fund like Vanguard's S&P 500 index, ticker VOO, has a small 0.05% expense ratio. Most brokers will have a set of funds that you can trade with no commission, though there will still be an expense fee charged by the fund. Read over the E*Trade fee schedule carefully.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5db324f25d180b02a9e3523efe4ef4a4",
"text": "I would say it's all relative. Take the following two scenarios: If you were facing these options, would you chose #2 just because you pay a lower tax rate, even though you make less money? These numbers are of course fictional, but the point I'm trying to make is that everyone will seek the method that allows them to make the most money. If they have to pay a higher tax rate, so be it. One other thought: daytraders will have higher expenses, which are deductible.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b069d22b7c968294f963f273dd8ee0a9",
"text": "Yes, if you can split your income up over multiple years it will be to your advantage over earning it all in one year. The reasons are as you mentioned, you get to apply multiple deductions/credits/exemptions to the same income. Rather than just 1 standard deduction, you get to deduct 2 standard deductions, you can double the max saved in an IRA, you benefit more from any non-refundable credits etc. This is partly due to the fact that when you are filing your taxes in Year 1, you can't include anything from Year 2 since it hasn't happened yet. It doesn't make sense for the Government to take into account actions that may or may not happen when calculating your tax bill. There are factors where other year profit/loss can affect your tax liability, however as far as I know these are limited to businesses. Look into Loss Carry Forwarded/Back if you want to know more. Regarding the '30% simple rate', I think you are confusing something that is simple to say with something that is simple to implement. Are we going to go change the rules on people who expected their mortgage deduction to continue? There are few ways I can think of that are more sure to cause home prices to plummet than to eliminate the Mortgage Interest Deduction. What about removing Student Loan Interest? Under a 30% 'simple' rate, what tools would the government use to encourage trade in specific areas? Will state income tax deduction also be removed? This is going to punish those in a state with a high income tax more than those in states without income tax. Those are all just 'common' deductions that affect a lot of people, you could easily say 'no' to all of them and just piss off a bunch of people, but what about selling stock though? I paid $100 for the stock and I sold it for $120, do I need to pay $36 tax on that because it is a 'simple' 30% tax rate or are we allowing the cost of goods sold deduction (it's called something else I believe when talking about stocks but it's the same idea?) What about if I travel for work to tutor individuals, can I deduct my mileage expenses? Do I need to pay 30% income tax on my earnings and principal from a Roth IRA? A lot of people have contributed to a Roth with the understanding that withdrawals will be tax free, changing those rules are punishing people for using vehicles intentionally created by the government. Are we going to go around and dismantle all non-profits that subsist entirely on tax-deductible donations? Do I need to pay taxes on the employer's cost of my health insurance? What about 401k's and IRA's? Being true to a 'simple' 30% tax will eliminate all 'benefits' from every job as you would need to pay taxes on the value of the benefits. I should mention that this isn't exactly too crazy, there was a relatively recent IRS publication about businesses needing to withhold taxes from their employees for the cost of company supplied food but I don't know if it was ultimately accepted. At the end of the day, the concept of simplifying the tax law isn't without merit, but realize that the complexities of tax law are there due to the complexities of life. The vast majority of tax laws were written for a reason other than to benefit special interests, and for that reason they cannot easily be ignored.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "675a70aadcb10c31e3cc28eca8b61c0c",
"text": "Brokers will have transaction fees in addition to the find management fees, but they should be very transparent. Brokering is a very competitive business. Any broker that added hidden fees to their transactions would lose customers very quickly to other brokers than can offer the same services. Hedge funds are a very different animal, with less regulation, less transparency, and less competition. Their fees are tolerated because the leveraged returns are usually much higher. When times are bad, though, those fees might drive investors elsewhere.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "99bb25d0b743df906c2a541a30c45585",
"text": "It is not your brokerage's responsibility to tell you **what** to buy, whether explicitly, or implicitly through their fee structure. This is **not** an article about Robin Hood. It's an argument condemning all active investing with repeated mostly-irrelevant mentions of Robin Hood as one of the hundreds of entities that makes that possible.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3bdd2e14dc990aa712c3092fbe817087",
"text": "I received a $2,000 bonus... Gross Income is income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) “compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items.” Adjusted Gross Income is defined as gross income minus adjustments to income. My question is, must I still report this money on my tax return and if so, how? Yes, and it would be on line 21 of your 1040 with supporting documentation. Are these legal fees deductible as an expense, and where would I list them? Yes, you would aggregate your deductible expenses and place these on your Schedule A. Instructions here. Good Luck. Edit: As Ben Miller pointed out in the comments, the deduction would be placed in either line 23 or 28 depending on the nature of the attorney (investment related or not).",
"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": "29141964b7c403471b9ebb1598075ea3",
"text": "You can deduct retirement contributions (above the line even), but not as a business expense. So you can't avoid the SE taxes, sorry.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f33e2bcb2cdc6da2742b0438139a2fa0",
"text": "There is a LOT of shuffling going on in the financial services industry. I would not immediately say your advisor is acting in bad faith. The DOL fiduciary changes are quite significant for some brokers. Investment Advisors who are fee-based have less of an impact since they are already fiduciaries. That being said, your issue is still the same. How can you get a low-cost solution to your problem? You might want to consider Vanguard, Fidelity, or another mutual fund company that can keep your costs low. However, you should understand that if you are using mutual funds, the fees are paid one way or another. 12b1 fees, commissions, and expenses are all deducted from the fund's gross returns. You have to choose between low cost and paid advice. you cannot get high-quality low-cost advice. Fortunately, there are a lot of new solutions out there, robo-advisors, indexing, asset allocation mutual funds, ETFs, and more. Do a bit of homework and you should be able to come up with a reasonable solution. I hope you found this helpful. Kirk",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bd32fe9ac63a48f7adcb39dea2923ad9",
"text": "I am an Israeli based citizen who represents and Indian company who sells its products in Israel. As an agent I am entitled to commission on sales on behalf the Indian company who advised that. Any commission paid to you will be applicable to TDS at 20.9% of the commission amount, the tax will be paid and a Tax paid certificate will be given to you. According to a Bilateral Double tax avoidance treaty if the tax has been deducted in India you will get credit for this tax in Israel.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a936d2048a9a5aaf00b15383d3040ce9",
"text": "If you have made $33k from winning trades and lost $30k from loosing trades your net gain for the year would be $3k, so obviously you would pay taxes only on the net $3k gains.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "01146864ca51d161601ebe09cd8359b9",
"text": "First of all, this is a situation when a consultation with a EA working with S-Corporations in California, CA-licensed CPA or tax preparer (California licenses tax preparers as well) is in order. I'm neither of those, and my answer is not a tax advice of any kind. You're looking at schedule CA line 17 (see page 42 in the 540NR booklet). The instructions refer you to form 3885A. You need to read the instructions carefully. California is notorious for not conforming to the Federal tax law. Specifically, to the issue of the interest attributable to investment in S-Corp, I do not know if CA conforms. I couldn't find any sources saying that it doesn't, but then again - I'm not a professional. It may be that there's an obscure provision invalidating this deduction, living in California myself - I wouldn't be surprised. So I suggest hiring a CA-licensed tax preparer to do this tax return for you, at least for the first year.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a87688fb747cdc8f66ebfc69393bdf18",
"text": "This is taxed as ordinary income. See the IRC Sec 988(a)(1). The exclusion you're talking about (the $200) is in the IRC Sec 988(e)(2), but you'll have to read the Treasury Regulations on this section to see if and how it can apply to you. Since you do this regularly and for profit (i.e.: not a personal transaction), I'd argue that it doesn't apply.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "160028dad1a8e6ec1b09f8395175d164",
"text": "In my experience they charge you coming and going. For example, if a brokerage firm is advertising that their commissions are only $7/trade, then that means you pay money to buy the stock, plus $7 to them, and later on if you want to sell that stock you must pay $7 to get out of the deal. So, if you want to make any money on a stock (say, priced at $10) you would have to sell it at a price above $10+$7+$7=$24. That kind of sale could take a few years to turn a profit. However, with flat-rate fees like that it is advantageous to buy in bulk.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "863caebe164e5bd922034f24c3029475",
"text": "\"New SEC rules also now allow brokers to collect fees on non-dividend bearing accounts as an \"\"ADR Pass-Through Fee\"\". Since BP (and BP ADR) is not currently paying dividends, this is probably going to be the case here. According to the Schwab brokerage firm, the fee is usually 1-3 cents per share. I did an EDGAR search for BP's documents and came up with too many to read through (due to the oil spill and all of it's related SEC filings) but you can start here: http://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/nn/m/q207/adr.html\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
df5a487625c3e8d8684f97025c5f24d0
|
Swap hedging a currency hedge
|
[
{
"docid": "315ddfb46845a469aa626f79868f7837",
"text": "I decided to try this in order to get a feel of it. As far as the interest rates are concerned, it works. You can set it up and forget about holding time as long as the rates and positions stay within a range. The problem is that currency volatility turns the interest paid for shorting USD/JPY into noise at best. And if you look to past performance over a year... Let's just say there is a reason they pay you to hold NZD. So, unless you think buying NZD/USD is a good idea to begin with, you should put your money elsewhere.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "90b990119812669ab920916a9ac08514",
"text": "\"When you invest in an S&P500 index fund that is priced in USD, the only major risk you bear is the risk associated with the equity that comprises the index, since both the equities and the index fund are priced in USD. The fund in your question, however, is priced in EUR. For a fund like this to match the performance of the S&P500, which is priced in USD, as closely as possible, it needs to hedge against fluctuations in the EUR/USD exchange rate. If the fund simply converted EUR to USD then invested in an S&P500 index fund priced in USD, the EUR-priced fund may fail to match the USD-priced fund because of exchange rate fluctuations. Here is a simple example demonstrating why hedging is necessary. I assumed the current value of the USD-priced S&P500 index fund is 1,600 USD/share. The exchange rate is 1.3 USD/EUR. If you purchase one share of this index using EUR, you would pay 1230.77 EUR/share: If the S&P500 increases 10% to 1760 USD/share and the exchange rate remains unchanged, the value of the your investment in the EUR fund also increases by 10% (both sides of the equation are multiplied by 1.1): However, the currency risk comes into play when the EUR/USD exchange rate changes. Take the 10% increase in the price of the USD index occurring in tandem with an appreciation of the EUR to 1.4 USD/EUR: Although the USD-priced index gained 10%, the appreciation of the EUR means that the EUR value of your investment is almost unchanged from the first equation. For investments priced in EUR that invest in securities priced in USD, the presence of this additional currency risk mandates the use of a hedge if the indexes are going to track. The fund you linked to uses swap contracts, which I discuss in detail below, to hedge against fluctuations in the EUR/USD exchange rate. Since these derivatives aren't free, the cost of the hedge is included in the expenses of the fund and may result in differences between the S&P500 Index and the S&P 500 Euro Hedged Index. Also, it's important to realize that any time you invest in securities that are priced in a different currency than your own, you take on currency risk whether or not the investments aim to track indexes. This holds true even for securities that trade on an exchange in your local currency, like ADR's or GDR's. I wrote an answer that goes through a simple example in a similar fashion to the one above in that context, so you can read that for more information on currency risk in that context. There are several ways to investors, be they institutional or individual, can hedge against currency risk. iShares offers an ETF that tracks the S&P500 Euro Hedged Index and uses a over-the-counter currency swap contract called a month forward FX contract to hedge against the associated currency risk. In these contracts, two parties agree to swap some amount of one currency for another amount of another currency, at some time in the future. This allows both parties to effectively lock in an exchange rate for a given time period (a month in the case of the iShares ETF) and therefore protect themselves against exchange rate fluctuations in that period. There are other forms of currency swaps, equity swaps, etc. that could be used to hedge against currency risk. In general, two parties agree to swap one quantity, like a EUR cash flow, payments of a fixed interest rate, etc. for another quantity, like a USD cash flow, payments based on a floating interest rate, etc. In many cases these are over-the-counter transactions, there isn't necessarily a standardized definition. For example, if the European manager of a fund that tracks the S&P500 Euro Hedged Index is holding euros and wants to lock in an effective exchange rate of 1.4 USD/EUR (above the current exchange rate), he may find another party that is holding USD and wants to lock in the respective exchange rate of 0.71 EUR/USD. The other party could be an American fund manager that manages a USD-price fund that tracks the FTSE. By swapping USD and EUR, both parties can, at a price, lock in their desired exchange rates. I want to clear up something else in your question too. It's not correct that the \"\"S&P 500 is completely unrelated to the Euro.\"\" Far from it. There are many cases in which the EUR/USD exchange rate and the level of the S&P500 index could be related. For example: Troublesome economic news in Europe could cause the euro to depreciate against the dollar as European investors flee to safety, e.g. invest in Treasury bills. However, this economic news could also cause US investors to feel that the global economy won't recover as soon as hoped, which could affect the S&P500. If the euro appreciated against the dollar, for whatever reason, this could increase profits for US businesses that earn part of their profits in Europe. If a US company earns 1 million EUR and the exchange rate is 1.3 USD/EUR, the company earns 1.3 million USD. If the euro appreciates against the dollar to 1.4 USD/EUR in the next quarter and the company still earns 1 million EUR, they now earn 1.4 million USD. Even without additional sales, the US company earned a higher USD profit, which is reflected on their financial statements and could increase their share price (thus affecting the S&P500). Combining examples 1 and 2, if a US company earns some of its profits in Europe and a recession hits in the EU, two things could happen simultaneously. A) The company's sales decline as European consumers scale back their spending, and B) the euro depreciates against the dollar as European investors sell euros and invest in safer securities denominated in other currencies (USD or not). The company suffers a loss in profits both from decreased sales and the depreciation of the EUR. There are many more factors that could lead to correlation between the euro and the S&P500, or more generally, the European and American economies. The balance of trade, investor and consumer confidence, exposure of banks in one region to sovereign debt in another, the spread of asset/mortgage-backed securities from US financial firms to European banks, companies, municipalities, etc. all play a role. One example of this last point comes from this article, which includes an interesting line: Among the victims of America’s subprime crisis are eight municipalities in Norway, which lost a total of $125 million through subprime mortgage-related investments. Long story short, these municipalities had mortgage-backed securities in their investment portfolios that were derived from, far down the line, subprime mortgages on US homes. I don't know the specific cities, but it really demonstrates how interconnected the world's economies are when an American family's payment on their subprime mortgage in, say, Chicago, can end up backing a derivative investment in the investment portfolio of, say, Hammerfest, Norway.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e034c4331d15e3aef5d73451913e17b2",
"text": "If you have significant assets, such as a large deposit, then diversification of risks such as currency risk is good practice - there are many good options, but keeping 100% of it in roubles is definitely not a good idea, nor is keeping 100% of it in a single foreign currency. Of course, it would be much more beneficial to have done it yesterday, and moments of extreme volatility generally are a bad time to make large uninformed trades, but if the deposit is sufficiently large (say, equal to annual expenses) then it would make sense to split it among different currencies and also different types of assets as well (deposit/stocks/precious metals/bonds). The rate of rouble may go up and down, but you also have to keep in mind that future events such as fluctuating oil price may risk a much deeper crisis than now, and you can look to experiences of the 1998 crisis as an example of what may happen if the situation continues to deteriorate.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "47a5e4549179e488b684bb692424bdb1",
"text": "Ok, so A > B = $3, and A < B = $4.25, so A gets + $1.25 which they use towards their debt? Can you buy interest rate swaps from a brokerage? Can individuals enter into swaps, and bet rates will go higher?",
"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": "c4928107daac55e5455a1f8a674e89ce",
"text": "Use other currencies, if available. I'm not familiar with the banking system in South Africa; if they haven't placed any currency freezes or restrictions, you might want to do this sooner than later. In full crises, like Russian and Ukraine, once the crisis worsened, they started limiting purchases of foreign currencies. PayPal might allow currency swaps (it implies that it does at the bottom of this page); if not, I know Uphold does. Short the currency Brokerage in the US allow us to short the US Dollar. If banks allow you to short the ZAR, you can always use that for protection. I looked at the interest rates in the ZAR to see how the central bank is offsetting this currency crisis - WOW - I'd be running, not walking toward the nearest exit. A USA analogy during the late 70s/early 80s would be Paul Volcker holding interest rates at 2.5%, thinking that would contain 10% inflation. Bitcoin Comes with significant risks itself, but if you use it as a temporary medium of exchange for swaps - like Uphold or with some bitcoin exchanges like BTC-e - you can get other currencies by converting to bitcoin then swapping for other assets. Bitcoin's strength is remitting and swapping; holding on to it is high risk. Commodities I think these are higher risk right now as part of the ZAR's problem is that it's heavily reliant on commodities. I looked at your stock market to see how well it's done, and I also see that it's done poorly too and I think the commodity bloodbath has something to do with that. If you know of any commodity that can stay stable during uncertainty, like food that doesn't expire, you can at least buy without worrying about costs rising in the future. I always joke that if hyperinflation happened in the United States, everyone would wish they lived in Utah.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "93ed9100864a8c4146441b8c7bc0dab5",
"text": "Now, is there any clever way to combine FOREX transactions so that you receive the US interest on $100K instead of the $2K you deposited as margin? Yes, absolutely. But think about it -- why would the interest rates be different? Imagine you're making two loans, one for 10,000 USD and one for 10,000 CHF, and you're going to charge a different interest rate on the two loans. Why would you do that? There is really only one reason -- you would charge more interest for the currency that you think is less likely to hold its value such that the expected value of the money you are repaid is the same. In other words, currencies pay a higher interest when their value is expected to go down and currencies pay a lower interest when their value is expected to go up. So yes, you could do this. But the profits you make in interest would have to equal the expected loss you would take in the devaluation of the currency. People will only offer you these interest rates if they think the loss will exceed the profit. Unless you know better than them, you will take a loss.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6996692fbe4d27caab7f47a22d1b3cb9",
"text": "Interest rate swaps are used to transfer risk from one party to another. They can be used to transfer many types of risk but most common are interest rate risk and exchange rate risk There are a few key concepts that I have noticed most people have trouble with which Are below: 1) The Notional amount: this is the amount that the two legs (the floating and fixed) will be based on. If you think about each leg as a loan the notional amount would be the principal, however in a swap this amount never changes hands. Rather it is just an amount used to calculate what the dollar amount exchanged should be. 2) The floating and fixed legs are the interest rates that will be exchanged. The fixed leg will always pay out the same amount no matter the changes in the market while the floating rate will change periodically depending on market conditions. As a side note it is often agreed that only the difference in the two rates will be paid rather then sending the money back and forth. 3) And finally it is important to note that at the inception of the swap the notional value will always be 0. Many people miss this but when you think about it no company would want to sign a deal the from inception puts them in a loosing position. I hope that helped without a more specific question all I can do is list random facts about swaps and hope they are useful to you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b9584a6f6554b2d2367ec417532961f0",
"text": "e.g. a European company has to pay 1 million USD exactly one year from now While that is theoretically possible, that is not a very common case. Mostly likely if they had to make a 1 million USD payment a year from now and they had the cash on hand they would be able to just make the payment today. A more common scenario for currency forwards is for investment hedging. Say that European company wants to buy into a mutual fund of some sort, say FUSEX. That is a USD based mutual fund. You can't buy into it directly with Euros. So if the company wants to buy into the fund they would need to convert their Euros to to USD. But now they have an extra risk parameter. They are not just exposed to the fluctuations of the fund, they are also exposed to the fluctuations of the currency market. Perhaps that fund will make a killing, but the exchange rate will tank and they will lose all their gains. By creating a forward to hedge their currency exposure risk they do not face this risk (flip side: if the exchange rate rises in a favorable rate they also don't get that benefit, unless they use an FX Option, but that is generally more expensive and complicated).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9b51e15974dd48332f992862cc5d6fab",
"text": "\"I know some derivative markets work like this, so maybe similar with futures. A futures contract commits two parties to a buy/sell of the underlying securities, but with a futures contract you also create leverage because generally the margin you post on your futures contract is not sufficient to pay for the collateral in the underlying contract. The person buying the future is essentially \"\"borrowing\"\" money while the person selling the future is essentially \"\"lending\"\" money. The future you enter into is generally a short term contract, so a perfectly hedged lender of funds should expect to receive something that approaches the fed funds rate in the US. Today that would be essentially nothing.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "128d222913be065a4e270541bff04ba4",
"text": "Depends on the countries and their rules about moving money across the border, but in this case that appears entirely reasonable. Of course it would be a gamble unless you can predict the future values of currency better than most folks; there is no guarantee that the exchange rate will move in any particular direction. I have no idea whether any tax is due on profit from currency arbitrage.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ead7c9267f9e549354648cf5ca4cd186",
"text": "\"I though that only some hedge funds operated that way and others were specific vehicles to provide an efficient hedge? This one is described as \"\"betting against chipmakers\"\" and is blaming a substantial loss against one market, so it can't be doing a great job of hedging itself. Though I think we're saying the same thing and just have a different view of the common meaning of \"\"hedge fund\"\".\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ff355ec9fab54d9fe94d3a6baa313515",
"text": "Let's make a few assumptions: You have several ways of achieving (almost) that, in ascending complexity: Note that each alternative will have a cost which can be small (forwards, futures) or large (CFDs, debit) and the hedge will never be perfect, but you can get close. You will also need to decide whether you hedge the unrealised P&L on the position and at what frequency.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "61d4dc5d0d5d24072fd42eeb5e6639bc",
"text": "I've thought of the following ways to hedge against a collapsing dollar:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2631eae9633f063f2dc1e9802e506444",
"text": "If you look at it from the hedging perspective, if you're unsure you're going to need to hedge but want to lock in an option premium price if you do need to do so, I could see this making sense.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
263ef3ed739fba9f1e3ea4ad01059a8c
|
Should I worry too much about saving my 20% down before buying my first house?
|
[
{
"docid": "028fcc6ae27f514d32d83e49aaf40a33",
"text": "The only problem that I see is that by not giving the 20% right away, you might need to pay PMI for a few months. In addition, in the case of conventional loans, I heard that banks will not remove the PMI after reaching 80% LTV without doing an appraisal. In order to be removed automatically, you need to reach 78% LTV. Finally, I think you can get a better interest by giving 20% down, and you can get a conventional loan instead of a FHA loan, which offers the option to avoid the PMI altogether (on FHA, you have two PMIs: one upfront and one monthly, and the monthly one is for the life of the loan if you give less than 10%).",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "babc84122df976be260c2233161ed26a",
"text": "If you think of it in terms of trying to get an annual return on your investment over the long haul, you can do a simple net present value analysis to decide your buy price. If you're playing conservative with the investments and taking safety over returns, you will still have some kind of expectation of that return will be. Paying slightly more will drag down your returns, perhaps less than what you want to get. If you really want to get your desired X%, then stick to your guns and don't go down the slippery slope of reaching. If 1% off isn't bad, then 2% off isn't all that bad, and maybe 3% is OK too for the right situation, etc. Gotta have rules and stick to them. You never know what opportunities will be around tomorrow. The possible drops in value should be built into your return expectations.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "35d3d1eaef8f00b2ff9dd9bc0f95d62e",
"text": "\"How would having a 20% down payment change the conversation for you? And who are you looking to get a mortgage from? If you go to a local community bank or credit union, you might have a better chance explaining your situation and having them take that into account rather than going to one of the mega-banks (Bank of America, Chase, Wells Fargo, etc) who may only look at your FICO score when making a lending decision. The thing to keep in mind is \"\"how much of a risk are you to the lending institution?\"\" If you have a strong down payment 15% to 20%, you will be a much better candidate. Bear in mind, anything less than 20% down will require PMI (Private Mortgage Insurance, which I think runs a certain dollar amount per $1k you have borrowed). If you have a strong downpayment, and the only debts you have are your student loans (which will be paid off in five years anyway), then you are far less risky than someone in a similar situation with more debt.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "996b732e38a70f90a62d98cbc95f0edd",
"text": "A person who always saves and appropriately invests 20% of their income can expect to have a secure retirement. If you start early enough, you don't need anything close to 20%. Now, there are many good reasons to save for things other than just retirement, of course. You say that you can save 80% of your income, and you expect most people could save at least 50% without problems. That's just unrealistic for most people. Taxes, rent (or mortgage payments), utilities, food, and other such mandatory expenses take far more than 50% of your income. Most people simply don't have the ability to save (or invest) 50% of their income. Or even 25% of their income.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "48868ffe482149e6978a8f1257960eff",
"text": "The calculations you suggest have some issues, but I think they are not necessary to answer the question: It sounds like you are buying the house either way. So the question really is simply whether to pay toward your house first or your loan first. In that case, the answer is simple: pay whichever has the highest interest rate first. Make the minimum payment on the other until the first is paid off. Remember this and make it your mantra for the rest of your life. If you have any debts (such as credit cards) that charge a rate higher than the two options you have presented, do them first. Now, be careful as you compute the interest rates. Most likely you can deduct interest on your mortgage, so its effective interest rate is lower [it is (1-T)*R instead of R, where T is your marginal tax rate]. For a while, the cost of mortgage insurance will make your effective mortgage rate artificially high, but it sounds like you intend to get to that 20% hurdle pretty fast, so my guess is that this is not a big factor. Congratulations on your bonus and good luck with your new home.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "31683b218334d5ec8ae4239305d57380",
"text": "Having 20% of your portfolio in P2P lending sounds really aggressive to me. When we have another recession, a lot of those loans are going to be bad and having a big chunk of 20% of your portfolio vanish could sting pretty good. I wouldn't go into it with more than the sum you are willing to lose and not be too upset.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7ec624787c105617815d274c4cc520a0",
"text": "Rules of thumb? Sure - Put down 20% to pay no PMI. The mortgage payment (including property tax) should be no more than 28% of your gross monthly income. These two rules will certainly put a cap on the home price. If you have more than the 20% to put down on the house you like, stop right here. Don't put more down and don't buy a bigger house. Set that money aside for long term investing (i.e. retirement savings) or your emergency fund. You can always make extra payments and shorten the length of the mortgage, you just can't easily get it back. In my opinion, one is better off getting a home that's too small and paying the transaction costs to upsize 5-10 years later than to buy too big, and pay all the costs associated with the home for the time you are living there. The mortgage, property tax, maintenance, etc. The too-big house can really take it toll on your wallet.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c30339f0f419ddd40bbf35748e5cd9b0",
"text": "\"Let's look at basics. Your 340K mortgage amortized over 25 years at 3.5% is going to cost you $1700 in payments - almost exactly your rent. You won't be paying out less. You will in fact be paying out more, because you are now liable for more insurance, and any repairs will have to be paid for by you, not the landlord. So don't do this to save money. Figures from here. Don't forget that it is extremely likely that interest rates will go up in the next few years. 7% is not unlikely. Can you afford it if your payments double? You can get a fixed rate mortgage, but they are going to cost you much more than 3.5% for more than a couple of years. Don't be fooled by the 'pay yourself' argument for getting a mortgage. in the first few years almost all of your payments is interest, not paying down the principal. You are just switching from paying a landlord to paying a bank. There are huge advantages to waiting until you have a good down payment before buying a house. People with a big down payment get better interest rates, and don't need to pay as much CMHC insurance. You will be less at risk if the price of your house drops. Also ask yourself if you are sure you will be in your house for five years - if not, even real estate agents would usually admit you shouldn't buy. The truck payment shouldn't be an issue, as long as you are sure you can service both truck and mortgage payments. Nor is $600 in credit card debt significant in the big scheme. I would probably put any spare cash towards a down payment. It reduces your interest rate (possibly), some expenses with regard to your mortgage, and your risk if you have to sell and your house value has dropped. You might like to look at the government of Canada website \"\"Rent or buy\"\". It's down right now so I can't give you a link. I'll edit it in when it's back up. EDIT:Turns out it's offline for 'updating'. Here's the link.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "879062f352451bc4ee852520a91ffa83",
"text": "\"BEFORE you invest in a house, make sure you account for all the returns, risks and costs, and compare them to returns, risks and costs of other investments. If you invest 20% of a house's value in another investment, you would also expect a return. You also probably will not have the cost interest for the balance (80% of ???). I have heard people say \"\"If I have a rental property, I'm just throwing away money - I'll have nothing at the end\"\" - if you get an interest-only loan, the same will apply, if you pay off your mortgage, you're paying a lot more - you could save/invest the extra, and then you WILL have something at the end (+interest). If you want to compare renting and owning, count the interest against the rental incoming against lost revenue (for however much actual money you've invested so far) + interest. I've done the sums here (renting vs. owning, which IS slightly different - e.g. my house will never be empty, I pay extra if I want a different house/location). Not counting for the up-front costs (real estate, mortgage establishment etc), and not accounting for house price fluctuations, I get about the same \"\"return\"\" on buying as investing at the bank. Houses do, of course, fluctuate, both up and down (risk!), usually up in the long term. On the other hand, many people do lose out big time - some friends of mine invested when the market was high (everyone was investing in houses), they paid off as much as they could, then the price dropped, and they panicked and sold for even less than they bought for. The same applies if, in your example, house prices drop too much, so you owe more than the house is worth - the bank may force you to sell (or offer your own house as collateral). Don't forget about the hidden costs - lawn mowing and snow shoveling were mentioned, insurance, maintenance, etc - and risks like fluctuating rental prices, bad tenants, tenants moving on (loss of incoming, cleaning expenses, tidying up the place etc)....\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "12b48d3715194753802ef8cc74fc3d4d",
"text": "\"Unless you are investing an insignificant amount of money for the home and renovations, you need title insurance. Without it multiple other parties can claim ownership in this property you are purchasing and investing in. Also you can know if there are any liens against the property which can cost you a significant amount in addition to the costs you are budgeting. For example liens against a property I bought a while back amounted to 26% of the price I paid. In my case the seller (a bank) paid those, while in your case you may need to pay any liens as I suspect the seller has little money. That \"\"bone\"\" in your body that has you worried about this transaction is really good. Pay attention to it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "721e2da6d1dd2e44f93811e7378c9a42",
"text": "Basically the first thing you should do before you invest your money is to learn about investing and learn about what you want to invest in. Another thing to think about is that usually low risk can also mean low returns. As you are quite young and have some savings put aside you should generally aim for higher risk higher return investments and then when you start to reach retirement age aim for less risky lower return investments. In saying that, just because an investment is considered high risk does not mean you have to be exposed to the full risk of that investment. You do this by managing your risk to an acceptable level which will allow you to sleep at night. To do this you need to learn about what you are investing in. As an example about managing your risk in an investment, say you want to invest $50,000 in shares. If you put the full $50,000 into one share and that share price drops dramatically you will lose a large portion of your money straight away. If instead you spent a maximum of $10,000 on 5 different shares, even if one of them falls dramatically, you still have another 4 which may be doing a lot better thus minimising your losses. To take it one step further you might say if anyone of the shares you bought falls by 20% then you will sell those shares and limit your losses to $2000 per share. If the worst case scenario occurred and all 5 of your shares fell during a stock market crash you would limit your total losses to $10,000 instead of $50,000. Most successful investors put just as much if not more emphasis on managing the risk on their investments and limiting their losses as they do in selecting the investments. As I am not in the US, I cannot really comment whether it is the right time to buy property over there, especially as the market conditions would be different in different states and in different areas of each state. However, a good indication of when to buy properties is when prices have dropped and are starting to stabilise. As you are renting at the moment one option you might want to look at is buying a place to live in so you don't need to rent any more. You can compare your current rent payment with the mortgage payment if you were to buy a house to live in. If your mortgage payments are lower than your rent payments then this could be a good option. But whatever you do make sure you learn about it first. Make sure you spend the time looking at for sale properties for a few months in the area you want to buy before you do buy. This will give you an indication of how much properties in that area are really worth and if prices are stable, still falling or starting to go up. Good luck, and remember, research, research and more research. Even if you are to take someone elses advice and recommendations, you should learn enough yourself to be able to tell if their advice and recommendations make sense and are right for your current situation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f4781c6ce55d9e33213722d099d2ca3e",
"text": "Down payment: Emphatically avoid PMI if at all possible; it's pouring money down the drain. Do 20% down if you can, or pay off enough to bring you above 20% and ask for PMI to be removed as soon as you can. Beyond that it's a matter of how much risk you want to accept and how long you'll own the place, and you'll have to run the numbers for the various alternatives -- allowing for uncertainty in your investments -- to guide your decision. Do not assume you will be able to make a profit when you sell the house; that's the mistake which left many people under water and/or foreclosed on. Do not assume that you will be able to sell it quickly; it can take a year of more. Do not assume immediate or 100% occupancy it you rent it out; see many other answers here for more realistic numbers.... and remember that running a rental is a business and has ongoing costs and hassles. (You can contract those out, but then you lose a good percentage of the rent income.) Double mortgage is another great way to dig yourself into a financial hole; it can be a bigger cost than the PMI it tries to dodge and is definitely a bigger risk. Don't.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d1b2f77f6f2746a5125e75319fd7a577",
"text": "3 years ago I wrote Student Loans and Your First Mortgage in response to this exact question by a fellow blogger in my state. What I focused on was the way banks qualify you for a loan, a percentage for the housing cost, and a higher number that also comprises all other debt. If the goal is speed-to-purchase, you make minimum payments on the student loan, and save for the $100K downpayment as fast as you can. The question back to you is whether the purchase is your priority, and how debt averse you are. I'd caution, if you work for a company with a matched 401(k), I'd still deposit to the match, but no more. Personal finance is just that, personal. We don't know your entire situation, your current rental expenses vs your total condo cost when you buy. If you are in a location where renting costs far more than your cost of ownership, Ben might change his mind a bit. If the reverse is true, you're living a college student's lifestyle with a room costing $400/mo sharing a house with friends, I'll back off and say to pay the loan and save until you can't tolerate the situation. You'll find there are few situations that have a perfect answer without having all the details.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "63e5c9801550ba4a55aac9ededafef9e",
"text": "As a new graduate, aside from the fact that you seem to have the extra $193/mo to pay more towards your loan, we don't know anything else. I wrote a lengthy article on this in response to a friend who had a loan, but was also pondering a home purchase in the future. Student Loans and Your First Mortgage discusses the math behind one's ability to put a downpayment on a house vs having that monthly cash to pay towards the mortgage. In your case, the question is whether, in 5 years, the $8500 would be best spent as a home down payment or to pay off the 6.8% loan. If you specifically had plans toward home ownership, the timing of that plan would affect my answer here, as I discuss in the article. The right answer to your question can only come by knowing far more of your personal situation. Meanwhile, the plan comes at a cost. Your plan will get rid of the loan in about 5 years, but if you simply double up the payments, advising the servicing company to apply the extra to principal, it would drop to just a couple month over over 4. As you read more about personal finance, you'll find a lot of different views. Some people are fixated on having zero debt, others will focus on liquidity. In the end, you need to understand each approach and decide what's right for you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f3e741b5c1797f90f2eff5a53ade7927",
"text": "Consider not buying the house? Consider a cheaper property? What are your actual goals? Owning vs renting? Perhaps an actual investment goal? What is your rent now vs the mortgage on the house? What is the time frame for the mortgage you are considering? Those are the real questions you need to ask yourself. It does sound like you can become overleveraged with this property, although your down payment is quite substantial, but one single thing goes wrong and your cash flow is irreparably constricted. I personally wouldn't take that risk if I had the same forecast of expenditures, but this could be altered if there were particular investment goals I had in mind.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "58ef13596490800da6f197ed332a44d6",
"text": "If you don't think you're necessarily going to stay in this area for five years, consider another option: renting. Five years is often quoted as the minimum length of time for buying (over renting), as the costs of the house purchase and the mortgage are significant - and if you're buying a new house every 5 years you're putting several thousand dollars of fees up front each time. If you don't assume that house prices will increase (as they won't necessarily), then you can consider these costs - say, $5000-$6000 for a $500k house - an extra 1% or so of interest that first year. If you are there 5 years, then you're paying 0.2% extra (more or less); that's reasonable, but if you're there only 2 years, you're adding 0.5% to your rate, which is pretty significant. You won't necessarily come out ahead here (versus renting). Renting for a year or two gives you enough time to find out if you do like the area, and if you do, you buy then - with more knowledge of the area and a chance to make a purchase at the right time for you. You pay off your loans, or at least a chunk of them, now, save some of the rest, and then rethink in a couple of years. If you then don't qualify for a doctor's mortgage anymore, you just save up the rest of the 20% before making the purchase.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
7638a1e6de06a5cb812288804d47a477
|
Basic mutual fund investment questions
|
[
{
"docid": "550a87849ede22f46d68fc8a9722b6d3",
"text": "\"You asked 3 questions here. It's best to keep them separate as these are pretty distinct, different answers, and each might already have a good detailed answer and so might be subject to \"\"closed as duplicate of...\"\" That said, I'll address the JAGLX question (1). It's not an apples to apples comparison. This is a Life Sciences fund, i.e. a very specialized fund, investing in one narrow sector of the market. If you study market returns over time, it's easy to find sectors that have had a decade or even two that have beat the S&P by a wide margin. The 5 year comparison makes this pretty clear. For sake of comparison, Apple had twice the return of JAGLX during the past 5 years. The advisor charging 2% who was heavy in Apple might look brilliant, but the returns are not positively correlated to the expense involved. A 10 or 20 year lookback will always uncover funds or individual stocks that beat the indexes, but the law of averages suggests that the next 10 or 20 years will still appear random.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2617ec8c8bfb74e2a51084110c5c8bd6",
"text": "@JoeTaxpayer gave a great response to your first question. Here are some thoughts on the other two... 2) Transaction fees for mutual funds are tied to the class of shares you're buying and will be the same no matter where you buy them. A-shares have a front-end 'load' (the fee charged), and the lowest expenses, and can be liquidated without any fees. B-shares have no up-front load, but come with a 4-7 year period where they will charge you a fee to liquidate (technically called Contingent Deferred Sales Charge, CDSC), and slightly higher management fees, after which they often will convert to A-shares. C-shares have the highest management fees, and usually a 12- to 18-month period where they will charge a small percentage fee if you liquidate. There are lots of other share classes available, but they are tied to special accounts such as managed accounts and 401-K plans. Not all companies offer all share classes. C-shares are intended for shorter timeframes, eg 2-5 years. A and B shares work best for longer times. Use a B share if you're sure you won't need to take the money out until after the fee period ends. Most fund companies will allow you to exchange funds within the same fund family without charging the CDSC. EDIT: No-load funds don't charge a fee in or out (usually). They are a great option if they are available to you. Most self-service brokerages offer them. Few full-service brokerages offer them. The advantage of a brokerage versus personal accounts at each fund is the brokerage gives you a single view of things and a single statement, and buying and selling is easy and convenient. 3) High turnover rates in bond funds... depending on how actively the portfolio is managed, the fund company may deliver returns as a mix of both interest and capital gains, and the management expenses may be high with a lot of churn in the underlying portfolio. Bond values fall as interest rates rise, so (at least in the USA) be prepared to see the share values of the fund fall in the next few years. The biggest risk of a bond fund is that there is no maturity date, so there is no point in time that you have an assurance that your original investment will be returned to you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "23b15c62d167248077f59ce49ce98344",
"text": "In summary, you are correct that the goal of investing is to maximize returns, while paying low management fees. Index investing has become very popular because of the low fees. There are many actively traded mutual funds out there with very high management fees of 2.5% and up that do not beat the market. This begs the question of why you are paying high management fees and not just investing in index funds. Consider maxing out your tax sheltered accounts (401(k) and ROTH IRA) to avoid even more fees on your returns. Also consider having a growth component of your portfolio which is generally filled with equity, along with a secure component for assets such as bonds. Bonds may not have the exciting returns of equity, but they help to smooth out the volatility of your portfolio, which may help to keep peace of mind when the market dips.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "343b24de5189776bc486e66405d050f6",
"text": "Buying the right shares gives higher return. Buying the wrong ones gives worse return, possibly negative. The usual recommendation, even if you have a pro advising you, is to diversify most of your investments to reduce the risk, even though that may reduce the possible gain. A mutual fund is diversification-in-a-can. It requires little to no active maintenance. Yes, you pay a management fee, but you aren't paying per-transaction fees every time you adjust your holdings, and the management costs can be quite reasonable if you pick the right funds; minimal in the case of computer-managed (index) funds. If you actively enjoy playing with stocks and bonds and are willing/able to accept your failures and less-than-great choices as part of the game, and if you can convince yourself that you will do better this way, go for it. For those of us who just want to deposit out money, watch it grow, and maybe rebalance once a year if that, index funds are a perfectly good choice. I spend at least 8 hours a day working for my money; the rest of the time, I want my money to work for me. Risk and reward tend to be proportional to each other; when they aren't, market prices tend to move to correct that. You need to decide how much risk you're comfortable with, and how much time and effort and money you're willing to spend managing that risk. Personally, I am perfectly happy with the better-than-market-rate-of-return I'm getting, and I don't have any conviction that I could do better if I was more involved. Your milage will vary. If folks didn't disagree, there wouldn't be a market.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3c4ce7931fbf6b696669f782f3903410",
"text": "12b1 refers to a specific marketing fee on funds in my world. are you referring to the expense ratio? yes - that is what fund wholesalers will do. another practice that won't affect your cost though. basically what i want to express is that you shouldn't need a flowchart to understand your fees. it is simply the layers of management that will raise your cost, in addition to any transactional fees.",
"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": "f5f224b6fc38f1c0aa1c127dc0e0c132",
"text": "If I invest X each month, where does X go - an existing (low yield) bond, or a new bond (at the current interest rate)? This has to be viewed in a larger context. If the fund has outflows greater than or equal to inflows then chances are there isn't any buying being done with your money as that cash is going to those selling their shares in the fund. If though inflows are greater than outflows, there may be some new purchases or not. Don't forget that the new purchase could be an existing bond as the fund has to maintain the duration of being a short-term, intermediate-term or long-term bond fund though there are some exceptions like convertibles or high yield where duration isn't likely a factor. Does that just depend on what the fund manager is doing at the time (buying/selling)? No, it depends on the shares being created or redeemed as well as the manager's discretion. If I put Y into a fund, and leave it there for 50 years, where does Y go when all of the bonds at the time I made the purchase mature? You're missing that the fund may buy and sell bonds at various times as for example a long-term bond fund may not have issues nearing maturity because of what part of the yield curve it is to mimic. Does Y just get reinvested in new bonds at the interest rate at that time? Y gets mixed with the other money in the fund that may increase or decrease in value over time. This is part of the risk in a bond fund where NAV can fluctuate versus a money market mutual fund where the NAV is somewhat fixed at $1/share.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e487cb84b836a6cae29ce804ead9718c",
"text": "The main difference between an ETF and a Mutual Fund is Management. An ETF will track a specific index with NO manager input. A Mutual Fund has a manager that is trying to choose securities for its fund based on the mandate of the fund. Liquidity ETFs trade like a stock, so you can buy at 10am and sell at 11 if you wish. Mutual Funds (most) are valued at the end of each business day, so no intraday trading. Also ETFs are similar to stocks in that you need a buyer/seller for the ETF that you want/have. Whereas a mutual fund's units are sold back to itself. I do not know of many if any liquity issues with an ETF, but you could be stuck holding it if you can not find a buyer (usually the market maker). Mutual Funds can be closed to trading, however it is rare. Tax treatment Both come down to the underlying holdings in the fund or ETF. However, more often in Mutual Funds you could be stuck paying someone else's taxes, not true with an ETF. For example, you buy an Equity Mutual Fund 5 years ago, you sell the fund yourself today for little to no gain. I buy the fund a month ago and the fund manager sells a bunch of the stocks they bought for it 10 years ago for a hefty gain. I have a tax liability, you do not even though it is possible that neither of us have any gains in our pocket. It can even go one step further and 6 months from now I could be down money on paper and still have a tax liability. Expenses A Mutual Fund has an MER or Management Expense Ratio, you pay it no matter what. If the fund has a positive return of 12.5% in any given year and it has an MER of 2.5%, then you are up 10%. However if the fund loses 7.5% with the same MER, you are down 10%. An ETF has a much smaller management fee (typically 0.10-0.95%) but you will have trading costs associated with any trades. Risks involved in these as well as any investment are many and likely too long to go into here. However in general, if you have a Canadian Stock ETF it will have similar risks to a Canadian Equity Mutual Fund. I hope this helps.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b4edc4c5604999faf7ba4fa4c1f99c4d",
"text": "Behind the scenes, mutual funds and ETFs are very similar. Both can vary widely in purpose and policies, which is why understanding the prospectus before investing is so important. Since both mutual funds and ETFs cover a wide range of choices, any discussion of management, assets, or expenses when discussing the differences between the two is inaccurate. Mutual funds and ETFs can both be either managed or index-based, high expense or low expense, stock or commodity backed. Method of investing When you invest in a mutual fund, you typically set up an account with the mutual fund company and send your money directly to them. There is often a minimum initial investment required to open your mutual fund account. Mutual funds sometimes, but not always, have a load, which is a fee that you pay either when you put money in or take money out. An ETF is a mutual fund that is traded like a stock. To invest, you need a brokerage account that can buy and sell stocks. When you invest, you pay a transaction fee, just as you would if you purchase a stock. There isn't really a minimum investment required as there is with a traditional mutual fund, but you usually need to purchase whole shares of the ETF. There is inherently no load with ETFs. Tax treatment Mutual funds and ETFs are usually taxed the same. However, capital gain distributions, which are taxable events that occur while you are holding the investment, are more common with mutual funds than they are with ETFs, due to the way that ETFs are structured. (See Fidelity: ETF versus mutual funds: Tax efficiency for more details.) That having been said, in an index fund, capital gain distributions are rare anyway, due to the low turnover of the fund. Conclusion When comparing a mutual fund and ETF with similar objectives and expenses and deciding which to choose, it more often comes down to convenience. If you already have a brokerage account and you are planning on making a one-time investment, an ETF could be more convenient. If, on the other hand, you have more than the minimum initial investment required and you also plan on making additional regular monthly investments, a traditional no-load mutual fund account could be more convenient and less expensive.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "679be605950dfa4c18994648a37208cd",
"text": "So, first -- good job on making a thorough checklist of things to look into. And onto your questions -- is this a worthwhile process? Even independent of specific investing goals, learning how to research is valuable. If you decided to forgo investing in stocks directly, and chose to only invest in index funds, the same type of research skills would be useful. (Not to mention that such discipline would come in handy in other fields as well.) What other 80/20 'low hanging fruit' knowledge have I missed? While it may not count as 'low hanging fruit', one thing that stands out to me is there's no mention of what competition a company has in its field. For example, a company may be doing well today, but you may see signs that it's consistently losing ground to its competition. While that alone may not dissuade you from investing, it may give you something to consider. Is what I've got so far any good? or am I totally missing the point. Your cheat sheet seems pretty good to me. But a lot depends on what your goals are. If you're doing this solely for your education and experience, I would say you've done well. If you're looking to invest in a company that is involved in a field you're passionate about, you're on the right track. But you should probably consider expanding your cheat sheet to include things that are not 'low hanging fruit' but still matter to you. However, I'd echo the comments that have already been made and suggest that if this is for retirement investments, take the skills you've developed in creating your cheat sheet and apply that work towards finding a set of index funds that meet your criteria. Otherwise happy hunting!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "24fcd3eab5757b282f1b5f2589ff03ef",
"text": "\"I have some money invested on Merrill Edge. 2 days ago I purchased some mutual funds with most of the rest of my money in my account. I logged in today to see how it did, and noticed that there are 3 sections: Priced Investments, Cash & Money Accounts, and Pending Activity. In the Cash & Money section, there shows a negative balance of Cash (let's say -$1,000) and a positive \"\"Money Account Value\"\" (let's say +$1,100). The \"\"Money Account\"\" appears to be made up of $1 shares of something called \"\"ML Direct Deposit Program\"\". However, even though the mutual fund purchase was made 2 days ago, and the shares of the mutual funds are officially in my account, I'm still showing all of my \"\"Money Account\"\" shares ($1000). The balance sheet effectively makes it look like I somehow needed to have \"\"sold\"\" back my money account shares, converted them to cash, and then bought the funds. I'm hoping that isn't the case, and for some reason, there is a multiday lag between me buying stock and money getting deducted from my \"\"Money Account\"\". Hope that all makes sense. TLDR: what's the diff between a Cash account and Money Account that's filled with shares of \"\" ML Direct Deposit Program\"\"? Edit: Today the cash and money account offset by equal values equal to one of my mutual fund purchases.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c0d1b0431028f21dbbe042d2feefdc13",
"text": "Goal - What is it that you are saving or investing to have: Educational costs, retirement, vacation, home, or something else. Dollar figure and time period would be the keys here. Risk tolerance - What kind of risks are you prepared to accept with the investment choices you are making? What kind of time commitment do these investments have and are you prepared to spend the time necessary for this to work? This is about how wild are the swings as well as what beliefs do you have that may play a role here. Strategy - Do you know what kind of buy and sell conditions you have? Do you know what kind of models you are following? This is really important to have before you buy something as afterward you may have buyer's remorse that may cause more problems in a sense. Record keeping - Do you know what kinds of records you'll need for tax purposes? Do you know how long to hold onto records? Those would be the main ones to my mind.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3e0cc51cddecc1fe58524e39c9897ba2",
"text": "It would involve manual effort, but there is just a handful of exclusions, buy the fund you want, plug into a tool like Morningstar Instant X Ray, find out your $10k position includes $567.89 of defense contractor Lockheed Martin, and sell short $567.89 of Lockheed Martin. Check you're in sync periodically (the fund or index balance may change); when you sell the fund close your shorts too.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "883c1dcbb0385662c5cdd009952764cc",
"text": "Dollar Cost Averaging would be the likely balanced approach that I'd take. Depending on the size of the sum, I'd likely consider a minimum of 3 and at most 12 points to invest the funds to get them all working. While the sum may be large relative to my net worth, depending on overall scale and risk tolerance I could see doing it in a few rounds of purchasing or I could see taking an entire year to deploy the funds in case of something happening. I'd likely do monthly investments myself though others may go for getting more precise on things.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ef0e9ae89d9c52b31c87383d6b21d9af",
"text": "Financial advisers like to ask lots of questions and get nitty-gritty about investment objectives, but for the most part this is not well-founded in financial theory. Investment objectives really boils down to one big question and an addendum. The big question is how much risk you are willing to tolerate. This determines your expected return and most characteristics of your portfolio. The addendum is what assets you already have (background risk). Your portfolio should contain things that hedge that risk and not load up on it. If you expect to have a fixed income, some extra inflation protection is warranted. If you have a lot of real estate investing, your portfolio should avoid real estate. If you work for Google, you should avoid it in your portfolio or perhaps even short it. Given risk tolerance and background risk, financial theory suggests that there is a single best portfolio for you, which is diversified across all available assets in a market-cap-weighted fashion.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "63c887e3ce5fcbdc3b4a2d62eecfd837",
"text": "Let's say that you want to invest in the stock market. Choosing and investing in only one stock is risky. You can lower your risk by diversifying, or investing in lots of different stocks. However, you have some problems with this: When you buy stocks directly, you have to buy whole shares, and you don't have enough money to buy even one whole share of all the stocks you want to invest in. You aren't even sure which stocks you should buy. A mutual fund solves both of these problems. You get together with other investors and pool your money together to buy a group of stocks. That way, your investment is diversified in lots of different stocks without having to have enough money to buy whole shares of each one. And the mutual fund has a manager that chooses which stocks the fund will invest in, so you don't have to pick. There are lots of mutual funds to choose from, with as many different objectives as you can imagine. Some invest in large companies, others small; some invest in a certain sector of companies (utilities or health care, for example), some invest in stocks that pay a dividend, others are focused on growth. Some funds don't invest in stocks at all; they might invest in bonds, real estate, or precious metals. Some funds are actively managed, where the manager actively buys and sells different stocks in the fund continuously (and takes a fee for his services), and others simply invest in a list of stocks and rarely buy or sell (these are called index funds). To answer your question, yes, the JPMorgan Emerging Markets Equity Fund is a mutual fund. It is an actively-managed stock mutual fund that attempts to invest in growing companies that do business in countries with rapidly developing economies.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f5712c11a97266c6e2a9309ec306d034",
"text": "You do realize that the fund will have management expenses that are likely already factored into the NAV and that when you sell, the NAV will not yet be known, right? There are often fees to run a mutual fund that may be taken as part of managing the fund that are already factored into the Net Asset Value(NAV) of the shares that would be my caution as well as possible fee changes as Dilip Sarwate notes in a comment. Expense ratios are standard for mutual funds, yes. Individual stocks that represent corporations not structured as a mutual fund don't declare a ratio of how much are their costs, e.g. Apple or Google may well invest in numerous other companies but the costs of making those investments won't be well detailed though these companies do have non-investment operations of course. Don't forget to read the fund's prospectus as sometimes a fund will have other fees like account maintenance fees that may be taken out of distributions as well as being aware of how taxes will be handled as you don't specify what kind of account these purchases are being done using.",
"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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
632af559a2b8b82e0adf19928c96ea72
|
Should I wait to save up 20% downpayment on a 500k condo?
|
[
{
"docid": "cf5a0b627cb0a5e11a1dadec1b43be54",
"text": "I'm of the belief that you should always put 20% down. The lower interest rate will save you thousands over the life of the loan. Also PMI is no different then burning that much cash in the fireplace every month. From Wikipedia Lenders Mortgage Insurance (LMI), also known as Private mortgage insurance (PMI) in the US, is insurance payable to a lender or trustee for a pool of securities that may be required when taking out a mortgage loan. It is insurance to offset losses in the case where a mortgagor is not able to repay the loan and the lender is not able to recover its costs after foreclosure and sale of the mortgaged property. You are basically paying money each month for the bank to be insured against you not paying your mortgage. But in actuality the asset of the condo should be that insurance. Only you can decide if you are comfortable with having $50k in liquidity or not. It sounds like a good cushion to me but I don't know the rest of your expenses.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2c49bd9fd655065c73ebf814a7429ebf",
"text": "As I've crunched numbers towards what my family could afford for a down payment (in an area with similar housing costs - don't you hate that high cost of living?), I've come up with the following numbers: We may be missing some area of expenses, but in general I think we are being fairly conservative. You should consider making a similar list to determine your comfort level. Spend some time with an interest calculator to know the serious pain of each dollar you are paying interest on to a lender. Also know that the bigger your down payment, the more likely the seller is to accept your offer. It shows you are serious.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f1e46d12e93066f7662e0e1845a8b09c",
"text": "The simple answer is yes - put 20% (or more) down. In the past I have paid PMI and used a combination first and second mortgage to get around it. I recommend avoiding both of those situations. I am much more comfortable now with just a regular mortgage payment. The more equity you have in your home the more options you will have in the future.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fe9b717b496e0c08bb2428b618d1502d",
"text": "If you already have the money, put the 20% down but here is another option: You can put whatever you want down...Let's say 10%. For the other 10%, take out a 2nd mortgage. This enables you to avoid PMI. The rate you will get on the second mortgage will be higher than the first but the combination of 2 mortgages may be less than 1 plus PMI. When you get to 20% equity you can refinance and consolidate to one lower rate mortgage without PMI.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "29f5f16def88e90faafd2ffce153b7d7",
"text": "I doubt it. I researched it a bit when I was shopping for a HELOC, and found no bank giving HELOC for more than 80% LTV. In fact, most required less than 80%. Banks are more cautious now. If the bank is not willing to compromise on the LTV for the first mortgage - either look for another bank, or another place to buy. I personally would not consider buying something I cannot put at least 20% downpayment on. It means that such a purchase is beyond means.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1231694b43f21676f8c9d19c660b1fc9",
"text": "The primary reason to put 20% down on your home is to avoid paying PMI (private mortgage insurance). Anyone who buys a house with a down-payment of under 20% is required to pay for this insurance (which protects the lender in case you default on your loan). PMI is what enables people to buy homes with as little as 3-5% down. I would recommend against paying more than 20%, because having liquidity for emergency funds, or other investments will give you the sort of flexibility that's good to have when the economy isn't so great. Depending on whether the house you purchase is move-in ready or a fixer-upper, having funds set aside for repairs is a good idea as well.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a680a9f0d4f37de93b4c4e4fec815b22",
"text": "\"The advice to pay off near-7% debt is tough to argue against. That said, I'd project out a few years to understand the home purchase. Will you plan for the 20% down John recommends? The Crazy Truth about PMI can't be ignored. The way the math works, if you put 15% down, the PMI costs you so much, it's nearly like paying 20% interest on that missing 5%. If your answer is that you intend to save for the full downpayment, 20%, and can still knock off the student loan, by all means, go for it. I have to question the validity of \"\"we will definitely be in a higher tax bracket when we retire.\"\" By definition, pretax deposits save tax at the marginal rate. i.e. If you are in the 25% bracket, a $1000 deposit saves you $250 in tax that year. But, withdrawals come at your average rate, i.e. your tax bill divided by gross income. There's the deductions for itemized deductions or the standard. Then 2 exemptions if you are married. Then the 10% bracket, etc. Today, a couple grossing $100K may be in the 25% bracket, but their average rate is 12%. I read this Q&A again and would add one more observation - Student Loans and Your First Mortgage is an article I wrote in response to a friend's similar question. With the OP having plan to buy a house, paying off the loan may be more costly in the long run. It may keep him from qualifying for the size mortgage he needs, or from having enough money to put 20% down, as I noted earlier. With finance, there are very few issues that are simply black and white. It's important to understand all aspects of one's finances to make any decision. Even if thee faster payoff is the right thing, it's not a slam-dunk, the other points should be considered.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ed992ef040f2a59f2b1a2325d53e3fdd",
"text": "\"I'm not a financial expert... In my opinion it might be best to have as much in savings (aka being liquid and the funds are insured by the FDIC) as possible for a couple of reasons. If you lose your job, your equity line could then get frozen if the bank finds out. What you want to avoid is only owing 20 grand on your home (because you paid a chunk off with your savings) but because you lost your job you can't take any money out of your home and suddenly you are equity rich, cash poor, and jobless, that is a potential for big trouble. I'm curious why you borrowed on the Heloc since you seem to have a significant amount in savings anyways. What you really might want to look into is lowering your mortgage interest rate to around 3.5% I would use the credit card debt as a reality check. Make sure every month you are making at least a 10% to 15% of the total due payment. This dilutes the interest rate charge and lets you see the true \"\"drag\"\" credit card debt payments really have on your life. I don't know this for sure but the higher amount credit card payments you make probably reflects well on your credit score, and of course, never be late with the credit card payments either.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "97c33aa8e668fb4aae4bbdd1108233f1",
"text": "\"In your particular condition could buy the condo with cash, then get your mortgage on your next house with \"\"less than 20%\"\" down (i.e. with mortgage insurance) but it would still be an owner occupied loan. If you hate the mortgage insurance, you could save up and refi it when you have 20% available, including the initial down payment you made (i.e. 80% LTV ratio total). Or perhaps during the time you live in the condo, you can save up to reach the 20% down for the new house (?). Or perhaps you can just rent somewhere, then get into the house for 20% down, and while there save up and eventually buy a condo \"\"in cash\"\" later. Or perhaps buy the condo for 50% down non owner occupied mortgage... IANAL, but some things that may come in handy: you don't have to occupy your second residence (owner occupied mortgage) for 60 days after closing on it. So could purchase it at month 10 I suppose. In terms of locking down mortgage rates, you could do that up to 3 months before that even, so I've heard. It's not immediately clear if \"\"rent backs\"\" could extend the 60 day intent to occupy, or if so by how long (1 month might be ok, but 2? dunno) Also you could just buy one (or the other, or both) of your mortgages as a 20% down conventional \"\"non owner occupied\"\" mortgage and generate leeway there (ex: buy the home as non owner occupied, and rent it out until your year is up, though non owner occupied mortgage have worse interest rates so that's not as appealing). Or buy one as a \"\"secondary residency\"\" mortgage? Consult your loan officer there, they like to see like \"\"geographic distance\"\" between primary and secondary residences I've heard. If it's HUD (FHA) mortgage, the owner occupancy agreement you will sign is that you \"\"will continue to occupy the property as my primary residence for at least one year after the date of occupancy, unless extenuating circumstances arise which are beyond my control\"\" (ref), i.e. you plan on living in it for a year, so you're kind of stuck in your case. Maybe you'd want to occupy it as quickly as possible initially to make the year up more quickly :) Apparently you can also request the lender to agree to arbitrarily rescind the owner occupancy aspect of the mortgage, half way through, though I'd imagine you need some sort of excuse to convince them. Might not hurt to ask.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1023bd803a49e7eef99f714749a613c0",
"text": "Something else is going on here. Rates are high for a specific reason, possible due to the house being non-conforming (ie, trailer/pre fab housing?) Higher downpayment won't help. Go to LendingTree.com and have a ton of offers spammed at you. With 20% down + conforming you should be around 4.5%.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2c42f2eb5810f7b396be829f8e997dfd",
"text": "\"Outside of broadly hedging interest rate risk as I mentioned in my other answer, there may be a way that you could do what you are asking more directly: You may be able to commit to purchasing a house/condo in a pre-construction phase, where your bank may be willing to lock in a mortgage for you at today's rates. The mortgage wouldn't actually be required until you take ownership from the builder, but the rates would be set in advance. Some caveats for this approach: (1) You would need to know the house/condo you want to move into in advance, and you would be committing to that move today. (2) The bank may not be willing to commit to rates that far in advance. (3) Construction would likely take far less than 5 years, unless you are buying a condo (which is the reason I mention condos specifically). (4) You are also committing to the price you are paying for your property. This hedges you somewhat against price fluctuation in your future area, but because you currently own property, you are already somewhat hedged against property price fluctuation, meaning this is taking on additional risk. The 'savings' associated with this plan as they relate to your original question (which are really just hedging against interest rate fluctuations) are far outweighed by the external pros and cons associated with buying property in advance like this. By that I mean - if it was something else you were already considering, this might be a (small) tick in the \"\"Pro\"\" column, but otherwise is far too committal / complex to be considered for interest rate hedging on its own.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b8c2d55be619976d638f4c6acdc3b1b5",
"text": "Matthew - I'll start with the premise you put enough down that you won't default on an upsidedown mortgage. There's an order I recommend when considering prepayment: Prepaying a mortgage is a guaranteed return for a fixed investment for the life of the mortgage or ownership of the house. If you have a rate of 5%, and that rate is good for you to invest at, then prepaying is fine. The presumed long term market gain is 8% or higher (12% if you are a disciple of Dave Ramsey, but I digress) and at the 15% cap gain rate, a 6.8% post tax return. Your 5% rate after tax (if it's all taken on Sch A) is about 3.75% if you are in the 25% bracket. This difference of 3% or so is not guaranteed year to year, not even for the long term. For some, the desire to pay off the mortgage is enough to focus on it. Others see the 3% compounding over time, and likely to occur over the coming decades.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f3e741b5c1797f90f2eff5a53ade7927",
"text": "Consider not buying the house? Consider a cheaper property? What are your actual goals? Owning vs renting? Perhaps an actual investment goal? What is your rent now vs the mortgage on the house? What is the time frame for the mortgage you are considering? Those are the real questions you need to ask yourself. It does sound like you can become overleveraged with this property, although your down payment is quite substantial, but one single thing goes wrong and your cash flow is irreparably constricted. I personally wouldn't take that risk if I had the same forecast of expenditures, but this could be altered if there were particular investment goals I had in mind.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fe42f4891bb8abe1c35dea12d56d0e78",
"text": "Save up a bigger downpayment. The lender's requirement is going to be based on how much you finance, not the price of the house.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "da2523eb4bc3dc71b2bdad2079ee2ec5",
"text": "\"Buy and Hope is a common investment strategy. It's also one that will keep you poor. Instead of thinking about saving money to put against a credit card or line of credit using your own job and hard-earned dollars, why not use someone else's money? If you have enough of a down payment for a property of your own, consider a duplex, triplex, or 4-plex where you live in one of the units. Since you will be living there you only need 5% down as opposed to 20% down if you do not live there. This arrangement gives you a place to live while you have other people paying your mortgage and other debts. If done properly, you can find a place that is cash-flow positive so you basically live rent-free. This all assumes you have a down payment and a bank that will work with you. Your best bet is to discuss your situation with a mortgage broker. They know all the rules, and which banks have the best deal for you. A mortgage broker works on your behalf and is paid by the lending institution, not you. There are various caveats with this strategy, and they all revolve around knowing what to do and how to execute the plan. I suggest Googling Robert Kiyosaki and reading \"\"Rich Dad Poor Dad\"\" before taking this journey. He offers a number of free and paid seminars that teach people how to purchase real estate and make it pay. I have taken the free evening seminar and the $500 weekend seminar on how to purchase properties and make money with them. Note that I have no affiliation with Kiyosaki, and I do find his methods to work.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fa3d4b96522bea88e0bdae412d40b18e",
"text": "\"There is considerable truth to what your realtor said about the Jersey City NJ housing market these days. It is a \"\"hot\"\" area with lots of expensive condos being bought up by people working on Wall Street in NYC (very easy commute by train, etc) and in many cases, the offers to purchase can exceed the asking price significantly. Be that as is may, the issue with accepting a higher offer but smaller downpayment is that when the buyer's lender appraises the property, the valuation might come in lower and the buyer may have to come up with the difference, or be required to accept a higher interest rate, or be refused the loan altogether if the lender estimates that the buyer is likely to default on the loan because his credit-worthiness is inadequate to support the monthly payments. So, the sale might fall through. Suppose that the property is offered for sale at $500K, and consider two bids, one for $480K with 30% downpayment ($144K) and another for $500K with 20% downpayment ($100K). If the property appraises for $450K, say, and the lender is not willing to lend more than 80% of that ($360K), then Buyer #1 is OK; it is only necessary to borrow $480K - $144K = $336K, while Buyer #2 needs to come up with another $40K of downpayment to be able to get the loan, or might be asked to pay a higher interest rate since the lender will be lending more than 80% of the appraised value, etc. Of course, Buyer #2's lender might be using a different appraiser whose valuation might be higher etc, but appraisals usually are within the same ballpark. Furthermore, good seller's agents can make good estimates of what the appraisal is likely to be, and if the asking price is larger than the agent's estimate of appraised value, then it might be to the advantage of the selling agent to recommend accepting the lower offer with higher downpayment over the higher offer with smaller downpayment. The sale is more likely to go through, and an almost sure 6% of $480K (3% if there is a buyer's agent involved) in hand in 30 days time is worth more than a good chance of nothing at the end of 15 days when the mortgage is declined, during which the house has been off the market on the grounds that the sale is pending. If you really like a house, you need to decide what you are willing to pay for it and tailor your offer accordingly, keeping in mind what your buyer's agent is recommending as the offer amount (the higher the price, the more the agent's commission), how much money you can afford to put down as a downpayment (don't forget closing costs, including points that might be need to be paid), and what your pre-approval letter says about how much mortgage you can afford. If you are Buyer #1, have a pre-approval letter for $360K, and have enough savings for a downpayment of up to $150K, and if you (or your spouse!) really, really, like the place and cannot imagine living in any other place, then you could offer $500K with 30% down (and blow the other offer out of the water). You could even offer more than $500K if you want. But, this is a personal decision. What your realtor said is perfectly true in the sense that for Y > Z, an offer at $X with $Y down is better than an offer at $X with $Z down. It is to a certain extent true that for W > X, a seller would find an offer at $X with $Y down to be more attractive that an offer at $W with $Z$ down, but that depends on what the appraisal is likely to be, and the seller's agent's recommendations.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "028fcc6ae27f514d32d83e49aaf40a33",
"text": "The only problem that I see is that by not giving the 20% right away, you might need to pay PMI for a few months. In addition, in the case of conventional loans, I heard that banks will not remove the PMI after reaching 80% LTV without doing an appraisal. In order to be removed automatically, you need to reach 78% LTV. Finally, I think you can get a better interest by giving 20% down, and you can get a conventional loan instead of a FHA loan, which offers the option to avoid the PMI altogether (on FHA, you have two PMIs: one upfront and one monthly, and the monthly one is for the life of the loan if you give less than 10%).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5a7975f7b904e476239cf8f0dc1eb4de",
"text": "\"If I buy property when the market is in a downtrend the property loses value, but I would lose money on rent anyway. So, as long I'm viewing the property as housing expense I would be ok. This is a bit too rough an analysis. It all depends on the numbers you plug in. Let's say you live in the Boston area, and you buy a house during a downtrend at $550k. Two years later, you need to sell it, and the best you can get is $480k. You are down $70k and you are also out two years' of property taxes, maintenance, insurance, mortgage interest maybe, etc. Say that's another $10k a year, so you are down $70k + $20k = $90k. It's probably more than that, but let's go with it... In those same two years, you could have been living in a fairly nice apartment for $2,000/mo. In that scenario, you are out $2k * 24 months = $48k--and that's it. It's a difference of $90k - $48k = $42k in two years. That's sizable. If I wanted to sell and upgrade to a larger property, the larger property would also be cheaper in the downtrend. Yes, the general rule is: if you have to spend your money on a purchase, it's best to buy when things are low, so you maximize your value. However, if the market is in an uptrend, selling the property would gain me more than what I paid, but larger houses would also have increased in price. But it may not scale. When you jump to a much larger (more expensive) house, you can think of it as buying 1.5 houses. That extra 0.5 of a house is a new purchase, and if you buy when prices are high (relative to other economic indicators, like salaries and rents), you are not doing as well as when you buy when they are low. Do both of these scenarios negate the pro/cons of buying in either market? I don't think so. I think, in general, buying \"\"more house\"\" (either going from an apartment to a house or from a small house to a bigger house) when housing is cheaper is favorable. Houses are goods like anything else, and when supply is high (after overproduction of them) and demand is low (during bad economic times), deals can be found relative to other times when the opposite applies, or during housing bubbles. The other point is, as with any trend, you only know the future of the trend...after it passes. You don't know if you are buying at anything close to the bottom of a trend, though you can certainly see it is lower than it once was. In terms of practical matters, if you are going to buy when it's up, you hope you sell when it's up, too. This graph of historical inflation-adjusted housing prices is helpful to that point: let me just say that if I bought in the latest boom, I sure hope I sold during that boom, too!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3e5be56b599f442654446f850300611c",
"text": "Paying extra principal is not a complicated decision. You have a rate, say 5%. And you have an after tax rate, say, 3.75% (if you are in the 25% bracket and it's all deductible) Are you happy to get a 3.75% after tax return? If you have a retirement plan, and are not getting the full company match, that would be the first priority. If you have other debt, say a 10% credit card, that's the next priority. Is the sale soon? If so, I'd imagine you'd prefer to stay liquid, to have the next down payment ready without needing to rent in between.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
272919a61be2917df7eafa0ed3b99440
|
I want to invest and save for my house downpayment at the same time
|
[
{
"docid": "ae797d88c5b76adca7b12362c7fd28a9",
"text": "Yes you should invest; and yes you should save for the house down payment. These should be two separate pools of money and the goals and time frames for them are different. With a 3 year time frame for the down payment on the house, the risk you should accept should be essentially zero. That means it is less of an investment and more plain vanilla savings account, or maybe a higher interest account, or a CD. The worst thing to have happen would be to try and save for the house while the value of your investment keeps dropping. You have to decide how to allocate your income between retirement accounts and saving for the house, while still meeting all your other obligations. The exact balance depends on how much you need to save for retirement, and things such as rules for the company match.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "31eb14798fa124a9d56118dfc3f58f28",
"text": "Lots of good advice on investing already. You may also want to think about two things: A Bausparvertrag. You can set this up for different monthly saving rates. You'll get a modest interest payment, and once you have saved up enough (the contract is zuteilungsreif), you will be eligible for a loan at a low rate. However, you can only use the loan for building, buying or renovating real estate. With interest rates as low as they are right now, this is not overly attractive. However, depending on your salary, you may qualify for subsidies, and these could indeed be rather attractive. This may be helpful (in German). A Riester-Rente. This is a subsidized saving scheme - you save something every year and again get subsidies at the end of the year. I think the salary thresholds where you qualify for a subsidy are a bit higher for the Riester-Rente than for a Bausparvertrag, and even if you don't qualify for a subsidy, your contributions will be deducted from your taxable income. I wouldn't invest all my leftover money in these, considering that you commit yourself for the medium to long term, but they might well be attractive options for at least part of your money, say 20-25% of what you aim at saving every month. Finally, as others have written: banks and insurance companies exist to make money, and they live off their provisions. Get an independent financial advisor you pay by the hour, who doesn't get provisions, and have him help you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "71146df668f12b055a8d5912ca96a59b",
"text": "It depends on the relative rates and relative risk. Ignore the deduction. You want to compare the rates of the investment and the mortgage, either both after-tax or both before-tax. Your mortgage costs you 5% (a bit less after-tax), and prepayments effectively yield a guaranteed 5% return. If you can earn more than that in your IRA with a risk-free investment, invest. If you can earn more than that in your IRA while taking on a degree of risk that you are comfortable with, invest. If not, pay down your mortgage. See this article: Mortgage Prepayment as Investment: For example, the borrower with a 6% mortgage who has excess cash flow would do well to use it to pay down the mortgage balance if the alternative is investment in assets that yield 2%. But if two years down the road the same assets yield 7%, the borrower can stop allocating excess cash flow to the mortgage and start accumulating financial assets. Note that he's not comparing the relative risk of the investments. Paying down your mortgage has a guaranteed return. You're talking about CDs, which are low risk, so your comparison is simple. If your alternative investment is stocks, then there's an element of risk that it won't earn enough to outpace the mortgage cost. Update: hopefully this example makes it clearer: For example, lets compare investing $100,000 in repayment of a 6% mortgage with investing it in a fund that pays 5% before-tax, and taxes are deferred for 10 years. For the mortgage, we enter 10 years for the period, 3.6% (if that is the applicable rate) for the after tax return, $100,000 as the present value, and we obtain a future value of $142,429. For the alternative investment, we do the same except we enter 5% as the return, and we get a future value of $162,889. However, taxes are now due on the $62,889 of interest, which reduces the future value to $137,734. The mortgage repayment does a little better. So if your marginal tax rate is 30%, you have $10k extra cash to do something with right now, mortgage rate is 5%, IRA CD APY is 1%, and assuming retirement in 30 years: If you want to plug it into a spreadsheet, the formula to use is (substitute your own values): (Note the minus sign before the cash amount.) Make sure you use after tax rates for both so that you're comparing apples to apples. Then multiply your IRA amount by (1-taxrate) to get the value after you pay future taxes on IRA withdrawals.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "223d04166775ce3700f5f23a7cda3e3d",
"text": "Two ideas. EDIT: you should also do alot of research about how to invest this money properly. Something low risk but will beat inflation by a margin.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "886e10a51f92d7a079ec4b39db998528",
"text": "\"I love the idea of #1, keep that going. I don't think #2 is very realistic. Given the short time frame putting money at risk for a higher yield may not work in your favor. If it was me, I'd stick to a \"\"high interest\"\" savings account (around 1%). I don't mind #3 either, however, I'd be socking whatever you could to mortgage principle so you can get out of PMI sooner rather than later. That would be my top priority. Given the status of interest rates, you may end up saving money in the long run. I doubt it, but you may. If you choose to go with #3, don't settle for a house that you really don't like. Get something that you want. Who knows it may take you a year or so to find something!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "997ffcf0eb3fb67c5b69f9379e46ed51",
"text": "If you can get a mortgage with 10% downpayment and the seller will accept (some may want at least 20% downpayment for whatever reasons) and with PMI it still lower than your rent, sounds like it's a good idea to buy now. Of course this assumes that the money you'd be otherwise saving for 20% downpayment will be used to pay off a mortgage faster.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7c0129ccf189b8444f3ea2693d965ba8",
"text": "\"First off, I would label this as speculation, not investing. There are many variables that you don't seem to be considering, and putting down such a small amount opens you to a wide variety of risks. Not having an \"\"emergency fund\"\" for the rental increases that risk greatly. (I assume that you would not have an emergency fund based upon \"\"The basic idea is to save up a 20% down payment on a property and take out a mortgage\"\".) This type of speculation lent a hand in the housing bubble. Is your home paid off? If not you can reduce your personal risk (by owning your home), and have a pretty safe investment in real estate. Mission accomplished. My hope for you would be that you are also putting money in the market. Historically it has performed quite well while always having its share of \"\"chicken littles\"\".\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "613922ad4af2b6f8dad0417ea4fd4d0c",
"text": "The common opinion is an oversimplification at best. The problem with buying a house using cash is that it may leave you cash-poor, forcing you to take out a home equity loan at some point... which may be at a higher rate than the mortgage would have been. On the other hand, knowing that you have no obligation to a lender is quite nice, and many folks prefer eliminating that source of stress. IF you can get a mortgage at a sufficiently low rate, using it to leverage an investment is not a bad strategy. Average historical return on the stock market is around 8%, so any mortgage rate lower than that is a relatively good bet and a rate MUCH lower (as now) is that much better a bet. There is, of course, some risk involved and the obligation to make mortgage payments, and your actual return is reduced by what you're paying on the mortage... but it's still a pretty good deal. As far as investment vehicles: The same answers apply as always. You want a rate of return higher than what you're paying on the mortgage, preferably market rate of return or better. CDs won't do it, as you've found. You're going to have to increase the risk to increase the return. That does mean picking and maintaining a diversified balance of investments and investment types. Working with index funds makes diversifying within a type easy, but you're probably going to want both stocks and bonds, rebalancing between them when they drift too far from your desired mix. My own investments are a specific mix with one each of bond fund, large cap fund, small cap fund, REIT, and international fund. Bonds are the biggest part of that, since they're lowest risk, but the others play a greater part in producing returns on the investments. The exact mix that would be optimal for you depends on your risk tolerance (I'm classified as a moderately aggressive investor), the time horizon you're looking at before you may be forced to pull money back out of the investments, and some matters of personal taste. I've been averaging about 10%, but I had the luxury of being able to ride out the depression and indeed invest during it. Against that, my mortgage is under 4% interest rate, and is for less than 80% of the purchase price so I didn't need to pay the surcharge for mortgage insurance. In fact, I borrowed only half the cost of the house and paid the rest in cash, specifically because leveraging does involve some risk and this was the level of risk I was comfortable with. I also set the duration of the loan so it will be paid off at about the same time I expect to retire. Again, that's very much a personal judgement. If you need specific advice, it's worth finding a financial counselor and having them help you run the numbers. Do NOT go with someone associated with an investment house; they're going to be biased toward whatever produces the most income for them. Select someone who is strictly an advisor; they may cost you a bit more but they're more likely to give you useful advice. Don't take my word for any of this. I know enough to know how little I know. But hopefully I've given you some insight into what the issues are and what questions you need to ask, and answer, before making your decisions.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "abeead7391f1ad7e527550a2bca32fd5",
"text": "\"For some people, it should be a top priority. For others, there are higher priorities. What it should be for you depends on a number of things, including your overall financial situation (both your current finances and how stable you expect them to be over time), your level of financial \"\"education\"\", the costs of your mortgage, the alternative investments available to you, your investing goals, and your tolerance for risk. Your #1 priority should be to ensure that your basic needs (including making the required monthly payment on your mortgage) are met, both now and in the near future, which includes paying off high-interest (i.e. credit card) debt and building up an emergency fund in a savings or money-market account or some other low-risk and liquid account. If you haven't done those things, do not pass Go, do not collect $200, and do not consider making advance payments on your mortgage. Mason Wheeler's statements that the bank can't take your house if you've paid it off are correct, but it's going to be a long time till you get there and they can take it if you're partway to paying it off early and then something bad happens to you and you start missing payments. (If you're not underwater, you should be able to get some of your money back by selling - possibly at a loss - before it gets to the point of foreclosure, but you'll still have to move, which can be costly and unappealing.) So make sure you've got what you need to handle your basic needs even if you hit a rough patch, and make sure you're not financing the paying off of your house by taking a loan from Visa at 27% annually. Once you've gotten through all of those more-important things, you finally get to decide what else to invest your extra money in. Different investments will provide different rewards, both financial and emotional (and Mason Wheeler has clearly demonstrated that he gets a strong emotional payoff from not having a mortgage, which may or may not be how you feel about it). On the financial side of any potential investment, you'll want to consider things like the expected rate of return, the risk it carries (both on its own and whether it balances out or unbalances the overall risk profile of all your investments in total), its expected costs (including its - and your - tax rate and any preferred tax treatment), and any other potential factors (such as an employer match on 401(k) contributions, which are basically free money to you). Then you weigh the pros and cons (financial and emotional) of each option against your imperfect forecast of what the future holds, take your best guess, and then keep adjusting as you go through life and things change. But I want to come back to one of the factors I mentioned in the first paragraph. Which options you should even be considering is in part influenced by the degree to which you understand your finances and the wide variety of options available to you as well as all the subtleties of how different things can make them more or less advantageous than one another. The fact that you're posting this question here indicates that you're still early in the process of learning those things, and although it's great that you're educating yourself on them (and keep doing it!), it means that you're probably not ready to worry about some of the things other posters have talked about, such as Cost of Capital and ROI. So keep reading blog posts and articles online (there's no shortage of them), and keep developing your understanding of the options available to you and their pros and cons, and wait to tackle the full suite of investment options till you fully understand them. However, there's still the question of what to do between now and then. Paying the mortgage down isn't an unreasonable thing for you to do for now, since it's a guaranteed rate of return that also provides some degree of emotional payoff. But I'd say the higher priority should be getting money into a tax-advantaged retirement account (a 401(k)/403(b)/IRA), because the tax-advantaged growth of those accounts makes their long-term return far greater than whatever you're paying on your mortgage, and they provide more benefit (tax-advantaged growth) the earlier you invest in them, so doing that now instead of paying off the house quicker is probably going to be better for you financially, even if it doesn't provide the emotional payoff. If your employer will match your contributions into that account, then it's a no-brainer, but it's probably still a better idea than the mortgage unless the emotional payoff is very very important to you or unless you're nearing retirement age (so the tax-free growth period is small). If you're not sure what to invest in, just choose something that's broad-market and low-cost (total-market index funds are a great choice), and you can diversify into other things as you gain more savvy as an investor; what matters more is that you start investing in something now, not exactly what it is. Disclaimer: I'm not a personal advisor, and this does not constitute investing advice. Understand your choices and make your own decisions.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5a7975f7b904e476239cf8f0dc1eb4de",
"text": "\"If I buy property when the market is in a downtrend the property loses value, but I would lose money on rent anyway. So, as long I'm viewing the property as housing expense I would be ok. This is a bit too rough an analysis. It all depends on the numbers you plug in. Let's say you live in the Boston area, and you buy a house during a downtrend at $550k. Two years later, you need to sell it, and the best you can get is $480k. You are down $70k and you are also out two years' of property taxes, maintenance, insurance, mortgage interest maybe, etc. Say that's another $10k a year, so you are down $70k + $20k = $90k. It's probably more than that, but let's go with it... In those same two years, you could have been living in a fairly nice apartment for $2,000/mo. In that scenario, you are out $2k * 24 months = $48k--and that's it. It's a difference of $90k - $48k = $42k in two years. That's sizable. If I wanted to sell and upgrade to a larger property, the larger property would also be cheaper in the downtrend. Yes, the general rule is: if you have to spend your money on a purchase, it's best to buy when things are low, so you maximize your value. However, if the market is in an uptrend, selling the property would gain me more than what I paid, but larger houses would also have increased in price. But it may not scale. When you jump to a much larger (more expensive) house, you can think of it as buying 1.5 houses. That extra 0.5 of a house is a new purchase, and if you buy when prices are high (relative to other economic indicators, like salaries and rents), you are not doing as well as when you buy when they are low. Do both of these scenarios negate the pro/cons of buying in either market? I don't think so. I think, in general, buying \"\"more house\"\" (either going from an apartment to a house or from a small house to a bigger house) when housing is cheaper is favorable. Houses are goods like anything else, and when supply is high (after overproduction of them) and demand is low (during bad economic times), deals can be found relative to other times when the opposite applies, or during housing bubbles. The other point is, as with any trend, you only know the future of the trend...after it passes. You don't know if you are buying at anything close to the bottom of a trend, though you can certainly see it is lower than it once was. In terms of practical matters, if you are going to buy when it's up, you hope you sell when it's up, too. This graph of historical inflation-adjusted housing prices is helpful to that point: let me just say that if I bought in the latest boom, I sure hope I sold during that boom, too!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e2e56ff7678cd9108fa44449779b9177",
"text": "In all likelihood, the best thing you can do, if these really are your only two options (ie no other debt at all), paying-down your mortgage will shorten the term of the mortgage, and mean you spend less on your house in the long run. Investing is should be a long-term activity - so yes, the likelihood is that, given a modest investment, it will gain at historical averages over the life of the investment vehicle. However, that is not a guarantee, and is an inherent risk. Whereas paying-down a mortgage lowers your financial obligations and risk, investing increases your risk. I want to know how you got a 2.1% interest rate on a mortgage, though - the lowest I've seen anywhere is 3.25%.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4c341364afeab9a693ed255b3f300d17",
"text": "\"This is the meat of your potato question. The rephrasing of the question to a lending/real estate executive such as myself, I'd ask, what's the scenario? \"\"I would say you're looking for an Owner Occupied, Super Jumbo Loan with 20% Down or $360K down on the purchase price, $1.8 mil purchase price, Loan Amount is ~$1.45 mil. Fico is strong (assumption). If this is your scenario, please see image. Yellow is important, more debt increases your backend-DTI which is not good for the deal. As long as it's less than 35%, you're okay. Can someone do this loan, the short answer is yes. It's smart that you want to keep more cash on hand. Which is understandable, if the price of the property declines, you've lost your shirt and your down payment, then it will take close to 10 years to recover your down. Consider that you are buying at a peak in real estate prices. Prices can't go up more than they are now. Consider that properties peaked in 2006, cooled in 2007, and crashed in 2008. Properties declined for more than 25-45% in 2008; regardless of your reasons of not wanting to come to the full 40% down, it's a bit smarter to hold on to cash for other investments purposes. Just incase a recession does hit. In the end, if you do the deal-You'll pay more in points, a higher rate compared to the 40% down scenario, the origination fee would increase slightly but you'll keep your money on hand to invest elsewhere, perhaps some units that can help with the cashflow of your home. I've highlighted in yellow what the most important factors that will be affected on a lower down payment. If your debt is low or zero, and income is as high as the scenario, with a fico score of at least 680, you can do the deal all day long. These deals are not uncommon in today's market. Rate will vary. Don't pay attention to the rate, the rate will fluctuate based on many variables, but it's a high figure to give you an idea on total cost and monthly payment for qualification purposes, also to look at the DTI requirement for cash/debt. See Image below:\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "488a2e2da0765eb148803ded8cdeccfb",
"text": "Like @littleadv, I don't consider a mortgage on a primary residence to be a low-risk investment. It is an asset, but one that can be rather illiquid, depending on the nature of the real estate market in your area. There are enough additional costs associated with home-ownership (down-payment, insurance, repairs) relative to more traditional investments to argue against a primary residence being an investment. Your question didn't indicate when and where you bought your home, the type of home (single-family, townhouse, or condo) the nature of your mortgage (fixed-rate or adjustable rate), or your interest rate, but since you're in your mid-20s, I'm guessing you bought after the crash. If that's the case, your odds of making a profit if/when you sell your home are higher than they would be if you bought in the 2006/2007 time-frame. This is no guarantee of course. Given the amount of housing stock still available, housing prices could still fall further. While it is possible to lose money in all sorts of investments, the illiquid nature of real estate makes it a lot more difficult to limit your losses by selling. If preserving principal is your objective, money market funds and treasury inflation protected securities are better choices than your home. The diversification your financial advisor is suggesting is a way to manage risk. Not all investments perform the same way in a given economic climate. When stocks increase in value, bonds tend to decrease (and vice versa). Too much money in a single investment means you could be wiped out in a downturn.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "79ecf644625863c23f86774ee6e00f66",
"text": "\"When I was 23, the Toronto housing market was approaching a record high, and I thought, \"\"I must buy a place or I'll be locked out.\"\" And I did. Bad decision. I should have waited and saved my money. For the record, I thought I would never recover, but I did. Patience grasshopper. In actual fact the U.K. housing market is probably approaching a low, and you have a job that is paying you well enough. BUT the lesson I learned wasn't about buying at a high or a low, it was about the need never to let external factors rush your decision making. Your decisions have to make sense for your own unique situation. If you're living at home and you have domestic bliss, mum and dad aren't crimping your style (if you know what I mean), then, enjoy it. Your credit balance sounds understandable. It's not fatal. But it's a budget killer. Make adjustments (somehow/anyhow) so that you are paying it down month by month. Take it down to £0. You will feel amazing once you do it. After that, use the money that you were paying onto your credit card and start saving it. Whether you ultimately use the money for a house down-payment or your retirement, doesn't matter. Just get into the situation where you're saving.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f1877663f1e751238a9a0105861d6747",
"text": "\"Have you ever tried adding up all your mortgage payments over the years? That sum, plus all the money that you put as a down payment (including various fees paid at closing) plus all the repair and maintenance work etc) is the amount that you have \"\"invested\"\" in your house. (Yes, you can account for mortgage interest deductions if you like to lower the total a bit). Do you still feel that you made a good \"\"investment\"\"?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "da95074b0c587333fa350554d8d1ff79",
"text": "Not for the tax break, no; as others have said that still costs you money. However, with rates being low right now and brought a bit lower by the tax break, this is an opportunity for the safest form of leveraged investing you will ever find. If you invest that money, the returns on investment will probably be better than the mortgage rate, and that leaves you with a net profit. There is some risk if the market collapses, but it's less risk than any other form of borrowing to invest. That also leave you with more flexibility if you need cash in a hurry; you can draw down the investments rather than taking another loan. If the risk bothers you, you can do what I did and split the difference. I put 50% down and financed the rest. I sometimes regret not having pushed it harder, since it has worked out well for me ... but that was the level of risk I was comfortable with.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
ac0efe386ff5211875ece1ee06133aef
|
Is short selling a good hedging strategy during overzealous market conditions?
|
[
{
"docid": "b055a1f6b7c4f775ae775a320a646787",
"text": "Short selling can be a good strategy to hedge, but you have almost unlimited downside. If a stock price skyrockets, you may be forced to cover your short by the brokerage before you want to or put up more capital. A smarter strategy to hedge, that limits your potential downside is to buy puts if you think the market is going down. Your downside is limited to the total amount that you purchased the put for and no more. Another way to hedge is to SELL calls that are covered because you own the shares the calls refer to. You might do this if you thought your stock was going to go down but you didn't want to sell your shares right now. That way the only downside if the price goes up is you give up your shares at a predetermined price and you miss out on the upside, but your downside is now diminished by the premium you were paid for the option. (You'd still lose money if the shares went down since you still own them, but you got paid the option premium so that helps offset that).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9e2d062f068f98ea49fdcfd0b131105c",
"text": "The problem with short would be that even if the stock eventually falls, it might raise a lot in the meantime, and unless you have enough collateral, you may not survive till it happens. To sell shares short, you first need to borrow them (as naked short is currently prohibited in US, as far as I know). Now, to borrow you need some collateral, which is supposed to be worth more that the asset you are borrowing, and usually substantially more, otherwise the risk for the creditor is too high. Suppose you borrowed 10K worth of shares, and gave 15K collateral (numbers are totally imaginary of course). Suppose the shares rose so that total cost is now 14K. At this moment, you will probably be demanded to either raise more collateral or close the position if you can not, thus generating you a 4K loss. Little use it would be to you if next day it fell to 1K - you already lost your money! As Keynes once said, Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent. See also another answer which enumerates other issues with short selling. As noted by @MichaelPryor, options may be a safer way to do it. Or a short ETF like PSQ - lists of those are easy to find online.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a12b7108b3f5626358f3d684ce4d77f0",
"text": "\"Point of order: \"\"What goes up must come down\"\" refers to gravity of terrestrial objects below escape velocity and should not be generalized beyond its intent. It's not true that stocks MUST come down just because they have gone up. For example, we would not expecting the price of oil to come down to 1999 levels, right? Prices, including those of stocks, are not necessarily cyclical. Anyway, short selling isn't necessarily a bad idea. In some sense, it is insurance if you have a lot of assets (like maybe your human capital) that will take a dive when the market goes down. Short selling would have lost a lot of money in your case as the stock market between 2011 (when you wrote the question) and 2014 (when I wrote this answer) performed very well. On average the long side stock market should make money over long periods of time as compensation for risk and the short side should lose money, so it's not a good way to make money if you don't have an informational advantage. Like all insurance, it protects you against certain calamities, but on average it costs you money.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "02d2b13e35b38e12d934800189817837",
"text": "\"Below is just a little information on short selling from my small unique book \"\"The small stock trader\"\": Short selling is an advanced stock trading tool with unique risks and rewards. It is primarily a short-term trading strategy of a technical nature, mostly done by small stock traders, market makers, and hedge funds. Most small stock traders mainly use short selling as a short-term speculation tool when they feel the stock price is a bit overvalued. Most long-term short positions are taken by fundamental-oriented long/short equity hedge funds that have identified some major weaknesses in the company. There a few things you should consider before shorting stocks: Despite all the mystique and blame surrounding short selling, especially during bear markets, I personally think regular short selling, not naked short selling, has a more positive impact on the stock market, as: Lastly, small stock traders should not expect to make significant profits by short selling, as even most of the great stock traders (Jesse Livermore, Bernard Baruch, Gerald Loeb, Nicolas Darvas, William O’Neil, and Steven Cohen,) have hardly made significant money from their shorts. it is safe to say that odds are stacked against short sellers. Over the last century or so, Western large caps have returned an annual average of between 8 and 10 percent while the returns of small caps have been slightly higher. I hope the above little information from my small unique book was a little helpful! Mika (author of \"\"The small stock trader\"\")\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "e6651ffce5cdab3372aebb16b23e383b",
"text": "Right, wrong or indifferent I see account gains of nearly 50% so far this year; now being January 23, 2016. That is mostly staying on the short side. I am not adverse to long positions at all; only hop to the other side when the tide turns. I will probably end up castrating myself on the fence at some point.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "a09aa71b8d163e2547259a6c2b608fb8",
"text": "Don't sell. Ever. Well almost. A number of studies have shown that buying equal amounts of shares randomly will beat the market long term, and certainly won't do badly. Starting from this premise then perhaps you can add a tiny bit extra with your skill... maybe, but who knows, you might suck. Point is when buying you have the wind behind you - a monkey would make money. Selling is a different matter. You have the cost of trading out and back in to something else, only to have changed from one monkey portfolio to the other. If you have skill that covers this cost then yes you should do this - but how confident are you? A few studies have been done on anonymised retail broker accounts and they show the same story. Retail investors on average lose money on their switches. Even if you believe you have a real edge on the market, you're strategy still should not just say sell when it drops out of your criteria. Your criteria are positive indicators. Lack of positive is not a negative indicator. Sell when you would happily go short the stock. That is you are really confident it is going down. Otherwise leave it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6b487e77599706db5c5f4e48d10e1053",
"text": "Overvalued does not mean an opportunity to short. As long as a company's earnings are decent and there are limited other opportunities in the market, a stock would stay overvalued. its just that future returns on the stock might be limited. For shorting you need an expected trigger. Say you expect an overvalued company's earnings to decline or significantly miss expectations. This would be a candidate for shorting..",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4c6dd2d49fe387974d70a9f22ca9e5f4",
"text": "\"This doesn't make sense to me. Writing a covered call gives him a long delta position - the exact opposite of what he wants. And the tax losses won't turn a losing position into a winning one. Is there something I'm missing? Edit: Also, doesn't \"\"shorting against the box\"\" mean he has to have a long position, and short against that? That means you've got zero net delta, which isn't very useful at all...\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dfca697bdc900ed9568f9ebb0b06581a",
"text": "It's actually quite simple. You're actually confusing two concept. Which are taking a short position and short selling itself. Basically when taking a short position is by believing that the stock is going to drop and you sell it. You can or not buy it back later depending on the believe it grows again or not. So basically you didn't make any profit with the drop in the price's value but you didn't lose money either. Ok but what if you believe the market or specific company is going to drop and you want to profit on it while it's dropping. You can't do this by buying stock because you would be going long right? So back to the basics. To obtain any type of profit I need to buy low and sell high, right? This is natural for use in long positions. Well, now knowing that you can sell high at the current moment and buy low in the future what do you do? You can't sell what you don't have. So acquire it. Ask someone to lend it to you for some time and sell it. So selling high, check. Now buying low? You promised the person you would return him his stock, as it's intangible he won't even notice it's a different unit, so you buy low and return the lender his stock. Thus you bought low and sold high, meaning having a profit. So technically short selling is a type of short position. If you have multiple portfolios and lend yourself (i.e. maintaining a long-term long position while making some money with a short term short-term strategy) you're actually short selling with your own stock. This happens often in hedge funds where multiple strategies are used and to optimise the transaction costs and borrowing fees, they have algorithms that clear (match) long and short coming in from different traders, algorithms, etc. Keep in mind that you while have a opportunities risk associated. So basically, yes, you need to always 'borrow' a product to be able to short sell it. What can happen is that you lend yourself but this only makes sense if:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "388f355419ddadce6e0fac4adf5e8be1",
"text": "First I would be very careful using a short ETF. There could be some serious tracking error, especially if its levered. Second, when it comes to forex you are in the world of PIPS and high leverage. You would need to have significant capital to be able to hold out the swings as banks do their interventions. Plenty of people have been short waiting, and waiting, and waiting, unless you think you know something the market doesn't this seems like a pretty high risk strategy. I'd suggest buying options instead, but they will be expensive given the volatility.",
"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": "57a401b1ba49886d5d4103b0fe6c4bdb",
"text": "\"The margin rules are also more complicated. A simple buy on a non-margin account will never run into margin rules and you can just wait out any dips if you have confidence the stock will recover. A \"\"simple\"\" short sell might get you a call from your broker that you have a margin call, and you can't wait it out without putting more money in. Personally I have trouble keeping the short sale margin rules straight in my head, at least compared to a long sale. I got in way over my head shorting AMZN once, and lost a lot of money because I thought it was overvalued at the time, but it just kept going up and I wanted it to go down. I've never gotten stuck like that on a long position.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "40828f57fcd22be1419564583875d92f",
"text": "There are rules that prevent two of the reactive measures you suggest from occurring. First, on the date of and shortly following an IPO, there is no stock available to borrow for shorting. Second, there are no put options available for purchase. At least, none that are listed, of the sort you probably have in mind. In fact, within a day or two of the LinkedIn IPO, most (all?) of the active equity traders I know were bemoaning the fact that they couldn't yet do exactly what you described i.e. buying puts, or finding shares to sell short. There was a great deal of conviction that LinkedIn shares were overpriced, but scant means available to translate that market assessment into an influence of market value. This does not mean that the Efficient Markets Hypothesis is deficient. Equilibrium is reached quickly enough, once the market is able to clear as usual.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "812d670fdbd23a7e7ed04505fedf3b13",
"text": "\"He sold at 25 cents per pound and then as the price rises, the cash he has will buy less and less which could trigger a margin call as you are missing the \"\"short\"\" part of his position which is rather important here. From Investopedia: A margin account also allows your brokerage firm to liquidate your position if the likelihood that you will return what you've borrowed diminishes. This is part of the agreement that is signed when the margin account is created. From the broker's perspective, this increases the likelihood that you will return the shares before losses become too large and you become unable to return the shares. If you sold at 25 cents per pound and the price goes up, at some point you may be forced to buy to cover the position as brokers don't like to lose their money. As another example of a short going bad, \"\"Devastated\"\" Trader Crushed By Soaring Biotech, Starts Online Begging Campaign To Fund $106,000 Margin Call notes in part: However where this story gets abusrdly entertaining, or woefully tragic, depending on one's perspective, is that one trader, Joe Campbell, was on the wrong side of last night's massive surge. As the RutRho blog, which noticed it first explains, a \"\"dummy\"\" E-trader, Joe Campbell, decided to go $35,000 short KBIO \"\"and now owes $ETFC a wonderful $106K.\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2c9f2e17555cddbca29bea86b1a14fa3",
"text": "The Art of Short Selling by Kathryn Stanley providers for many case studies about what kind of opportunities to look for from a fundamental analysis perspective. Typically things you can look for are financing terms that are not very favorable (expensive interest payments) as well as other constrictions on cash flow, arbitrary decisions by management (poor management), and dilution that doesn't make sense (usually another product of poor management). From a quantitative analysis perspective, you can gain insight by looking at the credit default swap rate history, if the company is listed in that market. The things that affect a CDS spread are different than what immediately affects share prices. Some market participants trade DOOMs over Credit Default Swaps, when they are betting on a company's insolvency. But looking at large trades in the options market isn't indicative of anything on its own, but you can use that information to help confirm your opinion. You can certainly jump on a trend using bad headlines, but typically by the time it is headline news, the majority of the downward move in the share price has already happened, or the stock opened lower because the news came outside of market hours. You have to factor in the short interest of the company, if the short interest is high then it will be very easy to squeeze the shorts resulting in a rally of share prices, the opposite of what you want. A short squeeze doesn't change the fundamental or quantitative reasons you wanted to short. The technical analysis should only be used to help you decide your entry and exit price ranges amongst an otherwise random walk. The technical rules you created sound like something a very basic program or stock screener might be able to follow, but it doesn't tell you anything, you will have to do research in the company's public filings yourself.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4571314d35b39aaa79c3fad8a33a7265",
"text": "Yes, just set aside the amount of money. If you buy a cfd long in a stock for a 1000$, set aside 1000$. If you buy a cfd short, set aside the same amount and include a stoploss at the value at which the money is depleted. In this case however, you can stil lose more, because of opening gaps. By doing this, you replicate the stock return, apart from the charged interest rate.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a38877baeb397e6c9892d20f6f17f828",
"text": "\"First, I would like to use a better chart. In my opinion, a close of day line chart obscures a lot of important information. Here is a daily OHLC log chart: The initial drop from the 1099.23 close on Oct 3 was to 839.8 intraday, to close at 899.22 on Oct 10. After this the market was still very volatile and reached a low of 747.78 on Nov 20, closing only slightly higher than this. It traded as high as 934.70 on Jan 6, 2009, but the whole period of Nov 24 - Feb 13 was somewhat of a trading range of roughly 800-900. Despite this, the news reports of the time were frequently saying things like \"\"this isn't going to be a V shaped recovery, it is going to be U shaped.\"\" The roughly one week dip you see Feb 27 - Mar 9 taking it to an intraday low of 666.79 (only about 11% below the previous low) on first glance appears to be just a continuation of the previous trend. However... The Mar 10 uptrend started with various news articles (such as this one) which I recall at the time suggested things like reinstating the parts of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933 which had been repealed by the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act. Although these attempts appear to have been unsuccessful, the widespread telegraphing of such attempts in the media seemed to have reversed a common notion which I saw widespread on forums and other places that, \"\"we are going to be in this mess forever, the market has nowhere to go but down, and therefore shorting the market is a good idea now.\"\" I don't find the article itself, but one prominent theme was the \"\"up-tick\"\" rule on short selling: source From this viewpoint, then, that the last dip was driven not so much by a recognition that the economy was really in the toilet (as this really was discounted in the first drop and at least by late November had already been figured into the price). Instead, it was sort of the opposite of a market top, where now you started seeing individual investors jump on the band-wagon and decide that now was the time for a foray into selling (short). The fact that the up-tick rule was likely to be re-instated had a noticeable effect on halting the final slide.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b7ff02bc740506cf8b545a9777294e62",
"text": "\"It is possible and it depends on your strategy. As short selling interest rates are annual and levied monthly at a prorated rate. Interest rates are also low in general, with the exception of hard to borrow stocks. Therefore you can maintain a short position for weeks on end and notice nothing. Months even, if the position itself has already gained in your favor. There is no additional fee for opening the short position. Although some brokers have a \"\"locate\"\" fee, if it is hard to borrow the stock and they need to go find some shares to short. So you can do it as much as you like.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d69947d6c0e43b0bf91f2a80a10db5fd",
"text": "I'm not saying I'm so sure as to start shorting tech stocks (with market volatility what it is nowadays, you could lose money because bankers got a bailout and everything went up irrespective of its actual earnings). But I'm so sure as to say that selling any stock you've got in small tech companies and avoiding investing in start-ups is probably a good idea.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1fbc5abcbd2af5afae59de619f19576c",
"text": "The problem with short options is they expire and have to be covered. An inverse ETF is the way to go in my opinion. Because the real issue isn't if the market is overvalued but when will it correct. That's the risk and no one knows that answer",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
2cfa287ffd2730d1b4bc227cc5388dc3
|
What's a good option for passive income for a college student?
|
[
{
"docid": "7c626a81745be5fed0815f903726cceb",
"text": "As mentioned in the other answer, you can't invest all of your money in one slightly risky place, and to receive a significant return on your investment, you must take on a reasonable amount of risk, and must manage that risk by diversifying your portfolio of investments. Unfortunately, answers to this question will be somewhat opinion and experience-based. I have two suggestions, however both involve risk, which you will likely experience in any situation. Peer to Peer Lending In my own situation, I've placed a large sum of money into peer-to-peer lending sites, such as LendingClub. LendingClub specifically advertises that 98% of its user base that invests in 100 notes or more of relatively equal size receive positive returns, and I'm sure you'll see similar statements in other similarly established vendors in this area. Historical averages in this industry can be between 5-7%, you may be able to perform above or below this average. The returns on peer to peer lending investments are paid out fairly frequently, as each loan you invest in on the site pays back into your account every time the recipient of the loan makes a payment. If you invest in small amounts / fractions of several hundred loans, you're receiving several small payments throughout the month on various dates. You can withdraw any money you have received back that hasn't been invested, or money you have in the account that hasn't been invested, at any time for personal spending. However, this involves various risks, which have to be considered (Such as someone you've loaned money to on the site defaulting). Rental Property / Property itself I'm also considering purchasing a very cheap home, and renting it out to tenants for passive income. This is something I would consider a possibility for you. On this front, you have the savings to do the same. It would be possible for you to afford the 20% downpayment on a very low cost home (Say, $100,000 or less up to $200,000 depending on your area), but you'd need to be able to pay for the monthly mortgage payment until you had a tenant, and would need to be able to afford any on-going maintenance, however ideally you'd factor that into the amount you charged tenants. You could very likely get a mortgage for a place, and have a tenant that pays you rent that exceeds the amount you pay for the mortgage and any maintenance costs, earning you a profit and therefore passive income. However, rental properties involve risks in that you might have trouble finding tenants or keeping tenants or keeping the property in good shape, and it's possible the property value could decrease. One could also generalize that property is a somewhat 'safe' investment, in that property values tend to increase over time, and while you may not significantly over-run inflation's increase, you may be able to get more value out of the property by renting it out in the mean time. Additional Note on Credit You mention you have a credit card payment that you're making, to build credit. I'd like to place here, for your reference, that you do not need to carry a balance to build credit. Having active accounts and ensuring you don't miss payments builds your history. To be more specific, your history is based off of many different aspects, such as: I'm sure I missed a couple of things on this front, you should be able to find this information with some research. Wanted to make sure you weren't carrying a balance simply due to the common myth that you must do so to build credit. Summary The items mentioned above are suggestions, but whatever you choose to invest in, you should carefully spread out / diversify your portfolio across a variety of different areas. It would not be advisable to stick to just one investment method (Say, either of the two above) and not also invest in stocks / bonds or other types of investments as well. You can certainly decide what percentage of your portfolio you want to invest in different areas (for instance X% of assets in Stocks/bonds, Y% in real-estate, etc), but it does make the most sense to not have all of your eggs in one basket.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0db35a8dded0fbc1af8fce07dba6bfe9",
"text": "\"There's no such thing as true \"\"passive income.\"\" You are being paid the risk free rate to delay consumption (i.e., the super low rate you are getting on savings accounts and CDs) and a higher rate to bear risk. You will not find truly risk-free investments that earn more than the types of investments you have been looking at...most likely you will not keep up with inflation in risk-free investments. For a person who is very risk averse but wants to make a little more money than the risk-free rate, the solution is not to invest completely in slightly risky things. Instead the best thing you can do is invest partially in a fully diversified portfolio. A diversified portfolio (containing stocks, bonds, etc) will earn you the most return for the given amount of risk. If you want very little risk, put very little in that portfolio and keep the rest in your CDs. Put 90% of your money in a CD or something and the other 10% in stocks/bonds. Or choose a different percentage. You can also buy real assets, like real estate, but you will find yourself taking a different type of risk and doing a different type of work with those assets.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "e26a60a96cd91bb50635980c35c8087c",
"text": "Get an education. A bachelor's degree preferably, but AA or even a certificate are fine too. It will increase your earning potential significantly and over your lifetime it will earn you a lot of money. You make around $30,000 a year now, median salary for someone with a bachelors in the humanities is around $45,000. If you degree is in the STEM field, that goes up to $55,000 - $65,000 range. Second best option is to start a small business of some kind that does not require substantial investment. Handyman comes to mind as an example or some sort of billing service maybe? I would not recommend self directed investment in the stock market - most people lose money and since you don't have a lot of money to invest, commissions and fees will eat up a significant portion of it. I would usually recommend a CD but interest rates it's not really worth it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "64cff02e47a8f96bc2e6b0f27a7b48b0",
"text": "\"The existing answers are good, I justed wanted to provide a simpler answer to your question: Would I be able to invest this in a reasonable way that it would provide me with say $200 spending money per month over the school year? No. There is no way to invest $10,000 to reliably get $200 every month. Any way that you invest it that has even the possibility of getting that much will have a significant possibility of losing a lot of money. If you want to get \"\"free\"\" spending money out without risk of losing money, you're unlikely to be able to find an investment that will give you more than a couple dollars per month.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f17ea3ea13adcec5a67e063bb2b58a9f",
"text": "Yes, it's considered the students asset, regardless of the custodian aspect. I don't know how you'd propose to put it in a retirement account, even with the earned income to facilitate this, the limit is $5500/yr. The larger issue is parental income. That and parental assets. Tough to game that part of the system to get aid. In the end, one should look to scholarships, both merit and non merit based to maximize college support.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f35c17185c55522d81afb0d89b864a5b",
"text": "To generate a passive income you need lots of TIME or MONEY, you are short of both. As other people have said, do whatever you can to reduce you spending and start saving. Don’t think “I work very hard, therefore I deserve xxx”, start thinking “x cost y hrs of work, is it truly worth it?” (Remember to consider your take home pay per hr, not you before tax pay!) What would it take to get paid more per hr in one of your jobs? Maybe investing a little time/money in training would increase your pay. Doing your job a little better can often lead to a good outcome. (I see from your profile that you are a new computer programmer; I assume that one of your jobs is programming, if so put your time and effort into it. As you become more skilful within a few years you will start earning more. Maybe even give up one of the other jobs by spending less so you can do better at programming) Then as your incomes goes up, don’t allow your spending to increase, save the additional money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e11f48f38fded130cb724d3ba6f7cb13",
"text": "I encourage using it as a buffer. After h.s. I had a thousand or so dollars saved up in my savings account. After college it was maybe 5 thousand and it's remained roughly like that ever since. I figure any modest emergency or spending splurge may cost, at most, a couple thousand bucks. I'm talking about a new couch, a car accident, hospital bill, vacation to wherever, etc. It's nice to have an idea of a buffer. Financial advisors say to have a buffer of about 3 months of salary. This is in case of unemployment and such. It was smart for me. I wouldn't try to spend money to make money at this point. It's not enough money to try to see a significant gain unless you're lucky. I tried Sharebuilder a while ago with $200 to see what stocks were like. They gave you several free trades to see how you liked it. At first I was shuffling stuff a little too much and once the fees start kicking in it's 7 bucks here, 7 bucks there- eventually I realized you have to invest enough to offset the transfer fees and the fact that you have your money tied up in something going up and down all the time. But yeah. Start with a buffer and scale it up as your lifestyle changes. Anything beyond your buffer is spending money, investing money, fun money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ad4d2d9c3b94825c000b340d06134c64",
"text": "I would not advise you to go entirely broke in order to clear debts. You could use the cash you have to invest, or render some other services other students need in school while you raise cash from doing so.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b99117482e9156e3c869c932de26325c",
"text": "One idea that I read among some of the many, many personal finance blogs out there is to create a niche website with good content and generate some ad revenue. The example the author gave was a website he'd made with some lessons to learn basic Spanish. Something as specific as that has a reasonable chance of becoming popular even if you never post new content (since you were looking for passive). The ad income won't be great, but it's likely to stay > 0 for a significant while.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8779dfa9ca45986b4652213bcf57bf9f",
"text": "\"You're right to seek passive income and since you're already looking for it, you probably already know some of the reasons to why it is important. Do you live in the United States? If so I'd strongly recommend purchasing your primary residence and then maybe investment properties if you like owning your own home. The US tax and banking structure is set up to favor this move in more ways than I can count. So, SAVE, SAVE, SAVE then beg, borrow and steal to get the down payment, rent rooms to friends or random people to afford the payments, buy a fixer upper in an up and coming neighborhood. The US is rife with these in all price ranges. If you're working 56 hrs a week, you've got the work ethic. So if you can't afford it it's probably because you're spending all your money on other stuff. If you want to do this, it will take some effort, smarts, and savings. You will have to trim back the mochas, vacations, dinners out, etc, etc etc. Let your friends do that stuff and rent from you. Your life will get continually easier. If you have already trimmed back all the discretionary spending and still can't make it then you need to earn more money. Doing either and both of these things will absolutely change your whole economic life and future. So in summary I'd offer these Ranked Priorities: 1) Learn to Save (unless you always want to have to work for someone else) 2) Increase your income capability (since your most valuable asset is YOU) 3) Buy and hold real estate (because the game is rigged to favor passive income) I'm 38, never earned a six figure salary, made some good purchases when I was 25-30 and work is \"\"optional\"\" for me now.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "09dd8ce7ea34c7f997882d034c516d13",
"text": "I would just buy a low-cost diversified equity ETF. VTI is pretty solid. Also, JW are you working or in school? If you are working you should consider opening an IRA or Roth IRA. Also if your employer has a 401k or other retirement plan you can contribute to I would advise doing so.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5fb94e12f5092f879e520655891f8008",
"text": "Thank you for that tip. I've not heard of that but will look into it. I am reading the Pumpkin Patch right now, and working in the Babson College program via Goldman Sach's 10,000 Small Business and it has me spinning on all the things to consider. Great learning experience thus far.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "52d739cbf7d802944cf3affba703fe57",
"text": "First thing to do right now, is to see if there's somewhere equally liquid, equally risk free you can park your cash for higher rate of return. You can do this now, and decide how much to move into less liquid investments on your own pace. When I was in grad school, I opened a Roth IRA. These are fantastic things for young people who want to keep their options open. You can withdraw the contributions without penalty any time. The earnings are tax free on retirement, or for qualified withdrawls after five years. Down payments on a first home qualify for example. As do medical expenses. Or you can leave it for retirement, and you'll not pay any taxes on it. So Roth is pretty flexible, but what might that investment look like? It in depends on your time horizon; five years is pretty short so you probably don't want to be too stock market weighted. Just recognize that safe short term investments are very poorly rewarded right now. However, you can only contribute earnings in the year they are made, up to a 5000 annual maximum. And the deadline for 2010 is gone. So you'll have to move this into an IRA over a number of years, and have the earnings to back it. So in the meanwhile, the obvious advice to pay down your credit card bills & save for emergencies applies. It's also worth looking at health and dental insurance, as college students are among the least likely to have decent insurance. Also keep a good chunk on hand in liquid accounts like savings or checking for emergencies and general poor planning. You don't want to pay bank fees like I once did because I mis-timed a money transfer. It's also great for negotiating when you can pay in cash up front; my car insurance for example, will charge you more for monthly payments than for every six months. Or putting a huge chunk down on a car will pretty much guarantee the best available dealer financing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1d48235efe80861624e3349ef501bda4",
"text": "\"Spend less. As @jldugger said, shop around for textbooks. Make sure to look for used books: you can sometimes save a lot of money there. Be smart about food money. I could go to our on-campus grill and get a sandwich and a salad for lunch. If I packed both with toppings, the salad could be a 2nd meal for the same day. If you have the option, get a meal plan that is just 1 meal a day, and eat a lot that meal. Don't do the starbucks \"\"pay several dollars for a coffee each day\"\" thing. Small-ish regular expenses add up quickly. Quit smoking (if applicable). Ditch your car if possible. Some colleges are in cities with good public transportation or are small enough that a bike will do. Cars are very expensive. Try to find free activities to do in your free time. Usually college towns are great places to find free fun. Pick-up sports, student concerts/art shows, playing board/card/video games. Make sure to track how you're spending money to look for areas where you could be spending less. There are plenty of tools available to help with this. Some on-campus jobs involve sitting around and occasionally doing something: IE working the checkout desk at the library. A job like this (if you can find one) can effectively pay you for doing our homework. One other very important college-related financial tip is to not take out more loans than you can afford. I've heard a good rule of thumb is not take our more loans than you expect to earn your first year after graduating. Look up average starting salaries for the career you realistically expect to have after you graduate. If you would need to borrow much more than that to get your degree, rethink your plans. Being a slave to a bank for years is a crappy way to spend your life.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d5b0314fd8c99ab3e4976299d6c2bbf8",
"text": "At your age (heck, at MY age :-)) I would not think about doing any of those types of investments (not savings) on your own, unless you are really interested in the investment process for its own sake, and are willing to devote a lot of time to investigating companies in order to try to pick good investments. Instead, find a good mutual fund from say Vanguard or TRP, put your money in there, and relax. Depending on your short-term goals (e.g. will you expect to need the money for college?) you could pick either an index fund, or a low-risk, mostly bond fund.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8fc5e88ce23c10c5120d5ecfaa9f66b0",
"text": "Both of the other posters have some really good points worth remembering about the stability/liquidity of a savings account and the often overlooked fact that you can withdraw any money you put in to a Roth IRA because it's already been taxed. I'm 28 and found myself in a similar situation as you about a year or so ago. I wanted a relatively liquid place that I could store and grow some money. CD's and Savings accounts just weren't getting a high enough rate to make a return work for me, especially with only a little money to start. I would highly suggest checking out a social lending platform like Prosper.com or Lendingclub.com. I use Prosper.com and this platform will give you some really nice benefits: Here's a good article that can explain more about it and get you started: http://www.financialsamurai.com/investing-in-peer-to-peer-lending-with-prosper-com/ just keep in mind that while there is some liquidity here (you can resell the notes you invest in) generally speaking expect to hold on to those notes for at least 3 years (your share of the paid principal gets paid out to you in addition to the interest each month.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bfe9787224f701c084ffe7dbc2c998eb",
"text": "\"As someone who has a very similar debt amount and environment (new grad, nice new paying job, want a car, etc), I'd like to share something with you. Life has unexpected costs. Luckily I didn't buy that new car the first few months out of college like I had planned to; I'm glad that I didn't because, as a fledgling \"\"adult\"\", despite having lived on my own while in college while working part-to-full time there are some things you just don't realize until it either happens or it happens to someone else. Here are some of those things: I could go on but I won't. $95K is good money and I would definitely recommend spending it a bit to enjoy yourself. But I would honestly tell you that taking your monthly expenses, adding a few hundred on top of that and then multiplying that sum by 3 would be a smart savings amount before picking up a car loan. Maybe that's an excessive savings but I've seen way too many people burn out over their cost-of-living and their failure to adjust appropriately when shit hits the fan. So instead of having to deal with the stab at your pride when having to lower the cost/quality of living that you'll probably grow accustomed to at a $95K salary, just prepare for the worst. Oh, and did I mention... A NEW JOB IS NOT A SECURE JOB Consider yourself to likely be the first asset dropped from the company if even the tiniest thing goes wrong. I know way too many people who were fresh hires at Intel, Boeing, and a few other big tech companies that pay around what you make and, despite being bad asses in college, they were dropped like a bad habit when their employers hit rough patches. To those even more experienced than me, please feel free to add to the list. I'd personally love to know them myself.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
0ed10916af4e268860f70b1e14ad3cce
|
Aggressive Mortgage Repayment
|
[
{
"docid": "158a63615addb9a4abf5b13f930e9c11",
"text": "It is great that you came up with a plan to own a rental home, free and clear, and also move up in home. It is also really good of you to recognize that curtailing spending has a profound effect on your net worth, many people fail to acknowledge that factoid and prefer to instead blame things outside their control. Good work there. Here are some items of your plan that I have comments on. 11mo by aggressively curtailing elective spending How does your spouse feel about this? They have to be on board, but it is such a short time frame this is very doable. cashing out all corporate stock, This will probably trigger capital gains. You have to be prepared to pay the tax man, but this is a good source of cash for your plan. You also have to have an additional amount that will likely be due next April 15th. redirecting all contributions to my current non-matched R401(k) This is fine as well because of the short time frame. withdrawing the principal from a Roth IRA This I kind of hate. We are so limited in money that we can put into tax favored plans, that taking money out bothers me. Also it is that much more difficult to save in a ROTH because of the sting of taxes. I would not do this, but would favor instead to take a few extra months to make your plan happen. buy home #2 How are you going to have a down payment for home #2? Is your intention to pay off home and save a while, then purchase home #2? I would do anything to avoid PMI. Besides I would take some time to live in a paid for house. Overall I would grade your plan a B. If take a bit longer, and remove the withdrawing from the ROTH, it then becomes an A-. With a good explanation of how you come up with the down payment for house 2, you could easily move to an A+.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "2ff9da401e9a1c69880e5a83ea5ad0c2",
"text": "Banks and lenders have become a bit more conservative since the housing crisis. 80% is a typical limit. The reason is to minimize the lender's risk if declining property values would put the borrower upside-down on the loan. http://www.bankrate.com/finance/home-equity/how-much-equity-can-you-cash-out-of-home.aspx",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a2a5aff90598357e18900cebb565f60f",
"text": "My favorite story of a strategic default is from my friend who way overpaid for a house in the Bay Area. After the housing market fell, he bought a second home (with a separate mortgage), and THEN defaulted on the first house. The lender on the first house knew that he bought a 2nd home recently, but they couldn't go after it because it was securing a mortgage to a different bank. His credit score was ruined, but it didn't matter to him because you only really need credit for a new mortgage and he already bought a new house.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "19fa81d4f7fc0ca1253b7f0a44f2159c",
"text": "\"One factor to consider is timing. If you set up the automatic payments through the bank that holds the mortgage (I'll call them the \"\"receiving\"\" bank), they will typically record the transactions as occurring on the actual dates you've set up the automatic payments to occur on, which generally eliminates e.g. the risk of having late payments. By contrast, setting up auto-pay through your personal bank (the \"\"sending\"\" bank) usually amounts to, on the date you specify, your bank deducts the amount from your account and sends a check to the receiving bank (and many banks actually send this check by mail), which may result in the transaction not being credited to your mortgage until several business days later. A second consideration (and this may not be as likely to occur on a loan payment as with a utility or service) is the amount of the payment. When you set up your auto-pay through the sending bank, you explicitly instruct your bank as to the amount to send (also, if you don't have enough in your account, your bank may wait to send the bill payment until you do). This can be good if finances are tight, or if you just like having absolute control of the payment. The risk, though, is that if some circumstance increases the amount that you need to pay one month, you'll have to proactively adjust your auto-pay setting before it fires off. Whereas, if you've set the auto-pay up through the receiving bank, they would most likely submit the transaction to your bank for the higher amount automatically. I'll give an example based on something I saw fairly often when I worked for Dish Network on recovery (customers in early disconnect, the goal being to take a payment and restore service). If you had set up auto-pay through your bank based on your package price, and then the price increased by $2/month, you might not notice at first (your service stays on, and your bill doesn't have any red stamps on it), but the difference will slowly add up until it exceeds a full month's payment, at which point a late fee starts being assessed. From there, it quickly snowballs until the service is turned off. Whereas if you had set that auto-pay up through the provider, when the rate increased, they would simply submit an EFT for the new, higher amount to your bank. On the opposite side of the spectrum: if you've set up the auto-pay through the sending bank, and you're not paying close enough attention when you finally pay off the mortgage, you might accidentally overpay by either making an extra payment or because the final payment is smaller than the rest. Then you'd have to wait a few days (or weeks?) for the receiving bank to issue a refund, leaving those funds unavailable to you in the interim. For these reasons, I personally prefer to always set up automatic payments through the receiving bank, rather than the sending bank.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9ce9fd53bd70864db8d335bfec3f9181",
"text": "I can't believe people over 25% underwater even bother paying the mortgage anymore. By no stretch of the imagination is this a reasonable thing to do, fiscally speaking. To those of you who would make the moral argument that you made an agreement to pay... 1. You also made an agreement for what the penalty is if you do not pay. Either way you're still adhering to the agreement. 2. It's a bank loan, not a suicide pact.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "849865233681cf162c72b2fb2ed4fc5a",
"text": "\"Do you now own your new home, or are you renting? This is a classic case of a mortgage ready to blow up. These 7/1 interest only would have a low rate, say 3%. So on $200K, the payment is $500/mo, but no principal paydown. Even if the rate were still 3% (it won't be) the 23 yr amortization means a payment of $1004 after the 7 years end. At 4%, it's $1109. 5%, $1221. I would take this all into account as you decide what to do. If you now own a new house, you should consider the morally questionable walk-away. I believe you were sold an unethical product. mb wrote \"\"shoot up considerably.\"\" This is still an understatement. A product whose payment is certain to double in a fixed time is 'bad.' 'Bad' in the biblical sense. You have no obligation to keep any deal with the devil, which is exactly what you have. There are some banks offering FHA products that might help you. I just received an offer from the bank holding a mortgage on my rental property. It's 4.5% for a refinance up to 125% of current value. There's a cost of $1800, but I owe so little, and am paying it off faster than the time left, I'm not bothering. You may benefit from such a program, but I'd still question if you can make a go of a house that even 2% underwater. Do some math, and see if you started now with a 30 year loan how the numbers work out. (Forgive my soapbox stance on this. There are those who criticize the strategic defaulters. I think you fall into a group of innocent victims who were sold a product that was nothing less than a financial time bomb. I am very curious to know the original \"\"interest only\"\" rate, and the index/margin for the rate upon adjustment. If you include the original balance, I can tell you the exact payments based on the new rates pretty easily.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "da8c84c95dbf3d06800a6611c57b1596",
"text": "\"The original question was aimed at early payment on a student loan at 6%. Let's look at some numbers. Note, the actual numbers were much lower, I've increased the debt to a level that's more typical, as well as more likely to keep the borrower worried, and \"\"up at night.\"\" On a $50K loan, we see 2 potential payoffs. A 6 year accelerated payoff which requires $273.54 extra per month, and the original payoff, with a payment of $555.10. Next, I show the 6 year balance on the original loan terms, $23,636.44 which we would need to exceed in the 401(k) to consider we made the right choice. The last section reflects the 401(k) balance with different rates of return. I purposely offer a wide range of returns. Even if we had another 'lost decade' averaging -1%/yr, the 401(k) balance is more than 50% higher than the current loan debt. At a more reasonable 6% average, it's double. (Note: The $273.54 deposit should really be adjusted, adding 33% if one is in the 25% bracket, or 17.6% if 15% bracket. That opens the can of worms at withdrawal. But let me add, I coerced my sister to deposit to the match, while married and a 25%er. Divorced, and disabled, her withdrawals are penalty free, and $10K is tax free due to STD deduction and exemption.) Note: The chart and text above have been edited at the request of a member comment. What about an 18% credit card? Glad you asked - The same $50K debt. It's tough to imagine a worse situation. You budgeted and can afford $901, because that's the number for a 10 year payoff. Your spouse says she can grab a extra shift and add $239/mo to the plan, because that' the number to get to a 6 year payoff. The balance after 6 years if we stick to the 10 year plan? $30,669.82. The 401(k) balances at varying rates of return again appear above. A bit less dramatic, as that 18% is tough, but even at a negative return the 401(k) is still ahead. You are welcome to run the numbers, adjust deposits for your tax rate and same for withdrawals. You'll see -1% is still about break-even. To be fair, there are a number of variables, debt owed, original time for loan to be paid, rate of loan, rate of return assumed on the 401(k), amount of potential extra payment, and the 2 tax rates, going in, coming out. Combine a horrific loan rate (the 18%) with a longer payback (15+ years) and you can contrive a scenario where, in fact, even the matched funds have trouble keeping up. I'm not judging, but I believe it's fair to say that if one can't find a budget that allows them to pay their 18% debt over a 10 year period, they need more help that we can offer here. I'm only offering the math that shows the power of the matched deposit. From a comment below, the one warning I'd offer is regarding vesting. The matched funds may not be yours immediately. Companies are allowed to have a vesting schedule which means your right to this money may be tiered, at say, 20%/year from year 2-6, for example. It's a good idea to check how your plan handles this. On further reflection, the comments of David Wallace need to be understood. At zero return, the matched money will lag the 18% payment after 4 years. The reason my chart doesn't reflect that is the match from the deposits younger than 4 years is still making up for that potential loss. I'd maintain my advice, to grab the match regardless, as there are other factors involved, the more likely return of ~8%, the tax differential should one lose their job, and the hope that one would get their act together and pay the debt off faster.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "772681ab0b71a9580f7e061c5445b123",
"text": "\"Your first question has been answered quite well already. To answer your second question: \"\"If you pay extra, do you want the extra to go toward the interest or toward the principal?\"\" This gives the consumer some flexibility to decide how additional payments are applied. It might seem like a no-brainer to always apply extra payments towards principal - that way, the interest amounts on future payments will be lower and (if you're billed a fixed amount each month) more of each regular payment will then be applied to principal, shortening the term of the loan. However, while it would mean spending more over the life of the loan, there are certain advantages to applying extra payments towards interest†. The main advantage is that it pays your account ahead and means you don't have to make another payment as soon. You could use this strategy to give yourself a buffer of several months, so that if you should ever run into financial hardship you can stop making mortgage payments for a while without the risk of foreclosure. † Note, in most cases it's more likely that you are simply paying more without specifying to the lender that it should be used as principal curtailment. I haven't seen cases where you can explicitly ask the extra to be \"\"applied toward interest\"\". In this situation the funds would be held until you've provided enough to cover one or more monthly payments in full, at which point your \"\"next payment due\"\" date will simply be extended. Another advantage is that the funds that are being held (not due yet, not allocated toward any specific payment, maybe held in escrow) may be refundable to you, upon request. This would depend on the lender's policy. Some will permit refunds of credit balances that go beyond what is necessary to cover the current month's bill. Whether you apply extra payments towards principal or not, it makes little difference to the bank. Any additional payments received increase their immediate cash flow. The cash can be reinvested immediately by them into whatever they are currently focusing on.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8b43f330c145b3509335301b690bd3eb",
"text": "There is no interest outstanding, per se. There is only principal outstanding. Initially, principal outstanding is simply your initial loan amount. The first two sections discuss the math needed - just some arithmetic. The interest that you owe is typically calculated on a monthly basis. The interested owed formula is simply (p*I)/12, where p is the principal outstanding, I is your annual interest, and you're dividing by 12 to turn annual to monthly. With a monthly payment, take out interest owed. What you have left gets applied into lowering your principal outstanding. If your actual monthly payment is less than the interest owed, then you have negative amortization where your principal outstanding goes up instead of down. Regardless of how the monthly payment comes about (eg prepay, underpay, no payment), you just apply these two calculations above and you're set. The sections below will discuss these cases in differing payments in detail. For a standard 30 year fixed rate loan, the monthly payment is calculated to pay-off the entire loan in 30 years. If you pay exactly this amount every month, your loan will be paid off, including the principal, in 30 years. The breakdown of the initial payment will be almost all interest, as you have noticed. Of course, there is a little bit of principal in that payment or your principal outstanding would not decrease and you would never pay off the loan. If you pay any amount less than the monthly payment, you extend the duration of your loan to longer than 30 years. How much less than the monthly payment will determine how much longer you extend your loan. If it's a little less, you may extend your loan to 40 years. It's possible to extend the loan to any duration you like by paying less. Mathematically, this makes sense, but legally, the loan department will say you're in breach of your contract. Let's pay a little less and see what happens. If you pay exactly the interest owed = (p*I)/12, you would have an infinite duration loan where your principal outstanding would always be the same as your initial principal or the initial amount of your loan. If you pay less than the interest owed, you will actually owe more every month. In other words, your principal outstanding will increase every month!!! This is called negative amortization. Of course, this includes the case where you make zero payment. You will owe more money every month. Of course, for most loans, you cannot pay less than the required monthly payments. If you do, you are in default of the loan terms. If you pay more than the required monthly payment, you shorten the duration of your loan. Your principal outstanding will be less by the amount that you overpaid the required monthly payment by. For example, if your required monthly payment is $200 and you paid $300, $100 will go into reducing your principal outstanding (in addition to the bit in the $200 used to pay down your principal outstanding). Of course, if you hit the lottery and overpay by the entire principal outstanding amount, then you will have paid off the entire loan in one shot! When you get to non-standard contracts, a loan can be structured to have any kind of required monthly payments. They don't have to be fixed. For example, there are Balloon Loans where you have small monthly payments in the beginning and large monthly payments in the last year. Is the math any different? Not really - you still apply the one important formula, interest owed = (p*I)/12, on a monthly basis. Then you break down the amount you paid for the month into the interest owed you just calculated and principal. You apply that principal amount to lowering your principal outstanding for the next month. Supposing that what you have posted is accurate, the most likely scenario is that you have a structured 5 year car loan where your monthly payments are smaller than the required fixed monthly payment for a 5 year loan, so even after 2 years, you owe as much or more than you did in the beginning! That means you have some large balloon payments towards the end of your loan. All of this is just part of the contract and has nothing to do with your prepay. Maybe I'm incorrect in my thinking, but I have a question about prepaying a loan. When you take out a mortgage on a home or a car loan, it is my understanding that for the first years of payment you are paying mostly interest. Correct. So, let's take a mortgage loan that allows prepayment without penalty. If I have a 30 year mortgage and I have paid it for 15 years, by the 16th year almost all the interest on the 30 year loan has been paid to the bank and I'm only paying primarily principle for the remainder of the loan. Incorrect. It seems counter-intuitive, but even in year 16, about 53% of your monthly payment still goes to interest!!! It is hard to see this unless you try to do the calculations yourself in a spreadsheet. If suddenly I come into a large sum of money and decide I want to pay off the mortgage in the 16th year, but the bank has already received all the interest computed for 30 years, shouldn't the bank recompute the interest for 16 years and then recalculate what's actually owed in effect on a 16 year loan not a 30 year loan? It is my understanding that the bank doesn't do this. What they do is just tell you the balance owed under the 30 year agreement and that's your payoff amount. Your last sentence is correct. The payoff amount is simply the principal outstanding plus any interest from (p*I)/12 that you owe. In your example of trying to payoff the rest of your 30 year loan in year 16, you will owe around 68% of your original loan amount. That seems unfair. Shouldn't the loan be recalculated as a 16 year loan, which it actually has become? In fact, you do have the equivalent of a 15 year loan (30-15=15) at about 68% of your initial loan amount. If you refinanced, that's exactly what you would see. In other words, for a 30y loan at 5% for $10,000, you have monthly payments of $53.68, which is exactly the same as a 15y loan at 5% for $6,788.39 (your principal outstanding after 15 years of payments), which would also have monthly payments of $53.68. A few years ago I had a 5 year car loan. I wanted to prepay it after 2 years and I asked this question to the lender. I expected a reduction in the interest attached to the car loan since it didn't go the full 5 years. They basically told me I was crazy and the balance owed was the full amount of the 5 year car loan. I didn't prepay it because of this. That is the wrong reason for not prepaying. I suspect you have misunderstood the terms of the loan - look at the Variable Monthly Payments section above for a discussion. The best thing to do with all loans is to read the terms carefully and do the calculations yourself in a spreadsheet. If you are able to get the cashflows spelled out in the contract, then you have understood the loan.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "84da15fcc9d360379289e1a748504713",
"text": "The loan is very likely to be syndicated, yes. I only state 7-10 because all of our loans to this point have been 7 year terms. And in many ways, this loan is just one of those loans, multiplied out in a modular sense.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4d7f0dab1da044ee38655d1d3c8a4adb",
"text": "Leverage increase returns, but also risks, ie, the least you can pay, the greater the opportunity to profit, but also the greater the chance you will be underwater. Leverage is given by the value of your asset (the house) over the equity you put down. So, for example, if the house is worth 100k and you put down 20k, then the leverage is 5 (another way to look at it is to see that the leverage is the inverse of the margin - or percentage down payment - so 1/0.20 = 5). The return on your investment will be magnified by the amount of your leverage. Suppose the value of your house goes up by 10%. Had you paid your house in full, your return would be 10%, or 10k/100k. However, if you had borrowed 80 dollars and your leverage was 5, as above, a 10% increase in the value of your house means you made a profit of 10k on a 20k investment, a return of 50%, or 10k/20k*100. As I said, your return was magnified by the amount of your leverage, that is, 10% return on the asset times your leverage of 5 = 50%. This is because all the profit of the house price appreciation goes to you, as the value of your debt does not depend on the value of the house. What you borrowed from the bank remains the same, regardless of whether the price of the house changed. The problem is that the amplification mechanism also works in reverse. If the price of the house falls by 10%, it means now you only have 10k equity. If the price falls enough your equity is wiped out and you are underwater, giving you an incentive to default on your loan. In summary, borrowing tends to be a really good deal: heads you win, tails the bank loses (or as happened in the US, the taxpayer loses).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "964ef441a36a8f3558d245c82db5bc45",
"text": "It may have been the standard practice for a long time, and indeed it still is the common practice for my credit union to apply all excess payment directly to the principal. At the risk of sounding a little cynical, I will suggest that there is a profit motive in the move to not applying excess payments to principal unless directly instructed to do so. Interest accrued isn't reduced until the principal is reduced, so it benefits the creditor to both have the money in advance and to not apply it to the principal. You should probably move forward with the expectation that all of your creditors are adversarial even if only in a passive-aggressive manner.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "26f799670bf8a32dc2cc09fa3609cb0e",
"text": "My advice to you? Act like responsible adults and owe up to your financial commitments. When you bought your house and took out a loan from the bank, you made an agreement to pay it back. If you breach this agreement, you deserve to have your credit score trashed. What do you think will happen to the $100K+ if you decide to stiff the bank? The bank will make up for its loss by increasing the mortgage rates for others that are taking out loans, so responsible borrowers get to subsidize those that shirk their responsibilities. If you were in a true hardship situation, I would be inclined to take a different stance. But, as you've indicated, you are perfectly able to make the payments -- you just don't feel like it. Real estate fluctuates in value, just like any other asset. If a stock I bought drops in value, does the government come and bail me out? Of course not! What I find most problematic about your plan is that not only do you wish to breach your agreement, but you are also looking for ways to conceal your breach. Please think about this. Best of luck with your decision.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b03915b188d6fcb35d4155487adbc78c",
"text": "In the US, our standard fixed rate mortgages would show no difference. My payment is calculated to be due on the 1st of each month. When I first got a mortgage, I was intrigued by this question, and experimented. I paid early, on the 15th, 2 weeks early, and looked at my next statement. It matched the amortization, exactly. Mortgages at the time were over 12%, so I'd imagine having seen the benefit of that 1/2% for the early payment. Next I paid on the last day before penalty, in effect, 2 weeks late. I expected to see extra interest accrue, again, just a bit, but enough to see when compared to the amortization table. Again, no difference, the next statement showed the same value to the penny.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f84479e8a52861dfe9eeead50cc3aa64",
"text": "Yes, I think you're correct. I think it was more like. Paul Singer: Pay up on time and in full or I will ruin your credit history so bad you'll never be able to get a loan again. Argentina: Burn the house, we will call the BRIC bank to re-build.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1bea3d52dd8f05cf5b4cfdeeec0e3641",
"text": "\"We payed off our Mortgage early...at first in small extra payments to principal, and finally a lump sum. Each extra payment to principal reduced the balance, and reduced every payment going forward. I have, somewhere, an excel spreadsheet where I tracked this... - =CUMIPMT((interestRate/12),term,pymtNumber,balance,balance,0) computed the interest payment due - =currentPrincipal + CUMIPRINTresultAbove computed the monthly principal payment Occasionally I would update the month-ending Principal balance against what the mortgage company told me. It was usually off by a little. My mortgage company required me to specifically contact them for a payoff amount before I wrote the final check. I've never heard of a mortgage where prepayment of all expected interest following the original schedule is required. I would guess it is against federal (US) law. Lets think about that for a moment... out of \"\"interest\"\", I recently computed that for our 30 year loan at 6-5/8% on about 145, we payed a total of 106000 in interest. That include a refi to 4-7/8 10-years in to a 15-year loan, and paying it off 20 years after the original loan was granted. As far as not paying all the theoretical interest due... - If they get a fixed dollar amount of service interest back, there's no incentive to me to pay on-time. I owe the same amount if I pay it today or if I pay it 6 months late, after I gambled the mortgage money and finally won. (yea, I know they could write the mortgage to penalize me for paying late, but I'm ignoring that) - if you were requried to pay off all the interest that might accrue, how could you ever sell your home, or refinance, for that matter? When I refi'd, the new holder payed the old holder 98,000. If the original holder had required prepayment of all the interest that would be accrued to the original schedule, the new mortgage would've been 200k. It would just never be a good deal to buy a home if mortgages worked under that term. I have had a car loan that worked differently -- they pre-computed the total interest due and then divided it over the term of the loan equally. I could pay off early and they stopped collecting interest.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
1aef3fae63a979c881fc2d88f2798b45
|
What could be the best tax saving option before a month of financial year end
|
[
{
"docid": "8cc580ba6436559c6830165d5702216b",
"text": "I was thinking to do mix of ELSS and Tax Saving FDs. But is my choice correct? Also what other options I am left with? This depends on individual's choice and risk appetite. Generally at younger age, investment in ELSS / PPF is advisable. Other options are Life Insurance, Retirement Plans by Mutual Funds, NSC, etc",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "053ae805f6a2cba4fc3f70c4c1216044",
"text": "The tax consequence is that if you wait until January of 2011 to invest, you won't have the option to sell as a long-term capital gain in 2011. However, this is not a huge point in practice: If your income this year was very low, but will go up in 2011, you might want to convert some or all of it into a roth ira this year. This would let you pay the tax on it at your low tax rate for this year, rather than at the likely higher rate when you retire. An investment consequence is the fact that your money is sitting there, earning a lower expected rate of return than it could be. Not knowing your situation, I can't say how aggressive your holdings will be. Taking a fairly aggressive portfolio, 9% expected yearly return, and not investing for a month, you lose about .75% on average. Not huge, but something to consider. Remember that any decision you make here isn't permanent. If your previous allocation in the 401(k) was 100% in stock funds, you could put it in something like VTI, Vanguard's total US stock market ETF.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2f73770a2da33ab40245475e5bc5ee82",
"text": "\"You may want, or at least be thinking of, the annualized method described in Pub 505 http://www.irs.gov/publications/p505/ch02.html#en_US_2015_publink1000194669 (also downloadable in PDF) and referred to in Why are estimated taxes due \"\"early\"\" for the 2nd and 3rd quarters only? . This doesn't prorate your payments as such; instead you use your income and deductions etc for each of the 3,2,3,4-month \"\"quarters\"\" to compute a prorated tax for the partial year, and pay the excess over the amount already paid. If your income etc amounts are (nearly) the same each month, then this computation will result in payments that are 3,2,3,4/12ths of 90% of your whole-year tax, but not if your amounts vary over the year. If you do use this method (and benefit from it) you MUST file form 2210 schedule AI with your return next filing season to demonstrate that your quarterly computations, and payments, met the requirements. You need to keep good per-period (or per-month) records of all tax-relevant amounts, and don't even try to do this form by hand, it'll drive you nuts; use software or a professional preparer (who also uses software), but I'd expect someone in your situation probably needs to do one of those anyway. But partnership puts a wrinkle on this. As a partner, your taxable income and expense is not necessarily the cash you receive or pay; it is your allocated share of the partnership's income and expenses, whether or not they are distributed to you. A partnership to operate a business (like lawyers, as opposed to an investment partnership) probably distributes the allocated amounts, at least approximately, rather than holding them in the partnership; I expect this is your year-end draw (technically a draw can be any allowed amount, not necessarily the allocated amount). In other words, your husband does earn this money during the year, he just receives it at the end. If the year-end distribution (or allocation if different) is significant (say more than 5% of your total income) and the partnership is not tracking and reporting these amounts (promptly!) for the IRS quarters -- and I suspect that's what they were telling you \"\"affects other partners\"\" -- you won't have the data to correctly compute your \"\"quarterly\"\" taxes, and may thus subject yourself to penalty for not timely paying enough. If the amount is reasonably predictable you can probably get away with using a conservative (high-side) guess to compute your payments, and then divide the actual full-year amounts on your K-1 over 12 months for 2210-AI; this won't be exactly correct, but unless the partnership business is highly seasonal or volatile it will be close enough the IRS won't waste its time on you. PS- the \"\"quarters\"\" are much closer to 13,9,13,17 weeks. But it's months that matter.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "27a5a5296e910059e806233cc78595fd",
"text": "We need more info to give a better answer, but in short: if you assume you will make $0 in other employment income next year, there is a HUGE tax benefit in deferring 50k until next year. Total tax savings would probably be something like $15k [rough estimate]. If you took the RRSP deduction this year, you would save something like 20k this year, but then you would be taxed on it next year if you withdraw it, probably paying another 5k the year after. ie: you would get about the same net tax savings in both years, if you contributed to your RRSP and withdrew next year, vs deferring it to next year. On a non-tax basis, you would benefit by having the cash today, so you could earn investment income on your RRSP, but you would want to go low-risk as you need the money next year, so the most you could earn would be something like 1.5k @ 3%. The real benefit to the RRSP contribution is if you defer your withdrawal into your retirement, because you can further defer your taxes into the future, earning investment income in the meantime. But if you need to withdraw next year, you won't get that opportunity.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a8a34d5de6f3676427fdea0189bc6428",
"text": "It would be quite the trick for (a) the government to run all year and get all its revenue in April when taxes are due and (b) for people to actually save the right amount to be able to cut that check each year. W2 employers withhold the estimated federal and state taxes along with the payroll (social security) tax from each paycheck. Since the employer doesn't know how many kids you have, or how much mortgage interest, etc you will take deductions for, you can submit a W4 form to adjust withholdings. The annual Form 1040 in April is to reconcile exact numbers, some people get a refund of some of what they paid in, others owe some money. If one is self-employed, they are required to pay quarterly estimated taxes. And they, too, reconcile exact numbers in April.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2ccd5eb1d0b5465caec02197574beaf4",
"text": "This all comes down to time: You can spend the maximum on taxes and penalties and have your money now. Or you can wait about a decade and not pay a cent in taxes or penalties. Consider (assuming no other us income and 2017 tax brackets which we know will change): Option 1 (1 year): Take all the money next year and pay the taxes and penalty: Option 2 (2 years): Spread it out to barely exceed the 10% bracket: Option 3 (6 years): Spread it out to cover your Standard Deduction each year: Option 4 (6-11 years): Same as Option 3 but via a Roth Conversion Ladder:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a8aa87c29e49314ea96dafd5d5e09b19",
"text": "Good professional tax advice is expensive. If your situation is simple, then paying someone doesn't give you more than you could get from a simple software package. In this case, doing your own taxes will save you money this year, and also help you next year, as your situation grows steadily more complex. If you don't do your own taxes when you're single with a part time job, you'll never do it when you have a family, a full time job, a side business, and many deductions. Learning how to do your taxes over time, as your 'tax life' becomes complex, is a valuable skill. If your situation is complex, you will need pay a lot to get it done correctly. Sometimes, that cost is worthwhile. At bare minimum, I would say 'attempt to do your taxes yourself, first'. This will force you to organize your files, making the administrative cost of doing your return lower (ie: you aren't paying your tax firm to sort your receipts, because you've already ordered them nicely with your own subtotals, everything perfectly stapled together). If your situation is complex, and you find a place to get it done cheaply (think H&R Block), you will not be getting value for service. I am not saying a low-end tax firm will necessarily get things wrong, but if you don't have a qualified professional (read: university educated and designated) doing your return, the complexities can be ignored. Low-end tax firms typically hire seasonal staff, train them for 1-2 weeks, and mostly just show them how to enter tax slips into the same software you could buy yourself. If you underpay for professional services, you will pay the price, metaphorically speaking. For your specific situation, I strongly recommend you have a professional service look at your returns, because you are a non-resident, meaning you likely need to file in your home country as well. Follow what they do with your return, and next year, see how much of it you can do yourself. Before you hire someone, get a fee quote, and shop around until you find someone you are comfortable with. $1k spent now could save you many headaches in the future.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "631bc94058215d246ca94f6f20e91eb5",
"text": "The short answer is that it depends on the taxation laws in your country. The long answer is that there are usually tax avoidance mechanisms that you can use which may make it more economically feasible for you to go one way or the other. Consider the following: The long term average growth rate of the stock market in Australia is around 7%. The average interest on a mortgage is 4.75%. Assuming you have money left over from a 20% deposit, you have a few options. You could: 1) Put that money into an index fund for the long term, understanding that the market may not move for a decade, or even move downwards; 2) Dump that money straight into the mortgage; 3) Put that money in an offset account Option 1 will get you (over the course of 30-40 years) around 7% return. If and when that profit is realised it will be taxed at a minimum of half your marginal tax rate (probably around 20%, netting you around 5.25%) Option 2 will effectively earn you 4.75% pa tax free Option 3 will effectively earn you 4.75% pa tax free with the added bonus that the money is ready for you to draw upon on short notice. Of the three options, until you have a good 3+ months of living expenses covered, I'd go with the offset account every single time. Once you have a few months worth of living expenses covered, I would the adopt a policy of spreading your risk. In Australia, that would mean extra contributions to my Super (401k in the US) and possibly purchasing an investment property as well (once I had the capital to positively gear it). Of course, you should find out more about the tax laws in your country and do your own maths.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "955dc80329787563d4de1d4ca95f3b9a",
"text": "First of all, I agree with both the conclusion in the question and Ganesh’s answer – avoid funds or stockmarket based instruments, given the short timescale and need to draw an income. However I think looking at savings accounts only is missing a trick. At the moment there are several current accounts that pay >2% interest on balances the size of which you’re proposing. The list of which accounts are offering which rates / conditions at which point in time will vary, so here is a link to a good source of regularly updated information: https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/savings/savings-loophole There are some conditions, but the best interest rate on offer (that isn't limited to one year) appears to be 3% – much better than the leading instant access savings account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0dae50b5d6c8199652419e5dd726b2aa",
"text": "I will answer this question broadly for various jurisdictions, and also specifically for the US, given the OP's tax home: Generally, for any tax jurisdiction If your tax system relies on periodic prepayments through the year, and a final top-up/refund at the end of the year (ie: basically every country), you have 3 theoretical goals with how much you pre-pay: Specifically, for the U.S. All information gathered from here: https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/estimated-taxes. In short, depending on your circumstance, you may need to pay quarterly estimated tax payments to avoid penalties on April 15th. Even if you won't be penalized, you, may benefit from doing so anyway (to force yourself to save the money necessary by April 15th). I have translated the general goals above, into US-specific advice:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7e974e9c76ecdd9f3ffe8704ae2d3f48",
"text": "\"How can I avoid this, so we are taxed as if we are making the $60k/yr that we want to receive? You can't. In the US the income is taxed when received, not when used. If you receive 1M this year, taking out 60K doesn't mean the other 940K \"\"weren't received\"\". They were, and are taxable. Create a pension fund in the corporation, feed it all profits, and pay out $60k/yr of \"\"pension\"\". I doubt that the corporation could deduct a million a year in pension funding. You cannot do that. You can only deposit to a pension plan up to 100% of your salary, and no more than $50K total (maybe a little more this year, its adjusted to inflation). Buy a million dollars in \"\"business equipment\"\" of some sort each year to get a deduction, then sell it over time to fund a $60k/yr salary. I doubt such a vehicle exists. If there's no real business purpose, it will be disallowed and you'll be penalized. Your only purpose is tax avoidance, meaning you're trying to shift income using your business to avoid paying taxes - that's illegal. Do crazy Section 79 life insurance schemes to tax-defer the income. The law caps this so I can only deduct < $100k of the $1 million annually, and there are other problems with this approach.\\ Yes. Wouldn't go there. Added: From what I understand, this is a term life insurance plan sponsored by the employer for the employee. This is not a deferral of income, but rather a deduction: instead of paying your term life insurance with your own after tax money, your employer pays with their pre-tax. It has a limit of $50K per employee, and is only available for employees. There are non-discrimination limitations that may affect your ability to use it, but I don't see how it is at all helpful for you. It gives you a deduction, but its money spent, not money in your pocket. End added. Do some tax avoidance like Facebook does with its Double Irish trick, storing the income in some foreign subsidiary and drawing $60k/yr in salary to be taxed at $60k/yr rates. This is probably cost-prohibitive for a $1MM/yr company. You're not Facebook. What works with a billion, will not work with a million. Keep in mind that you're a one-man business, things that huge corporations like Google or Facebook can get away with are a no-no for a sole-proprietor (even if incorporated). Bottom line you'll probably have to pay the taxes. Get a good tax professional to help you identify as much deductions as possible, and if you can plan income ahead - plan it better.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a30c7eb9e87bc88e5f6f9fef0e1ae22b",
"text": "\"I would suggest you pay quarterly. Or, if you prefer, do the extra withholding. Don't wait until the end of the year. My experience is that of having a day job with freelance work on the side. I've spent a few years just freelancing, and I paid quarterly as requested to avoid the penalties. Now that I have a good day job again, my freelancing is just a small part of my income, and so I end up with a net return and no longer have to pay quarterly. You shouldn't wait until the end of the year to pay. This is assuming your wife is bringing in a decent income. The only scenario where you would want to wait is if her income is only a small amount (such as my wife's plans for an Etsy store). To the IRS, it doesn't really make a difference whether you withhold extra or pay quarterly. Of those two choices, my preference is to pay quarterly - it's easy to set up calendar reminders on the quarterly payment dates, which are always the same. I did the same as bstpierre when estimating my payments: just take last year's tax (for the business) and divide by 4 (adjusting for any obvious situational differences). That's usually close enough. Paying quarterly instead of via withholding means you get to hold on to your money (on average) for 6 weeks longer. Granted, that doesn't mean much with today's interest rates, but it's something. You may prefer the simpler accounting for withholding, though - you can \"\"set and forget\"\".\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9260b267d593f6be555fafa6752bc74e",
"text": "Part of the difficulty in this sort of planning is that you are also betting on future tax rates and comparing them with current taxes. If you are in a low tax bracket now, but expect to be in a higher one when you take the money out, it is better to pay the taxes now. If you are in a high tax bracket now, but expect to be in a lower one when you retire/take the money out, then it is better to defer the taxes until then. If you think that future sessions of Congress will decide to tax withdrawals from Roth accounts, then you should contribute to traditional accounts. The problem is that you don't know with certainty what the future will bring. So you have to make educated guesses about what might happen, and what you can do now to protect yourself from it. Ideally, plan so that even if the bad things happen, you will be reasonably comfortable.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b8a3b2671830f2a8002f9dfbe2dd4b08",
"text": "Or am missing something? Yes. The rate of 8.53 is illustration. There is no guarantee that the rate will be applicable. My yearly premium is Rs. 26289. On this amount I will save tax of Rs. 7887. So net premium is Rs. 18402. The other way to look at this is invest Rs 26289 [or actually less of Eq Term Deposit premium]. If you invest into Eq Term Deposit [lock-in for 6 years] with tax benefits, your numbers are going to be very different and definitely better than LIC returns. Edits:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4ee232426f873c73418bdcadf24765ed",
"text": "The rule that I know is six months of income, stored in readily accessible savings (e.g. a savings or money market account). Others have argued that it should be six months of expenses, which is of course easier to achieve. I would recommend against that, partially because it is easier to achieve. The other issue is that people are more prone to underestimate their expenses than their income. Finally, if you base it on your current expenses, then budget for savings and have money left over, you often increase your expenses. Sometimes obviously (e.g. a new car) and sometimes not (e.g. more restaurants or clubs). Income increases are rarer and easier to see. Either way, you can make that six months shorter or longer. Six months is both feasible and capable of handling difficult emergencies. Six years wouldn't be feasible. One month wouldn't get you through a major emergency. Examples of emergencies: Your savings can be in any of multiple forms. For example, someone was talking about buying real estate and renting it. That's a form of savings, but it can be difficult to do withdrawals. Stocks and bonds are better, but what if your emergency happens when the market is down? Part of how emergency funds operate is that they are readily accessible. Another issue is that a main goal of savings is to cover retirement. So people put them in tax privileged retirement accounts. The downside of that is that the money is not then available for emergencies without paying penalties. You get benefits from retirement accounts but that's in exchange for limitations. It's much easier to spend money than to save it. There are many options and the world makes it easy to do. Emergency funds make people really think about that portion of savings. And thinking about saving before spending helps avoid situations where you shortchange savings. Let's pretend that retirement accounts don't exist (perhaps they don't in your country). Your savings is some mix of stocks and bonds. You have a mortgaged house. You've budgeted enough into stocks and bonds to cover retirement. Now you have a major emergency. As I understand your proposal, you would then take that money out of the stocks and bonds for retirement. But then you no longer have enough for retirement. Going forward, you will have to scrimp to get back on track. An emergency fund says that you should do that scrimping early. Because if you're used to spending any level of money, cutting that is painful. But if you've only ever spent a certain level, not increasing it is much easier. The longer you delay optional expenses, the less important they seem. Scrimping beforehand also helps avoid the situation where the emergency happens at the end of your career. It's one thing to scrimp for fifteen years at fifty. What's your plan if you would have an emergency at sixty-five? Or later? Then you're reducing your living standard at retirement. Now, maybe you save more than necessary. It's not unknown. But it's not typical either. It is far more common to encounter someone who isn't saving enough than too much.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1a623fd663710ec8e383dcf5d15970c4",
"text": "Putting money into a Roth IRA or 401(k) will save you money if your taxes this year will be lower than your taxes in retirement. See also the Wikipedia retirement-savings matrix.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
e8bca697008a9d357fce7f517925f13a
|
Dividends - Why the push to reinvest?
|
[
{
"docid": "0f26dd48200dcb941f9970672b9fce81",
"text": "\"A dividend is a cash disbursement from the company. The value of the company goes down the same amount of the dividend, so it is analogous to having money in a savings account and taking a withdrawal every month. Obviously you are going to have less in the end than if you just kept the money in the account. suppose that I own 10 different stocks, and don't reinvest dividends, but keep them on account, and each month or two, as I add more money to invest, either in one of my existing stocks, or perhaps something new, I add whichever dividend amount is currently available in cash to my new purchase, would this strategy provide the same results? Roughly, yes. Reinvesting dividends is essentially buying more stock at the lower price, which is a net zero effect in total balance. So if you invested in the same stocks, yes you'd be in the same place. If you invested in different stocks, then you would have a performance difference depending on what you invested in. The risk is the temptation to take the cash dividend and not reinvest it, but take it in cash, thereby reducing your earning power. That is, is there some particular reason that the brokers are recommending automatically reinvesting dividends as opposed to reinvesting them manually, perhaps not always in the same item? I'd like to think that they're looking after your best interest (and they might be), but the cynical part of me thinks that they're either trying to keep your business by increasing your returns, or there's some UK regulation I'm not aware of that requires them to disclose the effect of reinvesting dividends. £100 invested in the UK stock market since 1899 would have grown into just £177 after adjusting for inflation. This figure seems ludicrous to me. I haven't actually measured what the historical returns on the \"\"UK market\"\" are, but that would mean an annualized return (adjusted for inflation) of just 0.5%. Either UK stocks pay a ridiculous amount of dividends or there's something wrong with the math. EDIT I still have not found a definitive source for the real UK market return, but according to this inflation calculator, £100 in 1899 would equate to almost £12,000 today, for an average inflation rate of 4.14 percent, which would put the CAGR of the UK market at about 4.9%, which seems reasonable. The CAGR with dividend reinvestment would then be about 9.1%, making dividend reinvestment a no-brainer in the UK market at least.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cbf07e26805b9872b703df93ba3ce285",
"text": "Good question, here are some possible answers: Its a Good Idea There is probably some validity to the statictics and having money invested, generally speaking, has proven far more valuable than having it sit in a savings account. It tends to reinforce strength Suppose you own two stocks, one that is a great performer, and one that isn't. Generally speaking the high performer will pay out more, and if you reinvest more into that stock, you will be wealthier if you contributed equally to both stocks. You might forget People tend to forget to do things that are not in the forefront, and reinvestment is one of those things that slip people's mind. One of the wealth building tools that people universally recommend is automation. Reinvesting is a way to automate one aspect of one's financial life. You might spend it on something else If you put the dividends into your checking account, there is a non-zero chance that it might get put towards something else. Better to have it out of sight and mind and invested. They make money Generally speaking, the more money you have in a brokerage account, the more the brokerage makes. So it is good for them, as well as yourself. While there is some attraction to being able to see a balance that is the result of dividend investments, its just far better to have them be poured right back into whatever investment seem appropriate.",
"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": "3e1a092f69066140fdd5255300f5f248",
"text": "Three major advantages that I can think of (and some of these have been pointed out in comments):",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e8cee11e55fd3e106fa825d34f6905a0",
"text": "There can be a good reason if you own shares issued in a different country: For example, if you are in the UK and own US shares and take the dividend payments, you get some check in US dollars that you will have to exchange to UK£, which means you pay fees - mostly these fees are fixed, so you lose a significant percentage of your dividends. By reinvesting and selling shares accumlated over some years, you got one much bigger check and pay only one fee.",
"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": "22dfc1874b671568caacf18252b7cbd0",
"text": "Firstly, investors love dividend paying company as dividends are proof of making profit (sometimes dividend can be paid out of past profits too) Secondly, investor cash in hand is better than potential earnings by the company by way of interest. Investor feels good to redeploy received cash (dividend) on their own Thirdly, in some countries dividend are tax free income as tax on dividends has already been paid. As average tax on dividend is lower than maximum marginal tax; for some investor it generates extra post tax income Fourthly, dividend pay out ratio of most companies don't exceed 30% of available fund for paying (surplus cash) so it is seen as best of both the world Lastly, I trust by instinct a regular dividend paying company more than not paying one in same sector of industry",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fdb6ac862a66bbb445259d15855dd771",
"text": "Usually I've seen people treat the dividend like a separate cash flow, which is discounted if the company doesn't have a well-established dividend history. I've never really seen dividends rolled into a total return chart (except in the context of an article), probably because dividend reinvestment is a nightmare of record-keeping in a taxable account, and most folks don't do it. One of my brokers (TD Ameritrade) does allow you to plot dividend yield historically on their charts.",
"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": "187da176de28134ca36a1b9726d3e13a",
"text": "The shareholders have a claim on the profits, but they may prefer that claim to be exercised in ways other than dividend payments. For example, they may want the company to invest all of its profits in growth, or they may want it to buy back shares to increase the value of the remaining shares, especially since dividends are generally taxed as income while an increase in the share price is generally taxed as a capital gain, and capital gains are often taxed at a lower rate than income.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "012503b8167ce91b6e004e7ff6370191",
"text": "IBM is famous for spending lots of money on stock buyback to keep the stock price higher. The technique works, and investors in growth stocks generally prefer a high market prices to a taxable dividend payment. Dividends are ways to return shareholder value when a company generates a lot of cash, but doesn't have alot of growth. Electric and gas companies are a classic example of high-dividend companies.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2f2b3bea16a194d79cea04a22815d518",
"text": "449 of the 500 companies in the S&P 500 used 54% of their earnings to buy back shares for over $2 trillion. Rather than invest in development, capital, human capital, bigger dividends, they're repurchasing shares to boost their EPS and increase share value in the short term. Why is this an issue? Because it shows that these companies are uneasy about the long term. It stunts growth. Doesn't have to be research, simply expansion or rewarding employees/shareholders. Employees of the company receive no benefits and bagholders may make a quick buck short term, but suffer long. Execs of the company however get fat AF checks for hitting target ratios and price. Stock buybacks enable this.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9ddaeefedd377e0765564f49d50c76b3",
"text": "\"It has little to do with money or finance. It's basic neuroscience. When we get money, our brains release dopamine (read Your Money and Your Brain), and receiving dividends is \"\"getting money.\"\" It feels good, so we're more likely to do it again. What you often see are rationalizations because the above explanation sounds ... irrational, so many people want to make their behavior look more rational. Ceteris paribus a solid growth stock is as good as a solid company that pays dividends. In value-investing terms, dividend paying stocks may appear to give you an advantage in that you can keep the dividends in cash and buy when the price of the security is low (\"\"underpriced\"\"). However, as you realize, you could just sell the growth stock at certain prices and the effect would be the same, assuming you're using a free brokerage like Robin Hood. You can easily sell just a portion of the shares periodically to get a \"\"stream of cash\"\" like dividends. That presents no problem whatsoever, so this cannot be the explanation to why some people think it is \"\"smart\"\" to be a dividend investor. Yes, if you're using a brokerage like Robin Hood (there may be others, but I think this is the only one right now), then you are right on.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "888da6a98abd6f62d8e73f2e77d47203",
"text": "Suppose the price didn't drop on the ex-dividend date. Then people wanting to make a quick return on their money would buy shares the day before, collect the dividend, and then sell them on the ex-dividend date. But all those people trying to buy on the day before would push the price up, and they would push the price down trying to sell on the date.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5e537164c0c324df1939aa8867b56cf5",
"text": "Older folk might wish to let the dividends and cap gains be paid in cash, and use that cash towards their RMDs (required distributions). If you are investing in mutual funds and wish to keep adding to the funds you've selected, the reinvestment is a simple way to avoid having to visit the account and make a new purchase. In other words, you invest $5500, buy the fund, and X years from now, you simply have more shares of the fund but no cash o worry about. The pro is as mentioned, and the con is really for the 70-1/2+ people who will need to take their RMDs. (Although even they can take the RMD in kind, as fund shares)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "993bef44f1fa34c11597b5e0657b6118",
"text": "If you are looking to re-invest it in the same company, there is really no difference. Please be aware that when a company announces dividend, you are not the only person receiving the dividend. The millions of share holders receive the same amount that you did as dividend, and of course, that money is not falling from the sky. The company pays it from their profits. So the day a dividend is announced, it is adjusted in the price of the share. The only reason why you look for dividend in a company is when you need liquidity. If a company does not pay you dividend, it means that they are usually using the profits to re-invest it in the business which you are anyway going to do with the dividend that you receive. (Unless its some shady company which is only established on paper. Then they might use it to feed their dog:p). To make it simpler lets assume you have Rs.500 and you want to start a company which requires Rs 1000 in capital : - 1.) You issue 5 shares worth Rs 100 each to the public and take Rs 100 for each share. Now you have Rs 1000 to start your company. 2.) You make a profit of Rs 200. 3.) Since you own majority of the shares you get to make the call whether to pay Rs.200 in dividend, or re-invest it in the business. Case 1:- You had issued 10 shares and your profit is Rs 200. You pay Rs. 20 each to every share holder. Since you owned 5 shares, you get 5*20 that is Rs.100 and you distribute the remaining to your 5 shareholders and expect to make the same or higher profit next year. Your share price remains at Rs.100 and you have your profits in cash. Case 2:- You think that this business is awesome and you should put more money into it to make more. You decide not to pay any dividend and invest the entire profit into the business. That way your shareholders do not receive anything from you but they get to share profit in the amazing business that you are doing. In this case your share price is Rs. 120 ((1000+200)/10) and all your profits are re-invested in the business. Now put yourself in the shareholders shoes and see which case suits you more. That is the company you should invest in. Please note: - It is very important to understand the business model of the company before you buy anything! Cheers,",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d4d2473d001e4be93bf68b6de5f0ab77",
"text": "One reason a company might choose to pay a dividend is because of the desire of influential stockholders to receive the dividend. In the case of Ford, for example, there are 70 million shares of Class B stock which receive the same dividend per share as do the common stock holders. Even though there are 3.8 billion shares of common stock, the Class B owners (which are Ford family) hold 40% of the voting power and so their desires are given much weight. The Class B owners prefer regular dividends because if enough were to sell their Class B shares, all Class B shares (as a block) would have their voting power drop from 40% to 30%, and with further sales all special voting would be lost and each Class B share would be equivalent to a common share in voting power. Hence the Class B owners, both for themselves and for all of the family members holding Class B, avoid selling shares and prefer receiving dividends.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "abb4cdd47e8ddd5e34572e51cc065730",
"text": "Shareholders can [often] vote for management to pay dividends Shareholders are sticking around if they feel the company will be more valuable in the future, and if the company is a target for being bought out. Greater fool theory",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "3c4b1904fafa3ab88a40e26f539a6fc4",
"text": "\"Yes, they are, and you've experienced why. Generally speaking, stocks that pay dividends will be better investments than stocks that don't. Here's why: 1) They're actually making money. They can finagle balance sheets and news releases, but cash is cash, it tells no lies. They can't fake it. 2) There's less good they can do with that money than they say. When a business you own is making money, they can do two things with it: reinvest it into the company, or hand it over to you. All companies must reinvest to some degree, but only a few companies worth owning can find profitable ways of reinvesting all of it. Having to hand you, the owner, some of the earnings helps keep that money from leaking away on such \"\"necessities\"\" like corporate jets, expensive printer paper, or ill-conceived corporate buyouts. 3) It helps you not freak out. Markets go up, and markets go down. If you own a good company that's giving you a nice check every three months, it's a lot easier to not panic sell in a downturn. After all, they're handing you a nice check every three months, and checks are cash, and cash tells no lies. You know they're still a good company, and you can ride it out. 4) It helps others not freak out. See #3. That applies to everyone. That, in turn means market downturns weigh less heavily on companies paying solid dividends than on those that do not. 5) It gives you some of the reward of investing in good companies, without having to sell those companies. If you've got a piece of a good, solid, profitable, growing company, why on earth would you want to sell it? But you'd like to see some rewards from making that wise investment, wouldn't you? 6) Dividends can grow. Solid, growing companies produce more and more earnings. Which means they can hand you more and more cash via the dividend. Which means that if, say, they reliably raise dividends 10%/year, that measly 3% dividend turns into a 6% dividend seven years later (on your initial investment). At year 14, it's 12%. Year 21, 24%. See where this is going? Companies like that do exist, google \"\"Dividend Aristocrats\"\". 7) Dividends make growth less important. If you owned a company that paid you a 10% dividend every year, but never grew an inch, would you care? How about 5%, and it grows only slowly? You invest in companies, not dividends. You invest in companies to make money. Dividends are a useful tool when you invest -- to gauge company value, to smooth your ride, and to give you some of the profit of the business you own. They are, however, only part of the total return from investing -- as you found out.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
0c7a510b88b6dff608e5cfb6b77771ef
|
Options revisited: Gold fever
|
[
{
"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": "ad534cee6acb8b83f8e574759524feae",
"text": "You'll still lose a little bit if you buy a put option at the current price. No such thing as free hedging. Let's say you have 100 shares of IAU that you bought for exactly $12.50 per share. This is $1,250. Now let's say you bought a put option with a strike price of $13 that expires in April 2011. The current price for this option is $1.10 per share, or $110. You can sell your IAU for $1,300 any time before the expiration date, but this leaves $60 in time value. The price of the options will always have a time component that is a premium on the difference between the current price and the strike price. (Oh, forgot to add in commissions to this.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e26623e08553c09696cac38fbef44909",
"text": "gold is incredibly volatile, I tried spreadbetting on it. During the month of its highest gain, month beginning to month end, I was betting it would go up - and I still managed to lose money. It went down so much, that my stop loss margin would kick in. Don't do things with gold in the short term its a very small and liquid market. My advice with gold, actually buy some physical gold as insurance.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2459cf66b1ae2c89abbe5f95e4ee0a94",
"text": "Make a portfolio with gold and put options for gold. If the price rises again, sell a part of your gold and use it to buy new put options. If the price goes down, then use your put options to sell gold at a favorable price.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "234d69bfb72ed4adf33d3eb4134b168c",
"text": "\"Ryan's suggestion to index for your main strategy is dead on. Your risk is highest with one given stock, and decreases as you diversify. Yet, picking the stocks one at a time is an effort, when done right, it's time consuming. For what one can say about Jim \"\"mad money\"\" Cramer, his advice to spend an hour a month studying each stock you own, is pretty decent advice. Penny stocks are sub one dollar priced, typically small companies which in theory can grow to be large companies, but the available information tends to be tougher to get hold of. Options are a discussion for a different thread, I discussed the covered call strategy elsewhere and show that options are not necessarily high risk, it depends how they are used.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "95e392331ea40b47c5aa6e86a019aa5b",
"text": "Oanda.com trades spot forex and something they call box options, it's not quite what you are looking for, but maybe worth looking up.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "701044a51a7f47011eb598f92c1ca560",
"text": "Gold's valuation is so stratospheric right now that I wonder if negative numbers (as in, you should short it) are acceptable in the short run. In the long run I'd say the answer is zero. The problem with gold is that its only major fundamental value is for making jewelry and the vast majority is just being hoarded in ways that can only be justified by the Greater Fool Theory. In the long run gold shouldn't return more than inflation because a pile of gold creates no new wealth like the capital that stocks are a claim on and doesn't allow others to create new wealth like money lent via bonds. It's also not an important and increasingly scarce resource for wealth creation in the global economy like oil and other more useful commodities are. I've halfway-thought about taking a short position in gold, though I haven't taken any position, short or long, in gold for the following reasons: Straight up short-selling of a gold ETF is too risky for me, given its potential for unlimited losses. Some other short strategy like an inverse ETF or put options is also risky, though less so, and ties up a lot of capital. While I strongly believe such an investment would be profitable, I think the things that will likely rise when the flight-to-safety is over and gold comes back to Earth (mainly stocks, especially in the more beaten-down sectors of the economy) will be equally profitable with less risk than taking one of these positions in gold.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9c9eaf83dd1c479f504d360c86cb7bd2",
"text": "\"A good time to invest in gold WAS about ten years ago, when it had reached a 20-year bottom around $300 an ounce. That's when I was buying (gold stocks, not physical gold). Since then, it's gone up 5-6 times in ten years. It might continue to go up of course, but it also has long way down to go, because it has come up \"\"too far, too fast.\"\" I have since sold my gold stocks. Alternatives to gold include other metals such as silver and copper (which actually belong in the same chemical family) as well as platinum and palladium. But they, too, have run up a lot in price over the past ten years.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b9cf1a9d3d8234f8adeeb92f3ab10905",
"text": "\"During Graham's career, gold and currency were the same thing because of the gold standard. Graham did not advise investing in currencies, only in bonds and stocks, the latter only for intelligent speculation. Graham died a couple of years after Nixon closed the gold window, ending the gold standard. Gold may be thought of as a currency even today, as endowments and other investors use it as a store of value or for diversification of risks. However, currency or commodities investing does not seem Graham-like. How could you reliably estimate intrinsic value of a currency or commodity, so that you can have a Graham-like margin of safety after subtracting the intrinsic value from the market value? Saying that gold is \"\"clearly underpriced in today's market\"\" is just hand-waving. A Graham analysis such as \"\"net net\"\" (valuing stocks by their current tangible assets net of all liabilities) is a quantitative analysis of accounting numbers audited by CPAs and offers a true margin of safety.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "edb1f705ad85940e241269d785bb0f6b",
"text": "Originally dollars were exchangeable for specie at any time, provided you went to a govt exchange. under Bretton Woods this was a generally fixed rate, but regardless there existed a spread on gold. This ceased to be the case in 71 when the Nixon shock broke Bretton woods.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8cc918d7d360e8385f3ff962b9230f3a",
"text": "\"The difficulty with investing in mining and gold company stocks is that they are subject to the same market forces as any other stocks, although they may whether those forces better in a crisis than other stocks do because they are related to gold, which has always been a \"\"flight to safety\"\" move for investors. Some investors buy physical gold, although you don't have to take actual delivery of the metal itself. You can leave it with the broker-dealer you buy it from, much the way you don't have your broker send you stock certificates. That way, if you leave the gold with the broker-dealer (someone reputable, of course, like APMEX or Monex) then you can sell it quickly if you choose, just like when you want to sell a stock. If you take delivery of a security (share certificate) or commodity (gold, oil, etc.) then before you can sell it, you have to return it to broker, which takes time. The decision has much to do with your investing objectives and willingness to absorb risk. The reason people choose mutual funds is because their money gets spread around a basket of stocks, so if one company in the fund takes a hit it doesn't wipe out their entire investment. If you buy gold, you run the risk (low, in my opinion) of seeing big losses if, for some reason, gold prices plummet. You're \"\"all in\"\" on one thing, which can be risky. It's a judgment call on your part, but that's my two cents' worth.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "18a4ec884d5992249a95fe141fdd1279",
"text": "No. The value of the dollar will continue to decline, in turn adding to the value of gold. The current prices are not high for metals, although not rock bottom prices. Especially given what central banks are going to do. (QE). We are nowhere near a gold bubble.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "68307d5be9ffcdcde08545453139e73a",
"text": "\"Buying physical gold: bad idea; you take on liquidity risk. Putting all your money in a German bank account: bad idea; you still do not escape Euro risk. Putting all your money in USD: bad idea; we have terrible, terrible fiscal problems here at home and they're invisible right now because we're in an election year. The only artificially \"\"cheap\"\" thing that is well-managed in your part of the world is the Swiss Franc (CHF). They push it down artificially, but no government has the power to fight a market forever. They'll eventually run out of options and have to let the CHF rise in value.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cef4fa3efefe86f85f703ff4e020704f",
"text": "\"If there is a very sudden and large collapse in the exchange rate then because algorithmic trades will operate very fast it is possible to determine “x” immediately after the change in exchange rate. All you need to know is the order book. You also need to assume that the algorithmic bot operates faster than all other market participants so that the order book doesn’t change except for those trades executed by the bot. The temporarily cheaper price in the weakened currency market will rise and the temporarily dearer price in the strengthened currency market will fall until the prices are related by the new exchange rate. This price is determined by the condition that the total volume of buys in the cheaper market is equal to the total volume of sells in the dearer market. Suppose initially gold is worth $1200 on NYSE or £720 on LSE. Then suppose the exchange rate falls from r=0.6 £/$ to s=0.4 £/$. To illustrate the answer lets assume that before the currency collapse the order book for gold on the LSE and NYSE looks like: GOLD-NYSE Sell (100 @ $1310) Sell (100 @ $1300) <——— Sell (100 @ $1280) Sell (200 @ $1260) Sell (300 @ $1220) Sell (100 @ $1200) ————————— buy (100 @ $1190) buy (100 @ $1180) GOLD-LSE Sell (100 @ £750) Sell (100 @ £740) ————————— buy (200 @ £720) buy (200 @ £700) buy (100 @ £600) buy (100 @ £550) buy (100 @ £530) buy (100 @ £520) <——— buy (100 @ £500) From this hypothetical example, the automatic traders will buy up the NYSE gold and sell the LSE gold in equal volume until the price ratio \"\"s\"\" is attained. By summing up the sell volumes on the NYSE and the buy volumes on the LSE, we see that the conditions are met when the price is $1300 and £520. Note 800 units were bought and sold. So “x” depends on the available orders in the order book. Immediately after this, however, the price of the asset will be subject to the new changes of preference by the market participants. However, the price calculated above must be the initial price, since otherwise an arbitrage opportunity would exist.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "184b192142a08e69ff99c90145a0ef1a",
"text": "You're missing the cost-of-carry aspect: The cost of carry or carrying charge is the cost of storing a physical commodity, such as grain or metals, over a period of time. The carrying charge includes insurance, storage and interest on the invested funds as well as other incidental costs. In interest rate futures markets, it refers to the differential between the yield on a cash instrument and the cost of the funds necessary to buy the instrument. So in a nutshell, you'd have to store the gold (safely), invest your money now, i.e. you're missing out on interests the money could have earned until the futures delivery date. Well and on top of that you need to get the gold shipped to London or wherever the agreed delivery place is. Edit: Forgot to mention that of course there are arbitrageurs that make sure the futures and spot market prices don't diverge. So the idea isn't that bad as I might have made it sound but being in the arbitrage business myself I should disclaim that profits are small and arbitraging is highly automated, so before you spot a $1 profit somewhere between any two contracts, you can be quite sure it's been taken by an arbitrageur already.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "97ec06c6f3e947c0fc43550513e76f6d",
"text": "I just wrote an article about this and how Im playing it (ALOT of long dated OotM (out of the money) PUT options). Especially with the Fed forcing rate hikes (as if they think we dont understand theyre hiking only to cut rates in a few months when a recession shows) and the economys growth weakening. I don't see a single catalyst for resuming the boom in auto sectors. (my article) https://lonewolf.liberty.me/car-mageddon-is-upon-us-and-how-to-play-it/",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a5fc1225abe1e6651a20b3d8eea0eab7",
"text": "\"Ok, I think what you're really asking is \"\"how can I benefit from a collapse in the price of gold?\"\" :-) And that's easy. (The hard part's making that kind of call with money on the line...) The ETF GLD is entirely physical gold sitting in a bank vault. In New York, I believe. You could simply sell it short. Alternatively, you could buy a put option on it. Even more risky, you could sell a (naked) call option on it. i.e. you receive the option premium up front, and if it expires worthless you keep the money. Of course, if gold goes up, you're on the hook. (Don't do this.) (the \"\"Don't do this\"\" was added by Chris W. Rea. I agree that selling naked options is best avoided, but I'm not going to tell you what to do. What I should have done was make clear that your potential losses are unlimited when selling naked calls. For example, if you sold a single GLD naked call, and gold went to shoot to $1,000,000/oz, you'd be on the hook for around $10,000,000. An unrealistic example, perhaps, but one that's worth pondering to grasp the risk you'd be exposing yourself to with selling naked calls. -- Patches) Alternative ETFs that work the same, holding physical gold, are IAU and SGOL. With those the gold is stored in London and Switzerland, respectively, if I remember right. Gold peaked around $1900 and is now back down to the $1500s. So, is the run over, and it's all downhill from here? Or is it a simple retracement, gathering strength to push past $2000? I have no idea. And I make no recommendations.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "69923fb1d6e6e062c5b30216a5600c26",
"text": "Even with non-voting shares, you own a portion of the company including all of its assets and its future profits. If the company is sold, goes out of business and liquidates, etc., those with non-voting shares still stand collect their share of the funds generated. There's also the possibility, as one of the comments notes, that a company will pay dividends in the future and distribute its assets to shareholders that way. The example of Google (also mentioned in the comments) is interesting because when they went to voting and non-voting stock, there was some theoretical debate about whether the two types of shares (GOOG and GOOGL) would track each other in value. It turned out that they did not - People did put a premium on voting, so that is worth something. Even without the voting rights, however, Google has massive assets and each share (GOOG and GOOGL) represented ownership of a fraction of those assets and that kept them highly correlated in value. (Google had to pay restitution to some shareholders of the non-voting stock as a result of the deviation in value. I won't get into the details here since it's a bit of tangent, but you could easily find details on the web.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "49183a72c0b15726b887ab56f8c064b5",
"text": "\"This is a tough question, because it is something very specific to your situation and finances. I personally started at a young age (17), with US$1,000 in Scottrade. I tried the \"\"stock market games\"\" at first, but in retrospect they did nothing for me and turned out to be a waste of time. I really started when I actually opened my brokerage account, so step one would be to choose your discount broker. For example, Scottrade, Ameritrade (my current broker), E-Trade, Charles Schwab, etc. Don't worry about researching them too much as they all offer what you need to start out. You can always switch later (but this can be a little of a hassle). For me, once I opened my brokerage account I became that much more motivated to find a stock to invest in. So the next step and the most important is research! There are many good resources on the Internet (there can also be some pretty bad ones). Here's a few I found useful: Investopedia - They offer many useful, easy-to-understand explanations and definitions. I found myself visiting this site a lot. CNBC - That was my choice for business news. I found them to be the most watchable while being very informative. Fox Business, seems to be more political and just annoying to watch. Bloomberg News was just ZzzzZzzzzz (boring). On CNBC, Jim Cramer was a pretty useful resource. His show Mad Money is entertaining and really does teach you to think like an investor. I want to note though, I don't recommend buying the stocks he recommends, specially the next day after he talks about them. Instead, really pay attention to the reasons he gives for his recommendation. It will teach you to think more like an investor and give you examples of what you should be looking for when you do research. You can also use many online news organizations like MarketWatch, The Motley Fool, Yahoo Finance (has some pretty good resources), and TheStreet. Read editorial (opinions) articles with a grain of salt, but again in each editorial they explain why they think the way they think.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
a5b9eea6d14dc2048fce131cfeec431c
|
Methods for forecasting price?
|
[
{
"docid": "79b5424f9466484faeef9e8c886e37e6",
"text": "\"Assuming a price is set on an free market there are particular difficulties to pricing. A free market is one where the price is entirely determined by the willingness of people to buy and sell at a particular price point. What you perceive as price, is actually the \"\"tick\"\", i.e. the quote of the last transaction. The first and most serious major obstacle to pricing is a variation of the prisoners dilemma, a psychological phenomenon. For instance, bitcoin might be worth 4$ now, but you believe it will be worth 5$ in 3 days. Will you buy bitcoin? If acting only on your conviction, yes. But what if you consider what other people will do? Will others believe bitcoin will be worth 5$ in 3 days? Will they act on their conviction? Will the others believe that others believe that it wil be worth 5$ in 3 days, and will the others believe that the others who believe will act on their conviction? Will the others believe that others believe of still others who believe that they will act on their conviction? It goes on like this ad-infinitum. The actual behavior of any individual on the market is essentially chaotic and unpredictable (for the reason stated above and others). This is related to a phenomenon you call market efficiency. An efficient market always reflects the optimal price-point at any given time. If that is so, then you cannot win on this market, because at the time you would have to realize a competitive edge, everybody else has already acted on that information. Markets are not 100% efficient of course. But modern electronic markets can be very, very efficient (as say compared to stock markets fro 100 years ago, where you could get a competitive edge just by having access to a fast courier). What makes matters rather more difficult for price forecasting is that not only are humans engaging in the market, machines are as well. The machines may not be terribly good at what they do, but they are terribly fast. The machines that work well (i.e. don't loose much) will survive, and the ones that don't will die in short order. Since speed is one of the major benefits of the machines over humans, they tend to make markets even more efficient. Another phenomenon to price forecasting is that of information and entropy. Suppose you found a reliable method to predict a market at a given time. You act on this information and indeed you make a profit. The profit you will be able to achieve will diminish over time until it reaches zero or reverts. The reason for this is that you acted on private information, which you leaked out by engaging in a trade. The more successful you are in exploiting your forecast, the better you train every other market participant to react to their losses. Since for every trade you make successfully, there has to be somebody who lost. People or machines who lose on markets usually exit those markets in some fashion. So even if the other participants are not adjusting their behavior, your success is weeding out those with the wrong behavior. Yet another difficulty in pricing forecasts are black-swan events. Since information can have a huge impact on pricing, the sudden appearance of new information can throw a conservative forecast completely off the rails and incur huge losses (or huge unexpected benefits). You cannot quantify black-swan events in any shape or form. It is my belief that you cannot predict efficient and well working markets. You might be able to predict some very sub-optimal markets, but usually, hedge-funds are always on the hunt for inefficient markets to exploit, so by simple decree of market economics, the inefficient markets tend to be a perpetually dying species.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4c0eb9d6fadbe1fe4754c9d470eabf64",
"text": "well there are many papers on power spot price prediction, for example. It depends on what level of methodology you would like to use. Linear regression is one of the basic steps, then you can continue with more advanced options. I'm a phd student studying modelling the energy price (electricity, gas, oil) as stochastic process. Regarding to your questions: 1. mildly speaking, it's really hard, due to its random nature! (http://www.dataversity.net/is-there-such-a-thing-as-predictive-analytics/) 2. well, i would ask what kind of measure of success you mean? what level of predicted interval one could find successful enough? 3. would you like me to send you some of the math-based papers on? 4. as i know, the method is to fully capture all main characteristics of the price. If it's daily power price, then these are mean-reversion effect, high volatility, spike, seasonality (weekly, monthly, yearly). Would you tell me what kind of method you're using? Maybe we can discuss some shared ideas? Anna",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "75eb6b18fbd847609b48d145eea7c83f",
"text": "\"It's not impossible to forecast the future price of a commodity. However, it's exactly that; an educated guess, much like the weather, and the further out that prediction is made, the higher the percentage error is expected. A lot of information is gathered by various instruments, spotters etc at a very high cost of time and money, to produce a prediction that starts breaking down after about five days and is no more than a wild guess after about ten. How accurately a price can be forecast depends on the commodity. There are seasonal and thus cyclical changes in many commodities, on top of which there is a general trend which is nearer term. A pretty decent prediction can thus be arrived at with a relatively simple seasonally-adjusted percentage change algorithm; take a moving average of the last few measurements, compute the percent change versus the same period last year (current minus last divided by last) and multiply it by last year's number for the current day or month to arrive at a pretty decent prediction for the current and near-future periods (up to about as far ahead as you have looked behind). Another thing you may need to do is normalize. Many price graphs are very jittery; the price of a stock may fluctuate many percentage points on a single day, and there's a lot of \"\"noise\"\" inherent in them. A common tool to normalize is a box-and-whisker plot, which for a given time period will aggregate all samples within that period, and give you a measurement of the lowest sample, highest sample, median, and quartiles (the range of each 25% of the full sample space). Box plots can also be plotted on the \"\"interquartile range\"\" or \"\"middle fifty\"\"; this throws away the very noisy outliers and constructs a much more regular plot from the inner part of the bell curve. You can reverse-engineer a best-fit line connecting the elements of each box, and the closer two lines are, the more likely the real future data will be around that area (because the quartile between those to lines is very dense; 25% of the values are in a very small range meaning many samples occurred there). Lastly, there are outside factors that are not included in simple percentage growth. Big news must be taken into account by introducing more subjective guesses about future data. If you see an active hurricane season coming (or a hurricane bearing down on Galveston/Houston) then it's reasonable to assume that the price of oil and/or refined oil products (like gas and jet fuel) will skyrocket. A cyclical growth model will not predict these events, but you can factor in the likelihood of a big change with a base onto which you add last year's numbers, and onto that you add regular growth. Conversely, when a huge spike happens due to a non-cyclical event like a natural disaster, you must smooth it out by reducing the readings to fit in the curve, otherwise your model for next year will expect the same anomaly at the same time and so it will be wrong. These adjustments are necessary, but the more of them you make, the less the graph reflects real history and the more it reflects what you think it should have been.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "5b5e3ad5eedadb699deaf191b14424aa",
"text": "\"I believe you are looking for price forecasts from analysts. Yahoo provides info in the analyst opinions section: here is an example for Apple the price targets are located in the \"\"Price Target Summary\"\" section.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "105d56c81f6e2fbc365e6571b8b8d301",
"text": "you could try [FRED](http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=HO7), or maybe try the CME and ICE's websites for some decent data.. haven't looked just suggestions - pretty sure the symbol for the Libor futures is EM, you could approximate from that so long as it's not a doctoral thesis",
"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": "0d008a892deb44faa5fcc7a59cdb2cb0",
"text": "\"I'll give the TLDR answer. 1) You can't forecast the price direction. If you get it right you got lucky. If you think you get it right consistently you are either a statistical anomaly or a victim of confirmation bias. Countless academic studies show that you can not do this. 2) You reduce volatility and, importantly, left-tail risk by going to an index tracking ETF or mutual fund. That is, Probability(Gigantic Loss) is MUCH lower in an index tracker. What's the trade off? The good thing is there is NO tradeoff. Your expected return does not go down in the same way the risk goes down! 3) Since point (1) is true, you are wasting time analysing companies. This has the opportunity cost of not earning $ from doing paid work, which can be thought of as a negative return. \"\"With all the successful investors (including myself on a not-infrequent basis) going for individual companies directly\"\" Actually, academic studies show that individual investors are the worst performers of all investors in the stock market.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "81c016998574efc6dbf2244659066d3b",
"text": "\"Strategy would be my top factor. While this may be implied, I do think it helps to have an idea of what is causing the buy and sell signals in speculating as I'd rather follow a strategy than try to figure things out completely from scratch that doesn't quite make sense to me. There are generally a couple of different schools of analysis that may be worth passing along: Fundamental Analysis:Fundamental analysis of a business involves analyzing its financial statements and health, its management and competitive advantages, and its competitors and markets. When applied to futures and forex, it focuses on the overall state of the economy, interest rates, production, earnings, and management. When analyzing a stock, futures contract, or currency using fundamental analysis there are two basic approaches one can use; bottom up analysis and top down analysis. The term is used to distinguish such analysis from other types of investment analysis, such as quantitative analysis and technical analysis. Technical Analysis:In finance, technical analysis is a security analysis methodology for forecasting the direction of prices through the study of past market data, primarily price and volume. Behavioral economics and quantitative analysis use many of the same tools of technical analysis, which, being an aspect of active management, stands in contradiction to much of modern portfolio theory. The efficacy of both technical and fundamental analysis is disputed by the efficient-market hypothesis which states that stock market prices are essentially unpredictable. There are tools like \"\"Stock Screeners\"\" that will let you filter based on various criteria to use each analysis in a mix. There are various strategies one could use. Wikipedia under Stock Speculator lists: \"\"Several different types of stock trading strategies or approaches exist including day trading, trend following, market making, scalping (trading), momentum trading, trading the news, and arbitrage.\"\" Thus, I'd advise research what approach are you wanting to use as the \"\"Make it up as we go along losing real money all the way\"\" wouldn't be my suggested approach. There is something to be said for there being numerous columnists and newsletter peddlers if you want other ideas but I would suggest having a strategy before putting one's toe in the water.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a9d3a69f8a6b441e6dc66b013eb677a9",
"text": "id like to start by saying youre still doing this yourself, and i dont actually have all the info required anyway, dont send it but >[3] Descriptive Statistical Measures: Provide a thorough discussion of the meaning and interpretation of the four descriptive >statistical measures required in your analysis: (1) Arithmetic Mean, (2) Variance, (3) Standard Deviation and (4) Coefficient of >Variation. For example, how are these measures related to each other? In order to develop this discussion, you may want to >consult chapters 2 and 3 of your textbook. This topic is an important part of your report. can be easily interpreted, im guessing the mean is simply just the observed (and then projected stock price for future models) the standard deviation determines the interval in which the stock price fluctuates. so you have like a curve, and then on this curve theirs a bunch of normal distributions modeling the variance of the price plotted against the month also the coefficient of variation is just r^2 so just read up on that and relate it to the meaning of it to the numbers you have actually my stats are pretty rusty so make sure you really check into these things but otherwise the formulas for part 4 is simple too. you can compare means of a certain month using certain equations, but there are different ones for certain situations you can test for significance by comparing the differences of the means and if its outside of your alpha level then it probably means your company is significantly different from the SP index. (take mu of SP - mu of callaway) you can also find more info on interpreting the two different coefficients your given if you look up comparing means of linear regression models or something",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "96ffe6a551593b9b69ec6a68d6a2175b",
"text": "You may refer to project http://jstock.sourceforge.net. It is open source and released under GPL. It is fetching data from Yahoo! Finance, include delayed current price and historical price.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "00135dcac4fb6133749e18b232752e96",
"text": "you can check google scholar for some research reports on it. depends how complex you want to get... it is obviously a function of the size of the portfolio of each type of asset. do you have a full breakdown of securities held? you can get historical average volumes during different economic periods, categorized by interest rates for example, and then calculate the days required to liquidate the position, applying a discount on each subsequent day.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e04fdd9e2f818c3c0db9d0d4357bf7fb",
"text": "Also, this would be a sick way to predict the weather. What if there were options on rain that had week long maturities? One could back out from the price and different maturities the probability of it raining on a certain day.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "af8936f2118d658d9f57e27f1caf14bd",
"text": "\"No. Some grocery stores may discount specific products based on inventory to drive sales using \"\"loss leaders\"\" where the product is intentionally priced as a loss for the business. While commodity futures may impact some prices, I'm not sure one can easily extract the changes solely due to futures shifts.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "60c9eac57d227944f7dd9dfc37899a80",
"text": "\"First, to mention one thing - better analysis calls for analyzing a range of outcomes, not just one; assigning a probability on each, and comparing the expected values. Then moderating the choice based on risk tolerance. But now, just look at the outcome or scenario of 3% and time frame of 2 days. Let's assume your investable capital is exactly $1000 (multiply everything by 5 for $5,000, etc.). A. Buy stock: the value goes to 103; your investment goes to $1030; net return is $30, minus let's say $20 commission (you should compare these between brokers; I use one that charges 9.99 plus a trivial government fee). B. Buy an call option at 100 for $0.40 per share, with an expiration 30 days away (December 23). This is a more complicated. To evaluate this, you need to estimate the movement of the value of a 100 call, $0 in and out of the money, 30 days remaining, to the value of a 100 call, $3 in the money, 28 days remaining. That movement will vary based on the volatility of the underlying stock, an advanced topic; but there are techniques to estimate that, which become simple to use after you get the hang of it. At any rate, let's say that the expected movement of the option price in this scenario is from $0.40 to $3.20. Since you bought 2500 share options for $1000, the gain would be 2500 times 2.8 = 7000. C. Buy an call option at 102 for $0.125 per share, with an expiration 30 days away (December 23). To evaluate this, you need to estimate the movement of the value of a 102 call, $2 out of the money, 30 days remaining, to the value of a 102 call, $1 in the money, 28 days remaining. That movement will vary based on the volatility of the underlying stock, an advanced topic; but there are techniques to estimate that, which become simple to use after you get the hang of it. At any rate, let's say that the expected movement of the option price in this scenario is from $0.125 to $ 1.50. Since you bought 8000 share options for $1000, the gain would be 8000 times 1.375 = 11000. D. Same thing but starting with a 98 call. E. Same thing but starting with a 101 call expiring 60 days out. F., ... Etc. - other option choices. Again, getting the numbers right for the above is an advanced topic, one reason why brokerages warn you that options are risky (if you do your math wrong, you can lose. Even doing that math right, with a bad outcome, loses). Anyway you need to \"\"score\"\" as many options as needed to find the optimal point. But back to the first paragraph, you should then run the whole analysis on a 2% gain. Or 5%. Or 5% in 4 days instead of 2 days. Do as many as are fruitful. Assess likelihoods. Then pull the trigger and buy it. Try these techniques in simulation before diving in! Please! One last point, you don't HAVE to understand how to evaluate projected option price movements if you have software that does that for you. I'll punt on that process, except to mention it. Get the general idea? Edit P.S. I forgot to mention that brokers need love for handling Options too. Check those commission rates in your analysis as well.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3bea9e988a1f22d46aa61a5179ca7bf5",
"text": "Standard Markowitz's portfolio optimization takes trend into account, not mean reversion. Otherwise, since a portfolio is a linear combination of your individual assets, you could 1st model them separately and than establish a second-layer criteria for weighting. For the 1st layer, mean reversion (as well as trend) of returns can be captured with a ARIMA model, and for the 2nd layer, you could use the Kelly criterion, for instance. A more direct approach to mean-reversion portfolio selection is working with pairs trading. I'm not linking any materials as those topics are plentiful on the web. ...If that's still not the answer you're looking for... The problem with predicting economic cycles is that, they are long, and we hardly have a sufficient measured history to forecast anything reliable. In order to predict the mean reversion of a stock or bond market cycle, you've got to measure their long-term mean first. And there you'll have disagreements right on the start... Some researchers (see Jeremy Siegel) have tried to measure the long-term mean of returns for various asset classes. Some argue that stocks are the long-run winners and that CAPM explains that, but others say that's just questionable, since measurements go just as far as the western countries (US, UK, etc.) have thrived. Other countries have much more recent economic records.",
"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": "a7a498ff5b209063fefb4cac4f013b83",
"text": "Use the Black-Scholes formula. If you know the current price, an options strike price, time until expiration, and risk-free interest rate, then knowing the market price of the option will tell you what the market's estimation of the volatility is. This does rely on a few assumptions, such as Gaussian random walk, but those are reasonable assumptions for most stocks. You can also get a list of past stock prices, put them in Excel, and ask Excel to calculate the standard deviation with stdev.s(), but that gives you the past volatility. The market's estimate of future volatility is more relevant.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
26e6683e5fc3074db9b1f8623516e9cc
|
Withholding for unexpected Short-Term Capital Gains and Penalties
|
[
{
"docid": "569126cd4af4932b7a88ef978e388436",
"text": "The safe harbor provision is based on the tax you or the prior year. So in 2016 this helped you as your tax was substantially increased from 2015. However, by the same token in 2017 your safe harbor amount is going to be very high. Therefore if 2017 is similar you will owe penalties. The solution here is to make estimated tax payments in the quarters that you realize large gains. This is exactly what the estimated tax payments are for. Your estimate tax payments do not have to be the same. In fact if you have a sudden boost in earnings in quarter 3, then the IRS expects that quarter 3 estimated tax payment to be boosted.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "904dbe1fdaa1a1fc7f4f79339bfd05a6",
"text": "My understanding (I've never filed one myself) is that the 1040ES is intended to allow you to file quarterly and report unpredictable income, and to pay estimated taxes on that income. I was in the same sort of boat for 2016 -- I had a big unexpected income source in 2015, and this took away my Safe Harbor for 2016. I adjusted my w-2 to zero exemptions (eventually) and will be getting a refund of about 1% of our income. So lets say you make 10000 in STG in March, and another 15000 in STG in April. File a quarterly 1040-ES between March 31 and April 15. Report the income, and pay some tax. You should be able to calculate the STCG Tax for 10k pretty easily. Just assume that it comes off the top and doesn't add at all to your deductions. Then for April, do the same by June 15. Just like your W-2 is used to estimate how much your employer should withhold, the 1040ES is designed to estimate how much extra you need to pay to the IRS to avoid penalties. It'll all get resolved after you file your final 1040 for the 2017 calendar year.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "86645797bf5db511695605654ac08d4b",
"text": "\"Assuming U.S. law, there are \"\"safe harbor\"\" provisions for exactly this kind of situation. There are several possibilities, but the most likely one is that if your withholding and estimated tax payments for 2016 totaled at least as much as your tax bill for 2015 there's no penalty. For the full rules, see IRS Publication 17.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "cf1c0c8f4ce07239858da167fbbcade1",
"text": "You can and are supposed to report self-employment income on Schedule C (or C-EZ if eligible, which a programmer likely is) even when the payer isn't required to give you 1099-MISC (or 1099-K for a payment network now). From there, after deducting permitted expenses, it flows to 1040 (for income tax) and Schedule SE (for self-employment tax). See https://www.irs.gov/individuals/self-employed for some basics and lots of useful links. If this income is large enough your tax on it will be more than $1000, you may need to make quarterly estimated payments (OR if you also have a 'day job' have that employer increase your withholding) to avoid an underpayment penalty. But if this is the first year you have significant self-employment income (or other taxable but unwithheld income like realized capital gains) and your economic/tax situation is otherwise unchanged -- i.e. you have the same (or more) payroll income with the same (or more) withholding -- then there is a 'safe harbor': if your withholding plus estimated payments this year is too low to pay this year's tax but it is enough to pay last year's tax you escape the penalty. (You still need to pay the tax due, of course, so keep the funds available for that.) At the end of the first year when you prepare your return you will see how the numbers work out and can more easily do a good estimate for the following year(s). A single-member LLC or 'S' corp is usually disregarded for tax purposes, although you can elect otherwise, while a (traditional) 'C' corp is more complicated and AIUI out-of-scope for this Stack; see https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/business-structures for more.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bc0adb9c31ecffa4ae802815d7f0409d",
"text": "\"Bottom line is this: there's no \"\"short term capital gains tax\"\" in the US. There's only long term capital gains tax, which is lower than the regular (aka ordinary) tax rates. Short term capital gains are taxed using the ordinary tax rates, depending on your bracket. So if you're in the 25% bracket - your short term gains are taxed at 25%. You're describing two options: For the case #1 you'll pay 25% tax (your marginal rate) + 10% penalty (flat rate), total 35%. For the case #2 you'll pay 25% tax (your marginal rate) + 0% penalty. Total 25%. Thus, by withdrawing from IRA you'll be 10% worse than by realizing capital gains. In addition, if you need $10K - taking it from IRA will make the whole amount taxable. While realizing capital gains from a taxable account will make only the gains taxable, the original investment amount is yours and had been taxed before. So not only there's a 10% difference in the tax rate, there's also a significant difference in the amount being taxed. Thus, withdrawing from IRA is generally not a good idea, and you will never be better off with withdrawing from IRA than with cashing out taxable investments (from tax perspective). That's by design.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e0d17415eded90e62972b593b0bcd960",
"text": "\"Your employer should send you a statement with this information. If they didn't, you should still be able to find it through E*Trade. Navigate to: Trading & Portfolios>Portfolios. Select the stock plan account. Under \"\"Restricted Stock\"\", you should see a list of your grants. If you click on the grant in question, you should see a breakdown of how many shares were vested and released by date. It will also tell you the cost basis per share and the amount of taxes withheld. You calculate your cost basis by multiplying the number of released shares by the cost basis per share. You can ignore the ordinary income tax and taxes withheld since they will already have been included on your W2 earnings and withholdings. Really all you need to do is report the capital gain or loss from the cost basis (which if you sold right away will be rather small).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d84e9fe503670774bb17b058515f7081",
"text": "1040ES uses the smaller number because that's what triggers the penalties. (That is, you are penalized if what you prepay is less than your total 2013 liability and less than 90% of your 2014 liability.) However, estimated taxes are just estimates. If you pay too little, you could face a penalty, but there's no penalty for paying too much -- you'll just get a refund as usual. It seems that your concern stems from the fact that this is the first year you're in this tax situation and so you're unsure if your estimates are accurate. In your comment to Pete Belford's answer, you also indicated you aren't worried about being unable to pay, but only about accidentally underpaying. In this case, you could just err on the side of caution and pay more than 1040ES says you owe. (You don't actually file the 1040ES, the calculations are just for your own use.) For instance, you could prepay based on the higher of your two estimates, if you can afford it; or, if you can't afford that much, hedge the estimate payments up a bit to an amount you can afford that is closer to the higher estimate. At the end of the year if you paid too much you can get a refund as usual. After this year, you will presumably have a better sense of your income and your tax liability, and can make more accurate estimates for next year.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a7e3d7a58663bf7892905e74ddb6346a",
"text": "\"I'm mostly guessing based on existing documentation, and have no direct experience, so take this with a pinch of salt. My best understanding is that you need to file Form 843. The instructions for the form say that it can be used to request: A refund or abatement of a penalty or addition to tax due to reasonable cause or other reason (other than erroneous written advice provided by the IRS) allowed under the law. The \"\"reasonable cause\"\" here is a good-faith confusion about what Line 79 of the form was referring to. In Form 843, the IRC Section Code you should enter is 6654 (estimated tax). For more, see the IRC Section 6654 (note, however, that if you already received a CP14 notice from the IRS, you should cross-check that this section code is listed on the notice under the part that covers the estimated tax penalty). If your request is accepted, the IRS should issue you Notice 746, item 17 Penalty Removed: You can get more general information about the tax collection process, and how to challenge it, from the pages linked from Understanding your CP14 Notice\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1e1a358c98a0b9f7c9d1d3a1525349a4",
"text": "\"There is no penalty for foreigners but rather a 30% mandatory income tax withholding from distributions from 401(k) plans. You will \"\"get it back\"\" when you file the income tax return for the year and calculate your actual tax liability (including any penalties for a premature distribution from the 401(k) plan). You are, of course, a US citizen and not a foreigner, and thus are what the IRS calls a US person (which includes not just US citizens but permanent immigrants to the US as well as some temporary visa holders), but it is entirely possible that your 401(k) plan does not know this explicitly. This IRS web page tells 401(k) plan administrators Who can I presume is a US person? A retirement plan distribution is presumed to be made to a U.S. person only if the withholding agent: A payment that does not meet these rules is presumed to be made to a foreign person. Your SSN is presumably on file with the 401(k) plan administrator, but perhaps you are retired into a country that does not have an income tax treaty with the US and that's the mailing address that is on file with your 401(k) plan administrator? If so, the 401(k) administrator is merely following the rules and not presuming that you are a US person. So, how can you get around this non-presumption? The IRS document cited above (and the links therein) say that if the 401(k) plan has on file a W-9 form that you submitted to them, and the W-9 form includes your SSN, then the 401(k) plan has valid documentation to associate the distribution as being made to a US person, that is, the 401(k) plan does not need to make any presumptions; that you are a US person has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. So, to answer your question \"\"Will I be penalized when I later start a regular monthly withdrawal from my 401(k)?\"\" Yes, you will likely have mandatory 30% income tax withholding on your regular 401(k) distributions unless you have established that you are a US person to your 401(k) plan by submitting a W-9 form to them.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1a827f57147977cbd2526a8de675299a",
"text": "If your regular withholding is not enough to cover your tax due, then you can withhold extra taxes to avoid owing anything the following April 15. Alternatively, you may make estimated tax payments to avoid owing anything the following year. Some taxpayers will be required to make estimated payments, typically when the tax due will be sufficiently larger than the amount of withholding. If your husband says that you owed $5,000 in April, then he wants you both to withhold $2,500 for the entire year. If all your income is shared, then that makes sense. But if your income is not entirely shared and your personal luxury expenses come from your income, then this sounds a little unfair (you are paying some of the tax on his income). If you don't share 100% of your income, then he should withhold more extra than you do (something more like $2,700 for him and $2,300 for you, depending on the details). If you share everything, then all the income and all the taxes are shared so the individual accounting matters little. Yes, if you overpay taxes, you may get a refund. Do not do this, that's just an interest-free loan to the government. Instead, put the extra money into a savings account of your choice and withdraw it whenever you want.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "db96aca55b045235a2a64b26af02948f",
"text": "\"I don't think its a taxable event since no income has been constructively received (talking about the RSU shareholders here). I believe you're right with the IRC 1033, and the basis of the RSU is the basis of the original stock option (probably zero). Edit: see below. However, once the stock becomes vested - then it is a taxable event (not when the cash is received, but when the chance of forfeiture diminishes, even if the employee doesn't sell the stock), and is an ordinary income, not capital. That is my understanding of the situation, do not consider it as a tax advice in any way. I gave it a bit more though and I don't think IRC 1033 is relevant. You're not doing any exchange or conversion here, because you didn't have anything to convert to begin with, and don't have anything after the \"\"conversion\"\". Your ISO's are forfeited and no longer available, basically - you treat them as you've never had them. What happened is that you've received RSU's, and you treat them as a regular RSU grant, based on its vesting schedule. The tax consequences are exactly as I described in my original response: you recognize ordinary income on the vested stocks, as they vest. Your basis is zero (i.e.: the whole FMV of the stock at the time of vesting is your ordinary income). It should also be reflected in your W2 accordingly.\"",
"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": "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": "bd6eecc9738b213f4a0e3ccc7411900f",
"text": "You have two different operations going on: They each have of a set of rules regarding amounts, timelines, taxes, and penalties. The excess money can't be recharacterized except during a specific window of time. I would see a tax professional to work through all the details.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "77949aaa5c2f792d03459069b783724d",
"text": "Assuming US/IRS: If you filed on time and paid what you believed was the correct amount, they might be kind and let it go. But don't assume they will. If you can't file on time, you are supposed to file estimated taxes before the deadline, and to make that payment large enough to cover what you are likely to owe them. If there is excess, you get it back when you file the actual forms. If there is a shortfall, you may be charged fees, essentially interest on the money you still owe them calculated from the submission due date. If you fail to file anything before the due date, then the fees/interest surcharge is calculated on the entire amount still due; effectively the same as if you had filled an estimated return erroneously claiming you owed nothing. Note that since the penalty scales with the amount still due, large errors do cost you more than small ones. And before anyone asks: no, the IRS doesn't pay interest if you submit the forms early and they owe you money. I've sometimes wondered whether they're missing a bet there, and if it would be worth rewarding people to file earlier in order to spread out the work a bit better, but until someone sells them on that idea...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "92c441c8f6b530df5320fb90ac510bb5",
"text": "In general, you are expected to pay all the money you owe in taxes by the end of the tax year, or you may have to pay a penalty. But you don't have to pay a penalty if: The amount you owe (i.e. total tax due minus what you paid in withholding and estimated taxes) is less than $1000. You paid at least 90% of your total tax bill. You paid at least 100% of last year's tax bill. https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc306.html I think point #3 may work for you here. Suppose that last year your total tax liability was, say, $5,000. This year your tax on your regular income would be $5,500, but you have this additional capital gain that brings your total tax to $6,500. If your withholding was $5,000 -- the amount you owed last year -- than you'll owe the difference, $1,500, but you won't have to pay any penalties. If you normally get a refund every year, even a small one, then you should be fine. I'd check the numbers to be sure, of course. If you normally have to pay something every April 15, or if your income and therefore your withholding went down this year for whatever reason, then you should make an estimated payment. The IRS has a page explaining the rules in more detail: https://www.irs.gov/help-resources/tools-faqs/faqs-for-individuals/frequently-asked-tax-questions-answers/estimated-tax/large-gains-lump-sum-distributions-etc/large-gains-lump-sum-distributions-etc",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "25faeedfce4fc9db142bcf1af0d49817",
"text": "Assuming that what you want to do is to counter the capital gains tax on the short term and long term gains, and that doing so will avoid any underpayment penalties, it is relatively simple to do so. Figure out the tax on the capital gains by determining your tax bracket. Lets say 25% short term and 15% long term or (0.25x7K) + (0.15*8K) or $2950. If you donate to charities an additional amount of items or money to cover that tax. So taking the numbers in step 1 divide by the marginal tax rate $2950/0.25 or $11,800. Money is easier to donate because you will be contributing enough value that the IRS may ask for proof of the value, and that proof needs to be gathered either before the donation is given or at the time the donation is given. Also don't wait until December 31st, if you miss the deadline and the donation is counted for next year, the purpose will have been missed. Now if the goal is just to avoid the underpayment penalty, you have two other options. The safe harbor is the easiest of the two to determine. Look at last years tax form. Look for the amount of tax you paid last year. Not what was withheld, but what you actually paid. If all your withholding this year, is greater than 110% of the total tax from last year, you have reached the safe harbor. There are a few more twists depending on AGI Special rules for farmers, fishermen, and higher income taxpayers. If at least two-thirds of your gross income for tax year 2014 or 2015 is from farming or fishing, substitute 662/3% for 90% in (2a) under the General rule, earlier. If your AGI for 2014 was more than $150,000 ($75,000 if your filing status for 2015 is married filing a separate return), substitute 110% for 100% in (2b) under General rule , earlier. See Figure 4-A and Publication 505, chapter 2 for more information.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0709a9a9dc3b0b1de5f4216fd3eb8b77",
"text": "If you return the money in the same tax year - it will not appear on your W2 and you will not be taxed on it. Whatever was withheld - you'll get it refunded when you file your annual tax return. If you return it in a different tax year - it becomes a miscellaneous deduction reported on your Schedule A. If the amount is less than $3000 - then this deduction is subject to the 2% AGI threshold, if the amount is more than that - it is not subject to threshold. Bottom line, you're probably going to lose money, unless you're already itemizing and the amount is above $3K. There's also a credit that you can take instead of deduction. See publication 525 for details.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
910bb720bed44af8d13122fdc473b27a
|
How does a financial advisor choose debt funds and equity funds for us?
|
[
{
"docid": "24e365db9a2daca1e695d54caa256d10",
"text": "\"There are raters of stock and bond funds of which Morningstar's is the best. Standard and Poor's and Value line offer reports that aren't quite as good. If you are able to read and understand these reports yourself, you don't need a professional. Such help is necessary for people who are \"\"rank beginners\"\" in investments.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cf54036c6776fec58c6975a58b2792a0",
"text": "A financial advisor is a service professional. It is his/her job to do things for you that you could do for yourself, but you're either too busy to do it yourself (and you want to pay somebody else), or you'd rather not. Just like some people hire tax preparers, or maids, or people to change their oil, or re-roof their houses. Me, I choose to self-manage. I get some advise from Fidelity and Vanguard. But we hired somebody this year to re-roof our house and someone else to paint it.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "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": "d9396749268a659ce313b7b2c78795b7",
"text": "The most obvious example would be a situation where a Company is growth constrained, but cash flow positive. It may have enough cash flow to service $10 million of debt, but it needs to build a new facility that will cost $20 million. There is the option to raise debt and equity or just raise equity and move quicker to getting that facility up and running. There are also situations where debt is used to replace equity (i.e. dividend recapitalization or leveraged share redemption).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7fd0e843fca80da2dcfa715ff3d71960",
"text": "The US Treasury is not directly/transactionally involved, but can affect the junk bond market by issuing new bonds when rates rise. Since US bonds are considered completely safe, changes in yield will affect low quality debt. For example, if rates rose to levels like 1980, a 12% treasury bond would drive the prices of junk bonds issued today dramatically lower. Another price factor is likelihood of default. Companies with junk credit ratings have lousy balance sheets, so negative economic conditions or tight short term debt markets can result in default for many of these companies. Whether bonds in a fund are new issues or purchased on the secondary market isn't something that is very relevant to the individual investor. The current interest rate environment is factored into the market already via prices of bonds.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "27eac77085ef8132f3750af1c9f86670",
"text": "Sorry, I got even more confused. I assumed IC referred to equity only. At least under English accounting practice it's the norm to refer only to equity investment as capital in that context. The debt is listed as both an asset (cash or whatever asset the cash has been put towards) and a liability, cancelling it out. That being the case, the number would be the same, no?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2c93f7fb9d94277d6f31585b9f7c8b4e",
"text": "\"You're missing the point here. The goal of ratings firms is **not** to accurately price debt. That's the market's job. The goal of ratings companies is to evaluate the ability of the company to service their debt instrument, much like how the goal of a public accounting firm is to assure that a company's financial statements follow GAAP. The article implicitly makes the assertion that Aaa rated securities have pretty low default rates; it's mainly only the area of CDO backed securities that there's a large disconnect between the rating and default risk. While this does raise questions about the worthiness of these ratings and the way they went about modeling and rationalizing them, it hardly suggests that they are \"\"wrong over 50% of the time.\"\" As a side note, why not make it against the law for mutual funds to have rules that allow them to only hold Aaa rated securities? These funds that demand high credit ratings are only contributing to the conflict of interest by essentially \"\"asking for it.\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0c0799dfc1e51a71540e0aa8aa6cb460",
"text": "Some qualitative factors to consider when deciding whether to finance with equity vs debt (for a publicly traded company): 1) The case for equity: Is the stock trading high relative to what management believes is its intrinsic value? If so, raising equity may be attractive since management would be raising a lot of $$$, but the downside is you give up future earnings since you are diluting current ownership 2) The case for debt: What is the expected return for the project in which the raised capital will be utilized for? Is its expected return higher than the interest payments (in % terms)? If so raising debt would be more attractive than raising equity since current ownership would not be diluted That's all I can think of off the top of my head right now, I'm sure there are a few more qualitative factors to consider but I think these two are the most intuitive",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "934ef0bc0a19ea24509fa1f5c7af0b94",
"text": "In my original question, I was wondering if there was a mathematical convention to help in deciding on whether an equity offering OR debt offering would be a better choice. I should have clarified better in the question, I used Vs. which may have made it unclear.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6e7dd6fe932a88902d7ad3c1efd10deb",
"text": "On reading couple of articles & some research over internet, I got to know about diversified investment where one should invest 70% in equity related & rest 30% in debt related funds Yes that is about right. Although the recommendation keeps varying a bit. However your first investment should not aim for diversification. Putting small amounts in multiple mutual funds may create paper work and tracking issues. My suggestion would be to start with an Index EFT or Large cap. Then move to balanced funds and mid caps etc. On this site we don't advise on specific funds. You can refer to moneycontrol.com or economictimes or quite a few other personal finance advisory sites to understand the top funds in the segments and decide on funds accordingly. PS: Rather than buying paper, buy it electronic, better you can now buy it as Demat. If you already have an Demat account it would be best to buy through it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3752027275a54f8d477ceff2be25b5e8",
"text": "\"Technically, anyone who advises how you should spend or proportion your money is a financial adviser. A person that does it for money is a Financial Advisor (difference in spelling). Financial Advisors are people that basically build, manage, or advise on your portfolio. They have a little more institutional knowledge on how/where to invest, given your goals, since they do it on a daily basis. They may know a little more than you since, they deal with many different assets: stocks, ETFs, mutual funds, bonds, insurances (home/health/life), REITs, options, futures, LEAPS, etc. There is risk in everything you do, which is why what they propose is generally according to the risk-level you want to assume. Since you're younger, your risk level could be a little higher, as you approach retirement, your risk level will be lower. Risk level should be associated with how likely you're able to reacquire your assets if you lose it all as well as, your likelihood to enjoy the fruits from your investments. Financial Advisors are great, however, be careful about them. Some are payed on commissions, which are given money for investing in packages that they support. Basically, they could get paid $$ for putting you in a losing situation. Also be careful because some announce that they are fee-based - these advisers often receive fees as well as commissions. Basically, associate the term \"\"commission\"\" with \"\"conflict-of-interest\"\", so you want a fee-only Advisor, which isn't persuaded to steer you wrong. Another thing worth noting is that some trading companies (like e*trade) has financial services that may be free, depending how much money you have with them. Generally, $50K is on the lower end to get a Financial Advisors. There has been corruption in the past, where Financial Advisors are only given a limited number of accounts to manage, that means they took the lower-valued ones and basically ran them into the ground, so they could get newer ones from the lot that were hopefully worth more - the larger their portfolio, the more $$ they could make (higher fees or more commissions) and subjectively less work (less accounts to have to deal with), that's subjective, since the spread of the wealth was accross many markets.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "59f54cbaa67b1798e28fbcb031da4510",
"text": "\"The term \"\"stock\"\" here refers to a static number as contrasted to flows, e.g. population vs. population growth. Stock, in this context, is not at all related to an equity instrument. Yes, annual refinance costs, interest rate payments etc. are what we should be looking at when assessing debt burden. Those are flows. That was my point when cautioning against naive debt GDP comparisons. Also, keep in mind that by borrowing in it's sovereign currency, the US has an enormous amount of monetary tools to handle the debt if it ever became a problem. Greece, by comparison, is at the mercy of the ECB, so they only have fiscal levers to pull. The interest expense does not strike me as especially concerning, but I'd be happy to verify BIS or IMF reports if you would like.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "06cabc9409ed479bef4f066363863dbb",
"text": "\"Most articles on investing recommend that investors that are just starting out to invest in index stock or bonds funds. This is the easiest way to get rolling and limit risk by investing in bonds and stocks, and not either one of the asset classes alone. When you start to look deeper into investing there are so many options: Small Cap, Large Cap, technical analysis, fundamental analysis, option strategies, and on and on. This can end up being a full time job or chewing into a lot of personal time. It is a great challenge to learn various investment strategies frankly for the average person that works full time it is a huge effort. I would recommend also reading \"\"The Intelligent Asset Allocator\"\" to get a wider perspective on how asset allocation can help grow a portfolio and reduce risk. This book covers a simple process.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d6a5c5df9cb8565dd591940be0b2d64f",
"text": "International means from all over the world. In the U.S. A Foreign Equity fund would be non-US stocks. There's an odd third choice I'm aware of, a fund of US companies that derive their sales from overseas, primarily.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a23f46c91fb6becab2eb7e9c3f35fb56",
"text": "Life Strategy funds are more appropriate if you want to maintain a specific allocation between stocks and bonds that doesn't automatically adjustment like the Target Retirement funds which have a specific date. Thus, it may make more sense to take whichever Life Strategy fund seems the most appropriate and ride with it for a while unless you know when you plan to retire and access those funds. In theory, you could use Vanguard's Total Market funds,i.e. Total Stock Market, Total International, and Total Bond, and have your own allocations between stocks and bonds be managed pretty easily and don't forget that the fees can come in a couple of flavors as betterment doesn't specify where the transaction fees for buying the ETFs are coming out just as something to consider.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4b163e05a8bc82fc2d2c28d0c5c8e1f6",
"text": "\"You need to hope that a fund exists targeting the particular market segment you are interested in. For example, searching for \"\"cloud computing ETF\"\" throws up one result. You'd then need to read all the details of how it invests to figure out if that really matches up with what you want - there'll always be various trade-offs the fund manager has to make. For example, with this fund, one warning is that this ETF makes allocations to larger firms that are involved in the cloud computing space but derive the majority of their revenues from other operations Bear in mind that today's stock prices might have already priced in a lot of future growth in the sector. So you might only make money if the sector exceeds that predicted growth level (and vice versa, if it grows, but not that fast, you could lose money). If the sector grows exactly as predicted, stock prices might stay flat, though you'd still make a bit of money if they pay dividends. Also, note that the expense ratios for specialist funds like this are often quite a bit higher than for \"\"general market\"\" funds. They are also likely to be traded less frequently, which will increase the \"\"bid-ask\"\" spread - i.e. the cost of buying into and getting out of these funds will be higher.\"",
"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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
4105f93cd2463ba5543e506236f5352a
|
How are option contracts enforced?
|
[
{
"docid": "f3a9f10cfc3042e45f13c953b15086aa",
"text": "\"By their agreements with the central counterparty - in the US, the exchange or the Options Clearing Corporation, which interposes itself between the counterparties of each trade and guarantees that they settle. From the CCP article: A clearing house stands between two clearing firms (also known as member firms or participants). Its purpose is to reduce the risk a member firm failing to honor its trade settlement obligations. A CCP reduces the settlement risks by netting offsetting transactions between multiple counterparties, by requiring collateral deposits (also called \"\"margin deposits\"\"), by providing independent valuation of trades and collateral, by monitoring the credit worthiness of the member firms, and in many cases, by providing a guarantee fund that can be used to cover losses that exceed a defaulting member's collateral on deposit. Exercisers on most contracts are matched against random writers during the assignment process, and if the writer doesn't deliver/buy the stock, the OCC does so using its funds and goes after the defaulting party.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "61330233f725180287780bf559b9d38d",
"text": "\"The answer is in your question: derivatives are contracts so are enforced in the same way as any other contract. If the counterparty refuses to pay immediately they will, in the first instance be billed by any intermediary (Prime Broker etc.) that facilitated the contract. If they still refuse to pay the contract may stipulate that a broker can \"\"net off\"\" any outstanding payments against it or pay out using deposited cash or posted margins. The contract will usually include the broker as an interested party and so they can, but don't need to, report a default (such that this is) to credit agencies (in some jurisdictions they are required to by law). Any parties to the trade and the courts may use a debt collection agency to collect payments or seize assets to cover payment. If there is no broker or the counterparty still has not paid the bill then the parties involved (the party to the trade and any intermediaries) can sue for breach of contract. If they win (which would be expected) the counterparty will be made to pay by the legal system including, but not limited to, seizure of assets, enforced bankruptcy, and prison terms for any contempts of court rulings. All of this holds for governments who refuse to pay derivatives losses (as Argentina did in the early 20th century) but in that case it may escalate as far as war. It has never done so for derivatives contracts as far as I know but other breaches of contract between countries have resulted in armed conflict. As well as the \"\"hard\"\" results of failing to pay there are soft implications including a guaranteed fall in credit ratings that will result in parties refusing to do business with the counterparty and a separate loss of reputation that will reduce business even further. Potential employees and funders will be unwilling to become involved with such a party and suppliers will be unwilling to supply on credit. The end result in almost every way would be bankruptcy and prison sentences for the party or their senior employees. Most jurisdictions allow for board members at companies in material breach of contract to be banned from running any company for a set period as well. edit: netting off cash flows netting off is a process whereby all of a party's cash flows, positive and negative, are used to pay each other off so that only the net change is reflected in account balances, for example: company 1 cash flows netting off the total outgoings are 3M + 500k = 3.5M and total incomings are 1.2M + 1.1M + 1.2M = 3.5M so the incoming cash flows can be used to pay the outgoing cash flows leaving a net payment into company1's account of 0.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "59430118e07e163ffeb46f261970388b",
"text": "No. Such companies don't exist. Derivative instruments have evolved over a period and there is a market place, stock exchange with members / broker with obligations etc clearly laid out and enforceable. If I understand correctly say the house is at 300 K. You would like a option to sell it to someone for 300 K after 6 months. Lets say you are ready to pay a premium of 10K for this option. After 6 months, if the market price is 400 K you would not exercise the option and if the market price of your house is 200 K you would exercise the option and ask the option writer to buy your house for 300 K. There are quite a few challenges, i.e. who will moderate this transaction. How do we arrive that house is valued at 300K. There could be actions taken by you to damage the property and hence its reduction in value, etc. i.e. A stock exchange like market place for house is not there and it may or may not develop in future.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6564b849fddb495c63f688e149b585d0",
"text": "Are there any known laws explicitly allowing or preventing this behavior? It's not the laws, it's what's in the note - the mortgage contract. I read my mortgage contracts very carefully to ensure that there's no prepayment penalty and that extra funds are applied to the principal. However, it doesn't have to be like that, and in older mortgages - many times it's not like that. Banks don't have to allow things that are not explicitly agreed upon in the contract. To the best of my knowledge there's no law requiring banks to allow what your friend wants.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6715398b77d54f3615158a59b309c063",
"text": "\"Interactive Brokers offers global securities trading. Notice that the security types are: cash, stock (STK), futures (FUT), options (OPT), futures options (FOP), warrants (WAR), bonds, contracts for differences (CFD), or Dutch warrants (IOPT) There is a distinction between options (OPT), warrants (WAR), options on futures (FOP) and finally, Dutch Warrants (IOPT). IOPT is intuitively similar to an \"\"index option\"\". (For index option valuation equations, iopt=1 for a call, and iopt= -1 for a put. I don't know if Interactive Brokers uses that convention). What is the difference between a \"\"Dutch Warrant\"\" and an option or warrant? Dutch warrants aren't analogous to Dutch auctions e.g. in the U.S.Treasury bond market. For North America, Interactive Brokers only lists commissions for traditional warrants and options, that is, warrants and options that have a single stock as the underlying security. For Asia and Europe, Interactive Brokers lists both the \"\"regular\"\" options (and warrants) as well as \"\"equity index options\"\", see commission schedule. Dutch warrants are actually more like options than warrants, and that may be why Interactive Brokers refers to them as IOPTS (index options). Here's some background from a research article about Dutch warrants (which was NOT easy to find): In the Netherlands, ING Bank introduced call and put warrants on the FT-SE 100, the CAC 40 and the German DAX indexes. These are some differences between [Dutch] index warrants and exchange traded index options: That last point is the most important, as it makes the pricing and valuation less subject to arbitrage. Last part of the question: Where do you find Structured Products on Interactive Brokers website? Look on the Products page (rather than the Commissions page, which does't mention Structured Products at all). There is a Structured Products tab with details.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2417b02e66123869fd899f08d512aae3",
"text": "Option tiers are broker specific, according mostly to their business model and presumably within the bounds of FINRA Rule 2111 (Suitability). The tier system can be as complex as E*Trade or as simple as none with Interactive Brokers. The suitability is determined presumably by compliance presumably by the legal history of the rule. The exact reasoning is political, effected by the relevant party composition of the legislature and executive. The full legal history will have the judiciary's interpretations of legislation and policy. Cash and margin rules are dictated primarily by the Federal Reserve and more precisely by FINRA and the SEC. This is the only distinction made by IB.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6bf38299a224a2ca9d6a6c7ecb4498dd",
"text": "\"This is the sad state of US stock markets and Regulation T. Yes, while options have cleared & settled for t+1 (trade +1 day) for years and now actually clear \"\"instantly\"\" on some exchanges, stocks still clear & settle in t+3. There really is no excuse for it. If you are in a margin account, regulations permit the trading of unsettled funds without affecting margin requirements, so your funds in effect are available immediately after trading but aren't considered margin loans. Some strict brokers will even restrict the amount of uncleared margin funds you can trade with (Scottrade used to be hyper safe and was the only online discount broker that did this years ago); others will allow you to withdraw a large percentage of your funds immediately (I think E*Trade lets you withdraw up to 90% of unsettled funds immediately). If you are in a cash account, you are authorized to buy with unsettled funds, but you can't sell purchases made on unsettled funds until such funds clear, or you'll be barred for 90 days from trading as your letter threatened; besides, most brokers don't allow this. You certainly aren't allowed to withdraw unsettled funds (by your broker) in such an account as it would technically constitute a loan for which you aren't even liable since you've agreed to no loan contract, a margin agreement. I can't be sure if that actually violates Reg T, but when I am, I'll edit. While it is true that all marketable options are cleared through one central entity, the Options Clearing Corporation, with stocks, clearing & settling still occurs between brokers, netting their transactions between each other electronically. All financial products could clear & settle immediately imo, and I'd rather not start a firestorm by giving my opinion why not. Don't even get me started on the bond market... As to the actual process, it's called \"\"clearing & settling\"\". The general process (which can generally be applied to all financial instruments from cash deposits to derivatives trading) is: The reason why all of the old financial companies were grouped on Wall St. is because they'd have runners physically carting all of the certificates from building to building. Then, they discovered netting so slowed down the process to balance the accounts and only cart the net amounts of certificates they owed each other. This is how we get the term \"\"bankers hours\"\" where financial firms would close to the public early to account for the days trading. While this is all really done instantly behind your back at your broker, they've conveniently kept the short hours.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e5596aaa914b3cd07b025cc9086d4f7a",
"text": "\"An option is a financial instrument instrument that gives you the right, but not the obligation, to do some transaction in the future at a given price. An employee stock option is a kind of \"\"call option\"\" -- it gives you the right, but not the obligation, to buy the stock at a certain price (the \"\"exercise price\"\", usually set as the price of the stock when the option was granted). The idea is that you would \"\"exercise\"\" the option (buy the stock at the given price as provided by the option), if the value of the stock is higher than the exercise price, and not if it is lower. The option is gifted to you. But that does not mean you get any stock. If and when you choose to exercise the option, you would buy the stock with your own money. At what time you can exercise the option (and how many shares you can exercise at a given time) will be specified in the agreement. Usually, you can only exercise a particular share after it has \"\"vested\"\" (according to some vesting schedule), and you lose the ability to exercise after you no longer work for the company (plus perhaps a grace period), or after the option expires.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5d545946ef6b8a16576c62ac289e4d7c",
"text": "No, if you can afford to enforce more rules, you alone pay for that enforcement *only on your own property*. Nobody else pays for your enforcement of rules that only you want enforced. Customer regulation keeps companies accountable. When you can stop buying from a company who screws over customers, that's accountability. Remember, integrity and honesty is the lifeblood of any company who wants to stay in business for longer than a short period. Those who provide the most value to customers, including the best quality for their money, get the most customers.",
"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": "d55cbb74ff3bda52e2ca5a1bd0fd6e10",
"text": "Its important that you carefully read the agreement, if you accept the job. The options agreement will usually specify the vesting schedule, the strike price, and the number of options you will have. When you start vesting options, you can choose to buy stock at the strike price. When you do exercise the options, your employer will likely withhold state and federal income tax. The strike price will hopefully be well below the market price. Unlike stock, when your employment ends, you usually are not able to hold on to your options. There's typically a small window of time in which you can exercise your options. You should read this part of the agreement carefully and plan accordingly.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "da19415e456b588e186bda1e352d9d9f",
"text": "This is perfect for the ELI5 posts that always come up on this topic. Great article. I'd be interested in seeing a little more on the regulatory aspects of derivative contracts. Derivatives are complex because the associated risks are complex. When banks, insurers, and other entities large enough to have a Chief Risk Officer enter into these contracts, the assumption is that they know what they're doing, so to my knowledge, they're generally lightly regulated. Additionally, those that understand derivatives enough to regulate them are unlikely to work for the comparatively low wages that they'd get in government. That said, I'd be interested in seeing something discussing the challenges in regulating something like this. Even before 2008, there were some pretty big failures involving derivatives where risk was not adequately managed that probably wouldn't have been avoided with stronger regulation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8057d06cbcb766b7211eb29e90b52746",
"text": "This sometimes happens to me. It depends on how liquid the option is. Normally what I see happening is that the order book mutates itself around my order. I interpret this to mean that the order book is primarily market makers. They see a retail investor (me) come in and, since they don't have any interest in this illiquid option, they back off. Some other retail investor (or whatever) steps in with a market order, and we get matched up. I get a fill because I become the market maker for a brief while. On highly liquid options, buy limits at the bid tend to get swallowed because the market makers are working the spread. With very small orders (a contract or two) on very liquid options, I've had luck getting quick fills in the middle of the spread, which I attribute to MM's rebalancing their holdings on the cheap, although sometimes I like to think there's some other anal-retentive like me out there that hates to see such a lopsided book. :) I haven't noticed any particular tendency for this to happen more with puts or calls, or with buy vs sell transactions. For a while I had a suspicion that this was happening with strikes where IV didn't match IV of other strikes, but I never cared enough to chase it down as it was a minor part of my overall P/L.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a6e561ad5b78a05ac6207763335bb369",
"text": "\"Not having seen the movie, I don't know what you mean by \"\"fraudulent options buys.\"\" But there are two possibilities: 1) Someone placed buy orders on the account without authorization. In which case it comes down to a protracted lawsuit to determine whether the broker exercised due diligence, or whether Bruce foolishly gave someone his password. 2) The options themselves were fraudulent. In which case the OCC is responsible for making everyone whole.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3623cb3175230cdde8f3cf5abed78175",
"text": "\"Following comments to your question here, you posted a separate question about why SPY, SPX, and the options contract don't move perfectly together. That's here Why don't SPY, SPX, and the e-mini s&p 500 track perfectly with each other? I provided an answer to that question and will build on it to answer what I think you're asking on this question. Specifically, I explained what it means that these are \"\"all based on the S&P.\"\" Each is a different entity, and different market forces keep them aligned. I think talking about \"\"technicals\"\" on options contracts is going to be too confusing since they are really a very different beast based on forward pricing models, so, for this question, I'll focus on only SPY and SPX. As in my other answer, it's only through specific market forces (the creation / redemption mechanism that I described in my other answer), that they track at all. There's nothing automatic about this and it has nothing to do with some issuer of SPY actually holding stock in the companies that comprise the SPX index. (That's not to say that the company does or doesn't hold, just that this doesn't drive the prices.) What ever technical signals you're tracking, will reflect all of the market forces at play. For SPX (the index), that means some aggregate behavior of the component companies, computed in a \"\"mathematically pure\"\" way. For SPY (the ETF), that means (a) the behavior of SPX and (b) the behavior of the ETF as it trades on the market, and (c) the action of the authorized participants. These are simply different things. Which one is \"\"right\"\"? That depends on what you want to do. In theory you might be able to do some analysis of technical signals on SPY and SPX and, for example, use that to make money on the way that they fail to track each other. If you figure out how to do that, though, don't post it here. Send it to me directly. :)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0de9e9a762696f6dba56fbf83b75a153",
"text": "You bought the right – but not the obligation – to buy a certain number of shares at $15 from whomsoever sold you the option, and you paid a premium for it. You can choose whether you want to buy the shares at $15 during the period agreed upon. If you call for the shares, the other guy has to sell the shares to you for $15 each, even if the market price is higher. You can then turn around and promptly resell the purchased shares at the higher market price. If the market price never rises above $15 at any time while the option is open, you still have the right to buy the shares for $15 if you choose to do so. Most rational people would let the option expire without exercising it, but this is not a legal requirement. Doing things like buying shares at $15 when the market price is below $15 is perfectly legal; just not very savvy. You cannot cancel the option in the sense of going to the seller of the option and demanding your premium money back because you don't intend to exercise the option because the market price is below $15. Of course, if the market price is above $15 and you tell the seller to cancel the contract, they will be happy to do so, since it lets them off the hook. They may or may not give you the premium back in this case.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
71025cd66ce624792513e2729509191d
|
Can I use stop limit orders on vanguard orders to prevent loss?
|
[
{
"docid": "a1c94491cc27aa9195b884d40836d527",
"text": "\"You've laid out a strategy for deciding that the top of the market has passed and then realizing some gains before the market drops too far. Regardless of whether this strategy is good at accomplishing its goal, it cannot by itself maximize your long-term profits unless you have a similar strategy for deciding that the bottom of the market has passed. Even if you sell at the perfect time at the top of the market, you can still lose lots of money by buying at the wrong time at the bottom. People have been trying to time the market like this for centuries, and on average it doesn't work out all that much better than just plopping some money into the market each week and letting it sit there for 40 years. So the real question is: what is your investment time horizon? If you need your money a year from now, well then you shouldn't be in the stock market in the first place. But if you have to have it in the market, then your plan sounds like a good one to protect yourself from losses. If you don't need your money until 20 years from now, though, then every time you get in and out of the market you're risking sacrificing all your previous \"\"smart\"\" gains with one mistimed trade. Sure, just leaving your money in the market can be psychologically taxing (cf. 2008-2009), but I guarantee that (a) you'll eventually make it all back (cf. 2010-2014) and (b) you won't \"\"miss the top\"\" or \"\"miss the bottom\"\", since you're not doing any trading.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "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": "6ed80b2fab2d34f3fb79084973735525",
"text": "Capping the upside while playing with unlimited downside is a less disciplined investment strategy vis-a-vis a stop-loss driven strategy. Whether it is less risky or high risky also depends on the fluctuations of the stock and not just long-term movements. For example, your stop losses might get triggered because of a momentary sharp decline in stock price due to a large volume transaction (esp more so in small-cap stocks). Although, the stock price might recover from the sudden price drop pretty soon causing a seemingly preventable loss. That being said, playing with stop losses is always considered a safer strategy. It may not increase your profits but can certainly cap your losses.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4a438d1fb8c6ec13210a1dd6eb9cf28c",
"text": "However, is it a risk that they may withhold liquidity in a market panic crash to protect their own capital? Two cases exist here. One is if you access the direct market, then they cannot. Secondly if you are trading in the internal market created by them, yes they can do to save their behind, but that is open to question. They don't make money on your profit or loss, their money comes from you trading. So as long as you maintain the required margin in your accounts, you can go ahead. I had a mail exchange with IG Index regarding this and they categorically refuted on this point. Will their clients be unable to sell at a fair market price in a panic crash? No. Also, do CFD providers sometimes make an occasional downward spike to cream off their clients' cut-loss order? Need proof regarding this, not saying it cannot happen. They wouldn't antagonize the people bringing them business without any reason. They would be putting their money at risk. But you should know, their traders are also in the market. Which might look skimming your money, it would be their traders making money in the free market. After all Google, Facebook etc also sell your personal data for profit, why shouldn't the CFD firm also. Since they are market makers, what is to prevent them from attempting these tricks? Are these concerns also valid for forex brokers serving the retail public? What you consider as tricks are legitimate use of information to make money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "56941f61022dfec7fea49b5f306ff12e",
"text": "\"You can certainly try to do this, but it's risky and very expensive. Consider a simplified example. You buy 1000 shares of ABC at $1.00 each, with the intention of selling them all when the price reaches $1.01. Rinse and repeat, right? You might think the example above will net you a tidy $10 profit. But you have to factor in trade commissions. Most brokerages are going to charge you per trade. Fidelity for example, want $4.95 per trade; that's for both the buying and the selling. So your 1000 shares actually cost you $1004.95, and then when you sell them for $1.01 each, they take their $4.95 fee again, leaving you with a measly $1.10 in profit. Meanwhile, your entire $1000 stake was at risk of never making ANY profit - you may have been unlucky enough to buy at the stock's peak price before a slow (or even fast) decline towards eventual bankruptcy. The other problem with this is that you need a stock that is both stable and volatile at the same time. You need the volatility to ensure the price keeps swinging between your buy and sell thresholds, over and over again. You need stability to ensure it doesn't move well away from those thresholds altogether. If it doesn't have this weird stable-volatility thing, then you are shooting yourself in the foot by not holding the stock for longer: why sell for $1.01 if it goes up to $1.10 ten minutes later? Why buy for $1.00 when it keeps dropping to $0.95 ten minutes later? Your strategy means you are always taking the smallest possible profit, for the same amount of risk. Another method might be to only trade each stock once, and hope that you never pick a loser. Perhaps look for something that has been steadily climbing in price, buy, make your tiny profit, then move on to the next company. However you still have the risk of buying something at it's peak price and being in for an awfully long wait before you can cash out (if ever). And if all that wasn't enough to put you off, brokerages have special rules for \"\"frequent traders\"\" that just make it all the more complicated. Not worth the hassle IMO.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "81a6ee7d7f7b8ef9e63c33641f686053",
"text": "A broker does not have to allow the full trading suite the regulations permit. From brokersXpress: Do you allow equity and index options trading in brokersXpress IRAs? Yes, we allow trading of equity and index options in IRAs based on the trading level assigned to an investor. Trading in IRAs includes call buying, put buying, cash-secured put writing, spreads, and covered calls. I understand OptionsXpress.com offers the same level of trading. Disclosure - I have a Schwab account and am limited in what's permitted just as your broker does. The trade you want is no more risky that a limit (buy) order, only someone is paying you to extend that order for a fixed time. The real answer is to ask the broker. If you really want that level of trading, you might want to change to one that permits it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "c6b12c8da33173d843fe26a73d77075c",
"text": "\"Yes it is possible, as long as the broker you use allows conditional orders. I use CMC Markets in Australia, and they allow free conditional 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 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 50%, that is if the price reached $15.00. So you would type in 15.00 in the box after \"\"If at or above ?\"\" and again select if you want a limit or market order. These conditional orders can all be placed at the time you enter your buy order and can be edited or deleted at any time. The broker you use may have a different process for entering conditional orders, and some brokers may have many more conditional orders than these three, so investigate what is out there and if you are confused in how to use the orders with your broker, simply ask them for a demonstration in how to use them.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "591f5e587da93d2643580b54097602c9",
"text": "I have done this, and the reason is to make sure that I don't run out of money in my account to place the order if there is an unexpected upswing in price. Suppose I have $1000 in my account and I want to buy 10 shares of ABCD that are currently at $99. If the price doesn't change, then I am all set, but if the price goes up to $101 then I don't have sufficient funds to make the purchase. By placing a limit order at $100 I can ensure that I have enough money to place the order. In general, it is a rather unlikely scenario that it could happen, but placing the limit order is easy to do and it gives me peace of mind. I don't know what you mean about bypassing the queue.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b13d405f87b222d8e581eb027e754892",
"text": "\"An attempt at a simple answer for the normal investor: A normal investor buys stock then later sells that stock. (This is known as \"\"going long\"\", as opposed to \"\"going short\"\"). For the normal investor, a stop order (of either kind) is only used when selling. A stop-loss sell order (or stop sell) is used to sell your stock when it has fallen too much in price, and you don't want to suffer more losses. If the stock is at $50, you could enter a stop sell at $40, which means if the stock ever falls to $40 or lower, your stock will be sold at whatever price is available (e.g. $35). A stop-loss limit sell order (or stop limit sell) is the same, except you are also saying \"\"but don't sell for less than my limit price\"\". So you can enter a stop limit sell at $40 with a limit of $39, meaning that if the stock falls to $40, you will then have a limit order in effect to sell the stock at $39 or higher. Thus your stock will never be sold at $35 or any value below $39, but of course, if the stock falls fast from $40 to $35, your limit sell at $39 will not be done and you will be left still owning the stock (worth at that moment $35, say).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "23a1942c7b909c8c0a16d1cbf824842e",
"text": "If you plan to take profit at $1.00 then your profit will be $40. Then, if you set your stop at $0.88 then your loss if you get stopped will be $20. So your Reward : Risk = 2:1. Note, that this does not take into account brokerage in and out and any slippage from the price gapping past your stop loss.",
"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": "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": "2272a5d2f2b5c88cf72bfd3066ffabc1",
"text": "It will depend largely on your broker what type of stop and trailing stop orders they provide. Saying that, I have not come across any brokers yet that offer limit orders with trailing stop orders. Unlike a standard stop order where you can either make it a market stop order or a limit stop order, usually most brokers have trailing stop orders as market orders only, where you can either set the trailing stop to be a dollar value or percentage from the most recent high. Remember also, that trailing stop orders will be based on the intra-day highs and not the highest closing price. That means that if the share price spikes up during the day your trailing stop will move up, and if the price then spikes down you may be stopped out prematurely, after which the price might rally again. For this reason I try to base my trailing stops on the highest closing price by using standard stop loss orders and moving it up manually after the close of trade if the share price has closed at a new high. This takes a few minutes each evening (depending on how many stocks you have to check and adjust the stops for) but gives you more control. Using this method will also enable you to set limit orders attached to your stop loss triggers, and you won't have to keep your trailing too close to the last high price thus potentially causing you to get stopped out prematurely. Slightly off track but may be handy if you set profit targets, my broker has recently introduced Trailing Take Profit Orders. The way it works is, say you have a profit target of 50%, so you buy at $2 and want to take profits if the price reaches $3, you could set your Trailing Take Profit Trigger at say $3.10 or above and set a Trail by Amount of say $0.10. So if the price after hitting $3.10 falls to $3.00 you will be stopped out and collect your profits. If the price moves up to $3.30 and then falls to $3.20, you will be stopped out at $3.20 and make some extra profits. If the price continues going up the Trailing Take Profit will continue to move up always $0.10 below the highest price reached. I think this would be a very useful order if you were range trading where you could set the Trailing Take Profit trigger near recent resistance so you can get out if prices start reversing at or around the resistance, but continue profiting if the price breaks through the resistance.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "2c641d6c1e0a8f0b07c0d7f8dc9cbeb3",
"text": "Stop order is triggered when the market reaches the price you set. Until then - its not on the books. Your understanding is wrong in that you don't go to read the definition of the term.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
abf5a4834365a61007bdac9929428b11
|
How to amend an amended return?
|
[
{
"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": "b4bdf77bd6c433338ae2798676b50331",
"text": "\"There are many people who have deductions far above the standard deduction, but still don't itemize. That's their option even though it comes at a cost. It may be foolish, but it's not illegal. If @littleadv citation is correct, the 'under penalty of perjury' type issue, what of those filers who file a Schedule A but purposely leave off their donations? I've seen many people discuss charity, and write that they do not want to benefit in any way from their donation, yet, still Schedule A their mortgage and property tax. Their returns are therefore fraudulent. I am curious to find a situation in which the taxpayer benefits from such a purposeful oversight, or, better still, a cited case where they were charged with doing so. I've offered advice on filings return that wasn't \"\"truthful\"\". When you own a stock and cannot find cost basis, there are times that you might realize the basis is so low that just entering zero will cost you less than $100 in extra tax. You are not truthful, of course, but this kind of false statement isn't going to lead to any issue. If it gets noticed within an audit, no agent is going to give it more than a moment of time and perhaps suggest, \"\"you didn't even know the year it was bought?\"\" but there would be no consequence. My answer is for personal returns, I'm sure for business, accuracy to the dollar is actually important.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0dde42cb2eb328499f4a02f6e692de0e",
"text": "You report each position separately. You do this on form 8949. 7 positions is nothing, it will take you 5 minutes. There's a tip on form 8949 that says this, though: For Part I (short term transactions): Note. You may aggregate all short-term transactions reported on Form(s) 1099-B showing basis was reported to the IRS and for which no adjustments or codes are required. Enter the total directly on Schedule D, line 1a; you are not required to report these transactions on Form 8949 (see instructions). For Part II (long term transactions): Note. You may aggregate all long-term transactions reported on Form(s) 1099-B showing basis was reported to the IRS and for which no adjustments or codes are required. Enter the total directly on Schedule D, line 8a; you are not required to report these transactions on Form 8949 (see instructions). If the 1099B in your case shows basis for each transaction as reported to the IRS - you're in luck, and don't have to type them all in separately.",
"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": "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": "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": "0ff87b4504eaa0cf33d2b696582f47ef",
"text": "\"I think the \"\"right\"\" way to approach this is for your personal books and your business's books to be completely separate. You would need to really think of them as separate things, such that rather than being disappointed that there's no \"\"cross transactions\"\" between files, you think of it as \"\"In my personal account I invested in a new business like any other investment\"\" with a transfer from your personal account to a Stock or other investment account in your company, and \"\"This business received some additional capital\"\" which one handles with a transfer (probably from Equity) to its checking account or the like. Yes, you don't get the built-in checks that you entered the same dollar amount in each, but (1) you need to reconcile your books against reality anyway occasionally, so errors should get caught, and (2) the transactions really are separate things from each entity's perspective. The main way to \"\"hack it\"\" would be to have separate top-level placeholder accounts for the business's Equity, Income, Expenses, and Assets/Liabilities. That is, your top-level accounts would be \"\"Personal Equity\"\", \"\"Business Equity\"\", \"\"Personal Income\"\", \"\"Business Income\"\", and so on. You can combine Assets and Liabilities within a single top-level account if you want, which may help you with that \"\"outlook of my business value\"\" you're looking for. (In fact, in my personal books, I have in the \"\"Current Assets\"\" account both normal things like my Checking account, but also my credit cards, because once I spend the money on my credit card I want to think of the money as being gone, since it is. Obviously this isn't \"\"standard accounting\"\" in any way, but it works well for what I use it for.) You could also just have within each \"\"normal\"\" top-level placeholder account, a placeholder account for both \"\"Personal\"\" and \"\"My Business\"\", to at least have a consistent structure. Depending on how your business is getting taxed in your jurisdiction, this may even be closer to how your taxing authorities treat things (if, for instance, the business income all goes on your personal tax return, but on a separate form). Regardless of how you set up the accounts, you can then create reports and filter them to include just that set of business accounts. I can see how just looking at the account list and transaction registers can be useful for many things, but the reporting does let you look at everything you need and handles much better when you want to look through a filter to just part of your financial picture. Once you set up the reporting (and you can report on lists of account balances, as well as transaction lists, and lots of other things), you can save them as Custom Reports, and then open them up whenever you want. You can even just leave a report tab (or several) open, and switch to it (refreshing it if needed) just like you might switch to the main Account List tab. I suspect once you got it set up and tried it for a while you'd find it quite satisfactory.\"",
"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": "4153a684b44027e27bd1175a20260689",
"text": "\"Federal tax refund is taxes you've overpaid. What you're saying is that this year you overpaid less than before. I don't understand why you see this is as a bad thing. Optimal situation is when you have no refunds and no taxes due on tax day, but it is really hard to get there. But the closer you can get - the better, which means that reducing your refund should be your goal. In any case, \"\"Federal Tax Refund\"\" is meaningless, what you need to look at is your actual taxes due. This is the number you should be working to reduce. Is it possible to shift the amounts on a W-2 (with correct adjustments) to tax all of your wages, instead of leaving some of it deducted pre-tax? Why would you want to pay more tax? If your goal is to have a refund (I.e.: it is your way of forcing yourself to save), then you need to recalculate the numbers and adjust your W4 taking the (pre-tax) FSA into account. If it is not the goal, then you should be looking at the total taxes owed, not the refund, and adjust your W4 so that your withholding would cover the taxes owed as closely as possible. And to answer your question, after all this - of course it is possible. But it is wrong, and will indeed likely to trigger an audit. You can write whatever you want on your tax return, but in the end of it, you sign under the penalty of perjury that what you filled is the correct information. Perjury is a Federal felony, and knowingly filing incorrect tax return is fraud (especially since your motive is to gain, even though you're not actually gaining anything). Fraudulent tax returns can be audited any time (no statute of limitations).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "177452e08f5bcd1a5ccb6fada4720bcd",
"text": "\"(Insert the usual disclaimer that I'm not any sort of tax professional; I'm just a random guy on the Internet who occasionally looks through IRS instructions for fun. Then again, what you're doing here is asking random people on the Internet for help, so here goes.) The gigantic book of \"\"How to File Your Income Taxes\"\" from the IRS is called Publication 17. That's generally where I start to figure out where to report what. The section on Royalties has this to say: Royalties from copyrights, patents, and oil, gas, and mineral properties are taxable as ordinary income. In most cases, you report royalties in Part I of Schedule E (Form 1040). However, if you hold an operating oil, gas, or mineral interest or are in business as a self-employed writer, inventor, artist, etc., report your income and expenses on Schedule C or Schedule C-EZ (Form 1040). It sounds like you are receiving royalties from a copyright, and not as a self-employed writer. That means that you would report the income on Schedule E, Part I. I've not used Schedule E before, but looking at the instructions for it, you enter this as \"\"Royalty Property\"\". For royalty property, enter code “6” on line 1b and leave lines 1a and 2 blank for that property. So, in Line 1b, part A, enter code 6. (It looks like you'll only use section A here as you only have one royalty property.) Then in column A, Line 4, enter the royalties you have received. The instructions confirm that this should be the amount that you received listed on the 1099-MISC. Report on line 4 royalties from oil, gas, or mineral properties (not including operating interests); copyrights; and patents. Use a separate column (A, B, or C) for each royalty property. If you received $10 or more in royalties during 2016, the payer should send you a Form 1099-MISC or similar statement by January 31, 2017, showing the amount you received. Report this amount on line 4. I don't think that there's any relevant Expenses deductions you could take on the subsequent lines (though like I said, I've not used this form before), but if you had some specific expenses involved in producing this income it might be worth looking into further. On Line 21 you'd subtract the 0 expenses (or subtract any expenses you do manage to list) and put the total. It looks like there are more totals to accumulate on lines 23 and 24, which presumably would be equally easy as you only have the one property. Put the total again on line 26, which says to enter it on the main Form 1040 on line 17 and it thus gets included in your income.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b7a8e8f10967a66de5c695b9dd44f91c",
"text": "You should probably talk to a professional tax adviser. This doesn't seem to be a common situation. From the top of my head, without being a lawyer or a tax professional, I think of it like this: The income is for year 200..., and should have been taxed then. You constructively received it then, and not claimed it. You probably had withholding from this salary that should have been reported to you then on W2 (you can get a copy from the IRS). I'd say you're to amend the return for year 200... with the new income, if it wasn't reported then. Although if more than 3 years passed (6, if its 25% or more of your gross income for that year), its beyond statute. However, as I said, I'm not a lawyer and not a professional tax adviser, so you cannot in any way rely on my opinion for anything that would result in not paying any taxes or penalties you should have. You should talk to a licensed tax professional (EA/CPA/Lawyer licensed in your State).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "af58d59e8732637cfa39053c3eda19f8",
"text": "According to TurboTax: Of course. In fact, the government doesn't want you to amend until you've already gotten your tax refund. You're free to cash your refund check or spend it once you have it. You don't need to wait for your amendment to finish processing, which can take another 3-4 months. If you owe money after amending, you'll just include payment with your mailed amendment form. And if your amendment results in a second refund, you'll get a check for the additional amount. So yes, you can cash out this check and then amend your return. If you end up owing money, you'll just pay it when you file your amended returns:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1ff7ff77c27135f1c844d712bc5d1580",
"text": "It depends on what you paid for, but usually audit support is an unrelated engagement to the return preparation. If the accountant made a professional mistake, you can request correction and compensation from that accountant, other than that any accountant can help you with audit regardless of who prepared the return. The original accountant would probably be better informed about why you reported each number on the return and how it was calculated, but if you kept all the docs, it can be recalculated again. That's what happens in the audit anyway.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4384bb6fc4e625759bd324cede2ceccf",
"text": "I think you're making a mistake. If you still want to make this mistake (I'll explain later why I think its a mistake), the resources for you are: IRS.GOV - The IRS official web site, that has all the up-to-date forms and instructions for them, guiding publications and the relevant rules. You might get a bit overwhelmed through. Software programs - TurboTax (Home & Business for a sole propriator or single member LLC, Business for more complicated business), or H&R Block Business (only one version that should cover all) are for your guidance. They provide tips and interactive guidance in filling in all the raw data, and produce all the forms filled for you according to the raw data you entered. I personally prefer TurboTax, I think its interface is nicer and the workflow is more intuitive, but that's my personal preference. I wrote about it in my blog last year. Both also include plug-ins for the state taxes (If I remember correctly, for both the first state is included in the price, if you need more than 1 state - there's extra $30-$40 per state). Your state tax authority web site (Minnesota Department of Revenue in your case). Both Intuit and H&R Block have on-line forums where people answer each others questions while using the software to prepare the taxes, you might find useful information there. As always, Google is your friend. Now, why I think this is a mistake. Mistakes that you make - will be your responsibility. If you use the software - they'll cover the calculation mistakes. But if you write income in a wrong specification or take a wrong deduction that you shouldn't have taken - it will be on your head and you're the one to pay the fines and penalties for that. Missed deductions and credits - CPA's (should) know about all the latest deductions and credits that you or your business might be entitled to. They also (should) know which one got canceled and you shouldn't be continuing taking them if you had before. Expenses - there are plenty of rules of what can be written off as an expense and how. Some things should be written off this year, others over several years, for some depreciation formula should be used, etc etc. Tax programs might help you with that, but again - mistakes are your responsibility. Especially for the first time and for the newly formed business, I think you should use a (good!) CPA. The CPA should take responsibility over your filing. The CPA should provide guarantee that based on the documents you provided, he filled all the necessary forms correctly, and will absorb all the fees and penalties if there's an audit and mistakes were found not because you withheld information from your CPA, but because the CPA made a mistake. That costs money, and that's why the CPA's are more expensive than using a program or preparing yourself. But, the risk is much higher, especially for a new business. And after all - its a business expense.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bfe906a20800f6c33a78bb8606c781e2",
"text": "\"Sounds like your grandmother's estate had taxable income and the estate did not pay the estate \"\"INCOME\"\" tax. Rather the estate shifted the burden to pay that tax on the beneficiaries which is why you received a K1. If that K1 reports income received by you, then YES you would have to amend your tax return. I am in exactly that same situation now. After the October 15 deadline to file 2012 tax returns, I received a K1 for income received from my dad's estate. I now have to file a late amended 2012 income tax return and pay income tax on what I inherited. My dad had a small estate, but the money that made up that small estate all came from an IRA he had. He designated the estate as his beneficiary. So when the stocks in the IRA were sold, that all became taxable income to the beneficiaries of the estate. Anything involving taxes is confusing at best. But do not confuse estate income tax, with estate tax -- they are two different taxes. Hope this helps.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f41d10b3a6a4fd456e5d0be98d54ec20",
"text": "The amended return Form 1040x has a different calculation for the `Refund or Amount You Owe' section than the original 1040, you use the amount you owed or amount overpaid from the original return to offset the impact of the amended return. This calculation assumes the refund/payment has been made already. So deposit your refund check, then file the amended return. I suggest filing sooner rather than later in case you owe (unlikely to be penalized unless it's significant/fraudulent), but sooner is better anyway.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
3953cceaeb685be5623330a9faf70841
|
Can I resubmit W8-BEN with W9 form?
|
[
{
"docid": "682533ea6458ceb27586506887e053bb",
"text": "Since you're a US citizen, submitting W8-BEN was wrong. If you read the form carefully, when you signed it you certified that you are not a US citizen, which is a lie and you knew it. W9 and W8 are mutually exclusive. You're either a US person for tax purposes or you're not, you cannot be both. As a US citizen - you are a US person for tax purposes, whether you have any other citizenship or not, and whether you live in (or have ever been to) the US or not. You do need to file tax returns just like any other US citizen. If you have an aggregate of $10K or more on your bank accounts outside of the US at any given day - you need to file FBAR. FATCA forms may also be applicable, depending on your balances. From foreign banks' perspective you're a US person, with regard to their FATCA obligations. Whether or not you'll be punished is hard to tell. Whether or not you could be punished is easy to tell: you could. You knowingly broke the law by certifying that you're not a US citizen when you were. That is in addition to un-filed tax returns, FBAR, etc etc. The fact that you were born outside of the US and have never lived there is technically irrelevant. Not knowing the law is not a reasonable cause for breaking it. Get a US-licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in the US) to help you sort it out.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "7cdea11b3ed2ca222ac4627bcd79e4bc",
"text": "For tax year 2014, TurboTax Deluxe no longer supports Schedule D.* TurboTax Premier is required if you need to use Schedule D. Alternatively, H&R Block Tax Software Deluxe will handle Schedule D at a fraction of the cost of TurboTax Premier. Update: Beginning with tax year 2015, TurboTax has reversed their disastrous decision and put the functionality back into Deluxe, making it once again an acceptable choice for the OP's situation. See this answer for more details. H&R Block Deluxe still handles this at less cost. * Technically**, TurboTax Deluxe does include Schedule D and other schedules in what they call form mode; however, if you decide to use them, TurboTax Deluxe cripples itself, eliminating many of the features on this chart that you may have gotten used to, such as interview guidance and e-file. ** See https://xkcd.com/1475/",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dd10d90ffdb55b8ff054948c6a6d2926",
"text": "\"You will be filing the exact same form you've been filing until now (I hope...) which is called form 1040. Attached to it, you'll add a \"\"Schedule C\"\" form and \"\"Schedule SE\"\" form. Keep in mind the potential effect of the tax and totalization treaties the US has with the UK which may affect your filings. I suggest you talk to a licensed EA/CPA who works with expats in the UK and is familiar with all the issues. There are several prominent offices you can find by Googling.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "90d0f60baf23f68e50157d52c6ab539b",
"text": "\"I would advise against \"\"pencil and paper\"\" approach for the following reasons: You should e-file instead of paper filing. Although the IRS provides an option of \"\"Fillable Forms\"\", there's no additional benefit there. Software ensures correctness of the calculations. It is easy to make math errors, lookup the wrong table It is easy to forget to fill a line or to click a checkbox (one particular checkbox on Schedule B cost many people thousands of dollars). Software ask you questions in a \"\"interview\"\" manner, and makes it harder to miss. Software can provide soft copies that you can retrieve later or reuse for amendments and carry-overs to the next year, making the task next time easier and quicker. You may not always know about all the available deductions and credits. Instead of researching the tax changes every year, just flow with the interview process of the software, and they'll suggest what may be available for you (lifetime learners credit? Who knows). Software provides some kind of liability protection (for example, if there's something wrong because the software had a bug - you can have them fix it for you and pay your penalties, if any). It's free. So why not use it? As to professional help later in life - depending on your needs. I'm fully capable of filling my own tax returns, for example, but I prefer to have a professional do it since I'm not always aware about all the intricacies of taxation of my transactions and prefer to have a professional counsel (who also provides some liability coverage if she counsels me wrong...). Some things may become very complex and many people are not aware of that (I've shared the things I learned here on this forum, but there are many things I'm not aware of and the tax professional should know).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "10933bb99c626acdbfe828d99f8773ce",
"text": "I have found that using the online version can help determine the correct product. Try Deluxe online, you can upload the data from last year. When you get to the key forms see what happens if you don't switch. Then switch to Premiere. Compare the results.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b5dca99a685e3a33d3939c04c8107c93",
"text": "From the instructions: If you do not need to make any adjustments to the basis or type of gain or loss (short-term or long-term) reported to you on Form 1099-B (or substitute statement) or to your gain or loss for any transactions for which basis has been reported to the IRS (normally reported on Form 8949 with box A checked), you do not have to include those transactions on Form 8949. Instead, you can report summary information for those transactions directly on Schedule D. For more information, see Exception 1, later. However, in case of ESPP and RSU, it is likely that you actually do need to make adjustments. Since 2014, brokers are no longer required to track basis for these, so you better check that the calculations are correct. If the numbers are right and you just summarized instead of reporting each on a separate line, its probably not an issue. As long as the gains reported are correct, no-one will waste their time on you. If you missed several thousand dollars because of incorrect calculations, some might think you were intentionally trying to hide something by aggregating and may come after you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "97cbde3c965690a53a5b344eaf7ebe19",
"text": "Forms 1099 and W2 are mutually exclusive. Employers file both, not the employees. 1099 is filed for contractors, W2 is filed for employees. These terms are defined in the tax code, and you may very well be employee, even though your employer pays you as a contractor and issues 1099. You may complain to the IRS if this is the case, and have them explain the difference to the employer (at the employer's expense, through fines and penalties). Employers usually do this to avoid providing benefits (and by the way also avoid paying payroll taxes). If you're working as a contractor, lets check your follow-up questions: where do i pay my taxes on my hourly that means does the IRS have a payment center for the tax i pay. If you're an independent contractor (1099), you're supposed to pay your own taxes on a quarterly basis using the form 1040-ES. Check this page for more information on your quarterly payments and follow the links. If you're a salaried employee elsewhere (i.e.: receive W2, from a different employer), then instead of doing the quarterly estimates you can adjust your salary withholding at that other place of work to cover for your additional income. To do that you submit an updated form W4 there, check with the payroll department on details. Is this a hobby tax No such thing, hobby income is taxed as ordinary income. The difference is that hobby cannot be at loss, while regular business activity can. If you're a contractor, it is likely that you're not working at loss, so it is irrelevant. what tax do i pay the city? does this require a sole proprietor license? This really depends on your local laws and the type of work you're doing and where you're doing it. Most likely, if you're working from your employer's office, you don't need any business license from the city (unless you have to be licensed to do the job). If you're working from home, you might need a license, check with the local government. These are very general answers to very general questions. You should seek a proper advice from a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your state) for your specific case.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3560962730b36bd73e5f0bc79750065f",
"text": "With the W8-Ben filed, tax will be withheld at a lower rate. (I would expect 10%). Tax treaty treatment will mean that this witholding will reduce your UK tax even if this payment is not taxable there. This is only effective if you actually pay tax. This is how it works for lotteries and dividends as well.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3d9c8dbf8694baed687215cd80101a02",
"text": "The IRS instructions do not specify how to connect the forms, just that you should not staple the check to the form (likely because it goes to a different location for processing). I have always either stapled or paper-clipped them together, however I would assume that the receiving department does not care, otherwise it would be explicit in the instructions.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b891606bf041cfd022f36635be258918",
"text": "This form is due March 15. This year, the 15th is Saturday, so the deadline is Monday March 17th. Keep in mind, the software guys would have two choices, wait until every last form is finalized before releasing, or put the software out by late November when 80%+ are good to go. Nothing is broken in this process. Keep in mind that there are different needs depending on the individual. I like to grab a copy in early December, and have a preliminary idea of what my return with look like. I'll also know if I'll owe so much that I should send in a quarterly tax payment. The IRS isn't accepting any return until 1/31 I believe, so you've lost no time. When you open the program, it usually ask to 'phone home' and update. In a couple weeks, all should be well. (Disclosure - I have guest posted on tax issues at both TurboTax and H&R Block's blogs. The above are my own views.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bf78dd5a7a6351f18b9f61fd32b1277d",
"text": "\"The forms are almost identical, just formatted slightly differently. I just compared an old copy of an R form with the current one without the R. I don't know why they removed the R. In any case, I filed my biannual this year on llc-12, no \"\"r\"\", and no issues.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "22f837c014b18c0c90fb320b4b292d98",
"text": "Use form W7 to apply for an ITIN. You'll need to qualify for any of the reasons stated there. If you don't qualify for any - you can't get an ITIN. From what you described it looks like your husband is not entitled for ITIN.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "65c68a828b7a4907e8704f5296b345ee",
"text": "If you're under audit - you should get a proper representation. I.e.: EA or CPA licensed in California and experienced with the FTB audit representation. There's a penalty on failure to file form 1099, but it is with the IRS, not the FTB. If I remember correctly, it's something like $50 or $100 per instance. Technically they can disqualify deductions claiming you paid under the table and no taxes were paid on the other side, however I doubt they'd do it in a case of simple omission of filing 1099 forms. Check with your licensed tax adviser. Keep in mind that for the IRS 2011 is now closed, since the 3-year statute of limitations has passed. For California the statute is 4 years, and you're almost at the end of it. However since you're already under audit they may ask you to agree to extend it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "34a9082d8d05827f9fda9ec540a53c71",
"text": "W9 is required for any payments. However, in your case - these are not payments, but refunds, i.e.: you're not receiving any income from the company that is subject to tax or withholding rules, you're receiving money that is yours already. I do not think they have a right to demand W9 as a condition of refund, and as Joe suggested - would dispute the charge as fraudulent.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6a20ef7c282034d859f2d6438a54d061",
"text": "After several hours of trying to get various import methods to work (see comment to other answer), I ended up just adding all the splits by just gritting my teeth, against the inefficiency of at all, and entered them manually. The process took a couple hours, but at least now I have clean data. Duplicating an existing transaction with splits and just changing the date is (a lot) more keyboard efficient than editing an existing transaction and adding the splits (Alt+N, L, 1/1/2011) even when accounting for the overhead of deleting the now-duplicate imported transaction (Alt+N, D, Alt+D).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8199c1f269790dd8ecce7897a0159c49",
"text": "\"Regardless of the source of the software (though certainly good to know), there are practical limits to the IRS 1040EZ form. This simplified tax form is not appropriate for use once you reach a certain level of income because it only allows for the \"\"standard\"\" deduction - no itemization. The first year I passed that level, I was panicked because I thought I suddenly owed thousands. Switching to 1040A (aka the short form) and using even the basic itemized deductions showed that the IRS owed me a refund instead. I don't know where that level is for tax year 2015 but as you approach $62k, the simplified form is less-and-less appropriate. It would make sense, given some of the great information in the other answers, that the free offering is only for 1040EZ. That's certainly been true for other \"\"free\"\" software in the past.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
f4c5aa138e464743fa359920f7c27d53
|
Military Separation
|
[
{
"docid": "c4105ba7b2993458d4a5aea750e0483b",
"text": "It's not usually a good idea to buy a house as an investment. Buy a house because you want the house, not for an investment. Your money will make more money invested somewhere other than a house. Additionally, based on talking about renting rooms to pay the mortgage and the GI bill, I assume you are planning on going to school and not working? I am not that familiar with VA loans, but I imagine they will require you show some form of income before they are willing to give you a loan. 14% returns over the long run are very good, but last year the market was up almost 30%, if you were only at 14% for last year you left quite a bit on the table. I would advise against individual stocks for investments except as a hobby. Put the majority of your investments into ETF's/low fee mutual funds and keep a smaller amount that you can afford to lose in stocks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3eff2d19c29b1c7d18c9fb810330fac4",
"text": "\"Welcome to Money.SE, and thank you for your service. In general, buying a house is wise if (a) the overall cost of ownership is less than the ongoing cost to rent in the area, and (b) you plan to stay in that area for some time, usually 7+ years. The VA loan is a unique opportunity and I'd recommend you make the most of it. In my area, I've seen bank owned properties that had an \"\"owner occupied\"\" restriction. 3 family homes that were beautiful, and when the numbers were scrubbed, the owner would see enough rent on two units to pay the mortgage, taxes, and still have money for maintenance. Each situation is unique, but some \"\"too good to be true\"\" deals are still out there.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "36cb12699bb468880569a4c53d75b940",
"text": "Then the USA can respond by pulling troops out of these countries and NATO. Think of all the carbon we will save not sending all those planes and tanks and people in other countries. They can spend some of their budgets on protection then, maybe the French can make a green Jet to defend their country.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "014717b0a438d8ecfe0f5b6b5e0047c7",
"text": "Military Real Estate is your source for relocation information, rental information and home purchase information for properties located around the many military bases nationwide. Our partners have realtors and property managers with experience working directly with military members, as well as expertise in the VA loan process.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a63c0c7e884d98efdcb80c000f58cdba",
"text": "I was thinking something similar but that he is trying to fish for 'the best deal' by 'walking away'....or he wants show his base he was very conflicted and not totally roll over on them. It did seem odd that only every news outlet reported inside sources say he was pulling out and he would announce his decision in a couple days.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4982443bb8fbf43408ad0137c541b583",
"text": "In Virginia, there are lot of Military Homes. We can help for those people which are looking the Military Rental Homes for any location in U.S. Government can provide the various facilities such as schools, Colleges, hospitals, wandering etc. In the Virginia, all the military homes owners are military man. They have very strict rules and regulations.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b13b574bcbd9b1d3e5b7fed0e1a269cd",
"text": "You're reading what you want, not what I wrote. I didn't say we should send those 2,000,000 people home. I said there is no reason to **increase** spending on the military. For 2018, the proposal is to spend $10 billion on developing and building new planes, while only $300 million is for pay raises and new recruits. If you're telling me that $10 billion in building aircraft (high skilled labor jobs) will help the same number of people as putting $10 billion towards, say, building domestic *infrastructure* (low-skilled labor jobs), you're out of your mind.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3d580807bf94a718204d63c21b6166d8",
"text": "\"You're not the tender soul I was replying to, who goes looking for things to be offended by. But since you apparently recently read an article which makes you an expert.. Clearly military screening is far from perfect. The suicide rate for all members is higher than average. Add transgender in and the likelyhood of an incident increases disproportionately. And that's an interesting spin: it's barring transgenders from the military that makes them suicidal, not the other way around. Got it. Now factor in the costs of \"\"sensitivity training\"\", reassignment surgeries, and the inevitable lawsuits and it's a recipe for disaster.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "79e943682c6737bf1086e4a9567728fa",
"text": "\">Clearly military screening is far from perfect. The suicide rate for all members is higher than average. You make a jump in logic here which is not falsifiable that it is screening practices which lead to higher suicide rates. >Add transgender in and the likelyhood of a n incident increases disproportionately. Theres really no ecidence to support this argument as far as I am aware. Please show me how transgender military members have a higher rate of suicide than the general pop of military members. >And that's an interesting spin: it's barring transgenders from the military that makes them suicidal, not the other way around. Got it. Yea, turns out discriminating against people at an institutional level increases their rates of suicide. I find it hard to believe youre surprised by this. Being socially ostracized is a huge risk factor for suicide and depression. >Now factor in the costs of \"\"sensitivity training\"\", reassignment surgeries, and the inevitable lawsuits and it's a recipe for disaster. It hasnt been an issue at all so far. Why would it start now? Youre using the same arguments people have used every time civil rights are increased, every time theyre wrong. Theyre wrong now.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2227ec76ccee2e995f5c9b51829cb79b",
"text": "By numbers I assume you mean monetary amounts... the article doesn't define the separation that way... >In one of these countries live members of what Temin calls the “FTE sector” (named for finance, technology, and electronics, the industries which largely support its growth). These are the 20 percent of Americans who enjoy college educations, have good jobs, and sleep soundly knowing that they have not only enough money to meet life’s challenges, but also social networks to bolster their success.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "94667ad62fb3375b20d4048baa0f4fbd",
"text": "The DoD wants to cut some of those bases, it's the people in Washington who don't want this to happen. These bases bring in money to the communities of which they are a part of, even if they're unnecessary and sometimes a hindrance when thinking in terms of military strategy. So the legislative branch blocks the closures that the DoD want because if these bases did close, it'll hurt the communities within their districts, thus hurting their chances of re-election.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8181a9e98919dd4272a923ce711ff228",
"text": "\"Not true. The language used in the Navy & Army clauses are different. There is a duty to \"\"maintain\"\" the Navy and \"\"support\"\" the armies. There is no such mandate in the postal clause. Nor can the act of establishing be read as implying maintenance, because the Constitution specifically includes those things for the Army and Navy, suggesting it was not implied. You can establish something and then privatize it. Government-chartered companies were common at the time, so it's not like the idea didn't occur to them. Strictly speaking, I don't see any reason that Congress couldn't also privatize the army and navy, assuming that \"\"maintain\"\" and \"\"support\"\" don't imply direct congressional control. But that's a harder argument, compared to this much easier distinction in the case of the post office.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "619b6fc61f1d3d1020b9d3218840bc0a",
"text": "I work at a manufacturing facility near Savannah, GA. When it was finalized that we would shut down at the end of the week, the upper management was out a day early. They all drove to the airport and flew out of here on Thursday. This left the employees and supervisors (and a few area managers) to left everyone navigate the confusing and uncertain shut down and evacuation process. I lost all of the respect I had for management.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "202dbdb520e8dfcb3c58f7da365f69e0",
"text": "Who do you think the Missile defense system is supposed to protect? South Korea. You would think they would help flip the bill instead of American tax payers. I would be ok if we drew our entire military presence from SK.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "53d239a54ecc5d60e6833ee4b40c6bd2",
"text": "The number of government departments involved in anything the US (or any government) does is bewildering, but the invasion of Iraq was, by definition, a military venture intended to overthrow their leader and change the regime. The exit strategy was to attempt nation building to achieve stability. The US military acts for the US government, as do other departments and to muddle the question by listing departments is to miss the point – which is privatization of government functions, be they military or just involved in military ventures. If the contractors weren’t really required but were hired anyway….I don’t know how that’s defended. The fact remains: *security functions were outsourced*. That doing so is efficient or not is a good debate, but another debate.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9341ad4dd0b746e67d82ce1f065c2064",
"text": "You're just blatantly wrong. There are literally hundreds of thousands of combat veterans and police officers in the US vastly more qualified than you. Beyond that, your scenario requires an instantaneous dissolution of society which is an absurd notion. Your little dream scenario is just a childish fantasy. It's not rooted in reality so stop pretending it is so that you can publicly masturbate to the idea of trying to rip off your betters.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cb4c7d1c7cda9b4f3da4d3f0c19e811e",
"text": "What would you call an overseas military venture in which the military was NOT a tool of the government? Such other departments as were present in Iraq to do whatever they do were there because the military were there first, and as a means for the military to get out. To make it sound as though they’d have been there anyway and the military issue was a mere coincidence is absurd. I’d limit it to say it’s the military which is mostly wasteful (I’m not among those who don’t believe government can ever do anything right). But whether it’s measured in manpower or dollars, the fact remains that security functions are being outsourced. Is there any reason to think this will not continue? Or increase?",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
060f1e79c9dea188a6034d1c97c89f99
|
Calculating a simply complicated return?
|
[
{
"docid": "b932fa2ccb0028e1a123f74e6b158e89",
"text": "Since you have the balance at equal periods and the cash flows at the period ends, the best return calculation in this case is the true time-weighted return. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-weighted_return#Formulae So, notwithstanding some ambiguity about your figures, here is a calculation using the first three periods from your second table. Giving a total return over the three periods of -23.88% If the periods are months, multiply by four to annualise.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "01ca7a270f24ca65876327fe39ebc516",
"text": "\"John Bensin's answer covers the math, but I like the plain-English examples of the theory from William Bernstein's fine book, The Intelligent Asset Allocator. At the author's web site, you can find the complete chapter 1 and chapter 2, though not chapter 3, which is the one with the \"\"multiple coin toss\"\" portfolio example I want to highlight. I'll summarize Bernstein's multiple coin toss example here with some excerpts from the book. (Another top user, @JoeTaxpayer, has also written about the coin flip on his blog, also mentioning Bernstein's book.) Bernstein begins Chapter 1 by describing an offer from a fictitious \"\"Uncle Fred\"\": Imagine that you work for your rich but eccentric Uncle Fred. [...] he decides to let you in on the company pension plan. [...] you must pick ahead of time one of two investment choices for the duration of your employment: Certificates of deposit with a 3% annualized rate of return, or, A most peculiar option: At the end of each year Uncle Fred flips a coin. Heads you receive a 30% investment return for that year, tails a minus 10% (loss) for the year. This will be hereafter referred to as \"\"Uncle Fred’s coin toss,\"\" or simply, the \"\"coin toss.\"\" In effect, choosing option 2 results in a higher expected return than option 1, but it is certainly riskier, having a high standard deviation and being especially prone to a series of bad tosses. Chapters 1 and 2 continue to expand on the idea of risk, and take a look at various assets/markets over time. Chapter 3 then begins by introducing the multiple coin toss example: Time passes. You have spent several more years in the employ of your Uncle Fred, and have truly grown to dread the annual coin-toss sessions. [...] He makes you another offer. At the end of each year, he will divide your pension account into two equal parts and conduct a separate coin toss for each half [...] there are four possible outcomes [...]: [...] Being handy with numbers, you calculate that your annualized return for this two-coin-toss sequence is 9.08%, which is nearly a full percentage point higher than your previous expected return of 8.17% with only one coin toss. Even more amazingly, you realize that your risk has been reduced — with the addition of two returns at the mean of 10%, your calculated standard deviation is now only 14.14%, as opposed to 20% for the single coin toss. [...] Dividing your portfolio between assets with uncorrelated results increases return while decreasing risk. [...] If the second coin toss were perfectly inversely correlated with the first and always gave the opposite result [hence, outcomes 1 and 4 above never occurring], then our return would always be 10%. In this case, we would have a 10% annualized long-term return with zero risk! I hope that summarizes the example well. Of course, in the real world, one of the tricks to building a good portfolio is finding assets that aren't well-correlated, and if you're interested in more on the subject I suggest you check out his books (including The Four Pillars of Investing) and read more about Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ee11814d8241b9c20bfa447f2388a983",
"text": "I have asked myself this exact same question many times. The analysis would be simple if you invested all your money in a single day, but I did not and therefore I would need to convert your cash transactions into Index fund buys/sells. I got tired of trying to do this using Yahoo's data and excel so I built a website in my spare time. I humbly suggest you try my website out in the hopes that it helps you perform this computation: http://www.amibeatingthemarket.com/",
"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": "60c9eac57d227944f7dd9dfc37899a80",
"text": "\"First, to mention one thing - better analysis calls for analyzing a range of outcomes, not just one; assigning a probability on each, and comparing the expected values. Then moderating the choice based on risk tolerance. But now, just look at the outcome or scenario of 3% and time frame of 2 days. Let's assume your investable capital is exactly $1000 (multiply everything by 5 for $5,000, etc.). A. Buy stock: the value goes to 103; your investment goes to $1030; net return is $30, minus let's say $20 commission (you should compare these between brokers; I use one that charges 9.99 plus a trivial government fee). B. Buy an call option at 100 for $0.40 per share, with an expiration 30 days away (December 23). This is a more complicated. To evaluate this, you need to estimate the movement of the value of a 100 call, $0 in and out of the money, 30 days remaining, to the value of a 100 call, $3 in the money, 28 days remaining. That movement will vary based on the volatility of the underlying stock, an advanced topic; but there are techniques to estimate that, which become simple to use after you get the hang of it. At any rate, let's say that the expected movement of the option price in this scenario is from $0.40 to $3.20. Since you bought 2500 share options for $1000, the gain would be 2500 times 2.8 = 7000. C. Buy an call option at 102 for $0.125 per share, with an expiration 30 days away (December 23). To evaluate this, you need to estimate the movement of the value of a 102 call, $2 out of the money, 30 days remaining, to the value of a 102 call, $1 in the money, 28 days remaining. That movement will vary based on the volatility of the underlying stock, an advanced topic; but there are techniques to estimate that, which become simple to use after you get the hang of it. At any rate, let's say that the expected movement of the option price in this scenario is from $0.125 to $ 1.50. Since you bought 8000 share options for $1000, the gain would be 8000 times 1.375 = 11000. D. Same thing but starting with a 98 call. E. Same thing but starting with a 101 call expiring 60 days out. F., ... Etc. - other option choices. Again, getting the numbers right for the above is an advanced topic, one reason why brokerages warn you that options are risky (if you do your math wrong, you can lose. Even doing that math right, with a bad outcome, loses). Anyway you need to \"\"score\"\" as many options as needed to find the optimal point. But back to the first paragraph, you should then run the whole analysis on a 2% gain. Or 5%. Or 5% in 4 days instead of 2 days. Do as many as are fruitful. Assess likelihoods. Then pull the trigger and buy it. Try these techniques in simulation before diving in! Please! One last point, you don't HAVE to understand how to evaluate projected option price movements if you have software that does that for you. I'll punt on that process, except to mention it. Get the general idea? Edit P.S. I forgot to mention that brokers need love for handling Options too. Check those commission rates in your analysis as well.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "34df5ec1c05afd8af852ecb3db4b3b77",
"text": "\"I got $3394.83 The first problem with this is that it is backwards. The NPV (Net Present Value) of three future payments of $997 has to be less than the nominal value. The nominal value is simple: $2991. First step, convert the 8% annual return from the stock market to a monthly return. Everyone else assumed that the 8% is a monthly return, but that is clearly absurd. The correct way to do this would be to solve for m in But we often approximate this by dividing 8% by 12, which would be .67%. Either way, you divide each payment by the number of months of compounding. Sum those up using m equal to about .64% (I left the calculated value in memory and used that rather than the rounded value) and you get about $2952.92 which is smaller than $2991. Obviously $2952.92 is much larger than $2495 and you should not do this. If the three payments were $842.39 instead, then it would about break even. Note that this neglects risk. In a three month period, the stock market is as likely to fall short of an annualized 8% return as to beat it. This would make more sense if your alternative was to pay off some of your mortgage immediately and take the payments or yp pay a lump sum now and increase future mortgage payments. Then your return would be safer. Someone noted in a comment that we would normally base the NPV on the interest rate of the payments. That's for calculating the NPV to the one making the loan. Here, we want to calculate the NPV for the borrower. So the question is what the borrower would do with the money if making payments and not the lump sum. The question assumes that the borrower would invest in the stock market, which is a risky option and not normally advisable. I suggest a mortgage based alternative. If the borrower is going to stuff the money under the mattress until needed, then the answer is simple. The nominal value of $2991 is also the NPV, as mattresses don't pay interest. Similarly, many banks don't pay interest on checking these days. So for someone facing a real decision like this, I'd almost always recommend paying the lump sum and getting it over with. Even if the payments are \"\"same as cash\"\" with no premium charged.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ca41d7db1b793e37d2a3a3973139132e",
"text": "\"Wow, this analysis really surprised me. Very complete and useful, but i think my teacher request was easier. He just said: \"\"Try to build a diversified portfolio. Then try to add a commodity (like silver or gold) and understand how the risk vary introducing an asset like this.\"\" So, i'm basically making a stocks portfolio and i'm calculating its expected return and risk. (for example 40%FB, 10%JNJ, 20%GS, 10%F and 20%MCD) then i'm adding GLD (so now i have something like 20%FB, 10%JNJ, 10%GS, 10%F and 20%MCD 30%GLD) and i'm actually making an excel spreadsheet where i calculate all the: -Expected returns -St Deviation -Covariance At the end i compare the returns and the risks on the 2 different portfolios.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2d9d061301932cab6ddb2a60cf75d941",
"text": "Log-returns are very commonly used in financial maths, especially quantitative finance. The important property is that they're symmetrical around 0 with respect to addition. This property makes it possible to talk about an average return. For instance, if a stock goes down 20% over a period of time, it has to gain 25% to be back where you started. For the log-return on the other hand the numbers are 0.223 down over a period of time, and 0.223 up to get you back to square 1. In this sense, you can simply take an arithmetic average and it makes sense. You can freely add up or subtract values on the log-return scale, like log-interest rates or log-inflation rates. Whereas the arithmetic mean of (non-log) returns is simply meaningless: A stock with returns -3% and +3% would have 0% on average, when in fact the stock has declined in price? The correct approach on direct price-returns would be to take a different mean (e.g. geometric) to get a decent average. And yet it will be hard to incorporate other information, like subtracting the risk-free rate or the inflation rate to get rate-adjusted average returns. In short: Log-returns are easier to handle computationally, esp. in bulk, but non-log-returns are easier to comprehend/imagine as a number of their own.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b92089939e283a69c66535a345f7ecee",
"text": "Ah, pardon me, so it's not *either* 10x return or zero, but also includes points in between there? Is it path dependent? Do you have any history on the asset? The usual crutches for dealing with unknown probabilities are using risk neutrality or arbitrage pricing, but if the market is inefficient then that will be an estimation at best.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3a5e579b13be145ba602a0f1c0448c12",
"text": "\"It can be pretty hard to compute the right number. What you need to know for your actual return is called the dollar-weighted return. This is the Internal Rate of Return (IRR) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_rate_of_return computed for your actual cash flows. So if you add $100 per month or whatever, that has to be factored in. If you have a separate account then hopefully your investment manager is computing this. If you just have mutual funds at a brokerage or fund company, computing it may be a bunch of manual labor, unless the brokerage does it for you. A site like Morningstar will show a couple of return numbers on say an S&P500 index fund. The first is \"\"time weighted\"\" and is just the raw return if you invested all money at time A and took it all out at time B. They also show \"\"investor return\"\" which is the average dollar-weighted return for everyone who invested in the fund; so if people sold the fund during a market crash, that would lower the investor return. This investor return shows actual returns for the average person, which makes it more relevant in one way (these were returns people actually received) but less relevant in another (the return is often lower because people are on average doing dumb stuff, such as selling at market bottoms). You could compare yourself to the time-weighted return to see how you did vs. if you'd bought and held with a big lump sum. And you can compare yourself to the investor return to see how you did vs. actual irrational people. .02, it isn't clear that either comparison matters so much; after all, the idea is to make adequate returns to meet your goals with minimum risk of not meeting your goals. You can't spend \"\"beating the market\"\" (or \"\"matching the market\"\" or anything else benchmarked to the market) in retirement, you can only spend cash. So beating a terrible market return won't make you feel better, and beating a great market return isn't necessary. I think it's bad that many investment books and advisors frame things in terms of a market benchmark. (Market benchmarks have their uses, such as exposing index-hugging active managers that aren't earning their fees, but to me it's easy to get mixed up and think the market benchmark is \"\"the point\"\" - I feel \"\"the point\"\" is to achieve your financial goals.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "01d88eba80895040dd663fec951a0435",
"text": "R = I ^ P R = return (2 means double) I = (Intrest rate / 100) + 1 [1.104 = 10.4%] P = number of periods (7 years) 2 = 1.104 ^ 7 (you double your money in seven years with a yearly Intrest rate of 10.4%) I = R^(1/P) 1.104 = 2^(1/7) P = log(R) / log(I) 7 = log(2) / log(1.104)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "469dd93d4f1c4545dd7884fbca865007",
"text": "Simple math. Take the sale proceeds (after trade expenses) and divide by cost. Subtract 1, and this is your return. For example, buy at 80, sell at 100, 100/80 = 1.25, your return is 25%. To annualize this return, multiply by 365 over the days you were in that stock. If the above stock were held for 3 months, you would have an annualized return of 100%. There's an alternative way to annualize, in the same example above take the days invested and dive into 365, here you get 4. I suggested that 25% x 4 = 100%. Others will ask why I don't say 1.25^4 = 2.44 so the return is 144%/yr. (in other words, compound the return, 1.25x1.25x...) A single day trade, noon to noon the next day returning just 1%, would multiply to 365% over a year, ignoring the fact there are about 250 trading days. But 1.01^365 is 37.78 or a 3678% return. For long periods, the compounding makes sense of course, the 8%/yr I hope to see should double my money in 9 years, not 12, but taking the short term trades and compounding creates odd results of little value.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "1dce5eef63be75b3c823856ea9c21139",
"text": "At what point does my investment benefit from compounded interest? Monthly? Quarter? Yearly? Does it even benefit? I think you are mixing things. There is no concept of interest or compounding in Mutual Funds. When you buy a mutual fund, it either appreciates in value or depreciates in value; both can happen depending on the time period you compare. Now, let's assume at the end of the year I have a 5% return. My $10,000 is now $10,500. The way you need to look at this is Given you started with $10,000 and its now $10,500 the return is 5%. Now if you want to calculate simple return or compounded return, you would have to calculate accordingly. You may potentially want to find a compounded return for ease of comparison with say a Bank FD interest rate or some other reason. So if $10,000 become $10,500 after one year and $11,000 after 2 year. The absolute return is 10%, the simple yearly return is 5%. Or the Simple rate of return for first year is 5% and for second year is 4.9%. Or the Average Year on Year return is 4.775%.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ba304fbf8b1580d1a4cef5833694200f",
"text": "You've got the right idea, except that the stated interest rate is normalized for a 1-year investment. Hence if you buy a 4-week bill, you're getting something closer to 4/52 of what you've computed in your question. More precisely, the Treasury uses a 360 day year for these calculations, so you multiply the stated rate by (number of days until maturity)/360 to get the actual rate of return.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f339181a8d572823cf74602bb8c2ac95",
"text": "The number you are trying to calculate is called the Internal Rate of Return (IRR). Google Spreadsheets (and excel) both have an XIRR function that can do this for you fairly simply. Setup a spreadsheet with 1 column for dates, 1 column for investment. Mark your investments as negative numbers (payment to invest). All investments will be negative. Mark your last row with today's date and today's valuation (positive). All withdrawals will be positive, so you are pretending to withdrawal your entire account for the purpose of calculation. Do not record dividends or other interim returns unless you are actually withdrawing money. The XIRR function will calculate your internal rate of return with irregularly timed investments. Links: Article explaining XIRR function (sample spreadsheet in google docs to modify)",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
c245e44f26cded663d085e5a8d2298f6
|
Why would you sell your bonds?
|
[
{
"docid": "cb1bad3f5b868f3c1f98d1a67f4c13a4",
"text": "You sell any investment because you need to do something else with the money -- rebalance your investments, buy something, pay off a debt....",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "80d84c637b2391c22cd0374fda950391",
"text": "\"Investment strategies abound. Bonds can be part of useful passive investment strategy but more active investors may develop a good number of reasons why buying and selling bonds on the short term. A few examples: Also, note that there is no guarantee in bonds as you imply by likening it to a \"\"guaranteed stock dividend\"\". Bond issuers can default, causing bond investors to lose part of all of their original investment. As such, if one believes the bond issuer may suffer financial distress, it would be ideal to sell-off the investment.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "3e9716a7dae9d0ef47a03d0a17927d78",
"text": "Notes and Bonds sell at par (1.0). When rates go up, their value goes down. When rates go down, their value goes up. As an individual investor, you really don't have any business buying individual bonds unless you are holding them to maturity. Buy a short-duration bond fund or ETF.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5b70a0767127af96e29b1b5b41b93e99",
"text": "\"I can think of a few reasons for this. First, bonds are not as correlated with the stock market so having some in your portfolio will reduce volatility by a bit. This is nice because it makes you panic less about the value changes in your portfolio when the stock market is acting up, and I'm sure that fund managers would rather you make less money consistently then more money in a more volatile way. Secondly, you never know when you might need that money, and since stock market crashes tend to be correlated with people losing their jobs, it would be really unfortunate to have to sell off stocks when they are under-priced due to market shenanigans. The bond portion of your portfolio would be more likely to be stable and easier to sell to help you get through a rough patch. I have some investment money I don't plan to touch for 20 years and I have the bond portion set to 5-10% since I might as well go for a \"\"high growth\"\" position, but if you're more conservative, and might make withdrawals, it's better to have more in bonds... I definitely will switch over more into bonds when I get ready to retire-- I'd rather have slow consistent payments for my retirement than lose a lot in an unexpected crash at a bad time!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aaf2f42c69d1a1d80b68a0ebd347b608",
"text": "The reason the market value is low is because the market does not believe that the company or country will pay. Another reason for it to go down is lack of liquidity in the market. However if you believe that the conditions would improve by the time bond matures, and you don't need money right now, then you can wait for maturity and get the maturity value.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a839323b89e2d86486c8c088661d715f",
"text": "They get higher interest payments. If they were to sell now they would get a premium over par. They get principal back if they hold so no gain, only gain if they sell now. But then they have to put it elsewhere (another bond, this time lower interest?) so it's a wash. Depends what you use the money for.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "907deeaa3c67ab33eead5ceaece419ad",
"text": "The point of short-selling as a separate instrument is that you can you do it when you can't sell the underlying asset... usually because you don't actually own any of it and in fact believe that it will go down. Shorting allows you to profit from a falling price. Another (non-speculative) possibility is that you don't have the underlying asset right now (and thus can't sell it) but will get it at a certain point in the future, e.g. because it's bonds that you've used to guarantee a loan... or grain that's still growing on your fields.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "478cdde040cedfb6e01af7f6e8296744",
"text": "I looked into the investopedia one (all their videos are mazing), but that detail just was not clear to me, it also makes be wonder, if a country issues bonds to finance itself, what happens at maturity when literally millions of them need to be paid? The income needs to have grown to that level or it defaults? Wouldn't all the countries default if that was the case, or are bonds being issued to being able to pay maturity of older bonds already? (I'm freaking myself out by realizing this)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f5f8e55a69c763efd9c32592762998ef",
"text": "When the market moves significantly, you should rebalance your investments to maintain the diversification ratios you have selected. That means if bonds go up and stocks go down, you sell bonds and buy stocks (to some degree), and vice versa. Sell high to buy low, and remember that over the long run most things regress to the mean.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d6f5042870c1a4aa59de7578bdc238f6",
"text": "> The purpose of buying these bonds was not to step in due to the absence of a market. Rather, the purpose was to deliberately bid up the price of these bonds (ahead of the market), causing their price to rise and yields (interest rates) to drop. There are some important things you need to understand about bubbles and how they form. When interest rates are artificially low and down payments aren't required for many loans, do you agree this is a recipe for a bubble?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "03b1b1ff2669c5a7655dfae34ee02e90",
"text": "You only pay tax on the capital gain of the bond, not the principal, unless the source of the money for the principal was gain from another investment, if that makes sense. In other words, if you bought the bond with income earned from your job, that money was already taxed as income, so it isn't subject to taxation again when you redeem the bond. On the other hand, if you cashed out of one investment and used those proceeds to buy a bond, then the entire amount might be taxable.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "14cee9078b37b49a75d3694d935e28bd",
"text": "And this is bad why? What is the total funding? What is the total return? Do you have the necessary facts to evaluate this? Basing opinions on partial evidence makes poor public policy. Most municipal bonds might actually work out for the better good of communities. Certainly the total amount of bonds listed as going bad in this story is a tiny, tiny fraction of total bonds.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "731bd197a7cbfbb1f1d38f9348447847",
"text": "\"Its because of the economic uncertainty in the world. They are the \"\"risk-free\"\" investment as it is an almost guaranteed return if you exclude inflation and US gov't defaulting. A lot of people are afraid to invest elsewhere given the current economic climate. The yield on bonds is also low due to government intervention. Quantitative easing 1 and 2 and operation twist has forced yield this low, as that is what the government wants.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "132ecb257ac4664dc0b3037828419962",
"text": "You should definitely favor holding bonds in tax-advantaged accounts, because bonds are not tax-efficient. The reason is that more of their value comes in the form of regular, periodic distributions, rather than an increase in value as is the case with stocks or stock funds. With stocks, you can choose to realize all that appreciation when it is most advantageous for you from a tax perspective. Additionally, stock dividends often receive lower tax rates. For much more detail, see Tax-efficient fund placement.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c27cfde6597ec260ee214ddc112e92dc",
"text": "\"First note that CIBC issued these bonds with a zero coupon, so they do not pay any interest. They were purchased by the market participants at a small premium, paying an average of 100.054 for a nominal value of 100. This equates to a negative annual \"\"redemption\"\" yield of 0.009% - i.e., if held until maturity, then the holder will witness a negative annual return of 0.009%. You ask \"\"why does this make sense?\"\". Clearly it makes no sense for a private individual to purchase these bonds since they will be better off simply holding cash. To understand why there is a demand for these bonds we need to look elsewhere. The European bond market is currently suffering a dwindling supply owing to the ECBs bond buying programme (i.e., quantitative easing). The ECB is purchasing EUR 80 billion per month of Eurozone sovereign debt. This means that the quantity of high grade bonds available for purchase is shrinking fast. Against this backdrop we have all of those European institutions and financial corporations who are legally obliged to purchase bonds to be held as assets against their obligations. These are mostly national and private pension funds as well as insurance companies and fund managers. In this sort of environment, the price of high quality bonds is quickly bid up to the point where we see negative yields. In this environment companies like CIBC can borrow by issuing bonds with a zero coupon and the market is willing to pay a small premium over their nominal value. TL/DR The situation is further complicated by the subdued inflation outlook for the Eurozone, with a very real possibility of deflation. Should a prolonged period of deflation materialise, then negative redemption yield bonds may provide a positive real return.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3f2195b1e5cbd163326130ce19f688aa",
"text": "\"Not a bond holder, but when we get dividends we usually just buy up a benchmark index tracking ETF unless/until we're ready to rebalance our portfolio. Most of the trades in the day are earmarked with the reason \"\"spending cash\"\". I'd assume it's similar for bond holders and coupons.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "13ad0143a8523b975c7b299bed7ecf3c",
"text": "\"The rate of the bond is fixed. But there is a risk known as \"\"interest rate risk\"\". Basically, if you have a 2 percent bond and market rates are 4 percent, you'll have to offer your bond at a discount or nobody would buy it. So if you ever needed to sell it, you'd lose a bit of money.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
9b9e46d144b0676b1b1122e7979a57a2
|
How much time should be spent on Penny Stocks Trading a day?
|
[
{
"docid": "fd9a98455fed7756d4b3f2fb56ea0aca",
"text": "How long is a piece of string? This will depend on many variables. How many trades will you make in a day? What income would you be expecting to make? What expectancy do you need to achieve? Which markets you will choose to trade? Your first step should be to develop a Trading Plan, then develop your trading rules and your risk management. Then you should back test your strategy and then use a virtual account to practice losing on. Because one thing you will get is many losses. You have to learn to take a loss when the market moves against you. And you need to let your profits run and keep your losses small. A good book to start with is Trade Your Way to Financial Freedom by Van Tharp. It will teach you about Expectancy, Money Management, Risk Management and the Phycology of Trading. Two thing I can recommend are: 1) to look into position and trend trading and other types of short term trading instead of day trading. You would usually place your trades after market close together with your stops and avoid being in front of the screen all day trying to chase the market. You need to take your emotion out of your trading if you want to succeed; 2) don't trade penny stocks, trade commodities, FX or standard stocks, but keep away from penny stocks. Just because you can buy them for a penny does not mean they are cheap.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9470dea73fe22b5ee6add652b74b69ec",
"text": "1) Don't trade individual stocks. You expose yourself to unnecessary risk. 2) Pick a fund with low expenses that pays a dividend. Reinvest the dividend back into the fund. To quote Einstein: The greatest power on earth is compound interest. Something is wrong with the software of the site. It will not allow me to answer mark with another comment. So I have to edit this answer to be able to answer him. @mark No, I am not hoping the price will go up. The price is only relevant in comparison to the dividend. It is the dividend that is important, not the price. The price is irrelevant if you never sell. Dividend paying securities are what you buy and hold. Then you reinvest the dividend and buy more of the security. As I am buying the security with the dividend I am actually pleasantly surprised when the price goes down. When the price goes down, but the dividend remains the same, I am able to buy more shares of the security withwith that dividend. So if the price goes down, and the dividend remains the same, it is a good thing. Again, the site will not allow me to add another comment. @mark I profit from my investment, without selling, by receiving the dividend. I used to be a speculator, trying to get ahead of the market by 'buy low, sell high' but all that did was make money for the broker. I lost as much as I gained trying to do that. The broker made money on each transaction, regardless if I did or not. It took me decades to learn the lesson that 'buy and hold' of dividend paying securities is the way to go. Don't make my mistake. I now get, at least, 5.5% yeald on my investment (look at PGF, which forms the backbone of my investments). That is almost 0.5% per month. Each month that dividend is reinvested into PGF, with no commission. You can't beat that with a stick.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "67cb69609988f2e18d54cebb5c343b92",
"text": "\"Basically, your question boils down to this: Where and how do I squeeze the stock market so that within time period X, it will make me Y dollars. (Where I'm emotionally attached to the Y figure because I recently lost it, and X is \"\"as soon as possible\"\".) To make money on the stock market (in a quasi-guaranteed way), you have to adjust X and Y so that they are realistic. For instance, let X be twenty-five years, and Y be \"\"7% annual return\"\". Small values of X are risky, unless X is on the order of milliseconds and you have a computer program working for you. To mitigate some of the risk of short term trading, you have to treat trading seriously and study like mad: study the stock market in general, and not only that, but carefully research the companies whose stocks you are buying. Work actively to discover stocks which are under-valued relative to the performance of their corporation, and which might correct upward relative to the performance of similar stocks. Always have an exit strategy for every position and stick to it. Use instruments like \"\"trailing stops\"\": automatic tracking which follows a price in one direction, and then produces an order to close the position when the price reverses by a certain amount.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cc24e47a60d165d352f7a2b8a84119ea",
"text": "is There Anyway I can Avoid losing 6-10% per Trade. As My Current Investment House Has Charged & will Be taking 5% hit quarterly If Left Untouched Stop trading penny stocks. Take your investment elsewhere and put it in a low-fee index fund ETF. You'll probably get a better return on your money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6949b84712b9f5158bde157cef1717b1",
"text": "\"A stock split can force short sellers of penny stocks to cover their shorts and cauuse the price to appreciate. Example: Someone shorts a worthless pump and dump stock, 10,000 shares at .50. They have to put up $25,000.00 in margin ($2.50 per share for stocks under $2.50). The company announces a 3 to 1 split. Now the short investor must come up with $50,000.00 additional margin or be be \"\"bought in\"\". The short squeeze is on.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a8d75b5d03d74f8da3440e5ed9fe436b",
"text": "\"Penny stocks are for the real gambler. Don't even think about holding them long. Buy a lot of shares and profit from a penny uptick. Rake a hundred dollars here and there a few times a week if you can. Don't fall in love with it. Trade for profit. Don't bet the farm. Only play what you can afford to lose at the Great Casino in the sky (the stock market). Sure, you will pick some losers, but you are not married to it, you don't have to keep it. A couple of good winners will erase some loses. Having lost thousands on the Blue Chips, and feeling I have wasted time waiting for an annual $100 gain on an ETF or mutual if I get lucky, has made me more risk tolerant for these \"\"BAD\"\" investments. The \"\"GOOD\"\" investments should do so well.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9202bd625ffd0044071a07a430da5ddb",
"text": "Nearly 3 years ago, I wrote an article, Betting on Apple at 9 to 2 which described a bet in which a 35% move in the stock returned 354% on the option trade. Leverage works both ways, no move, or a slight move down, and the bet would have been lost. While I find this to be entertaining, I don't call it investing. With $2-$3K, I recommend paper trading first, and if you enter option trades, no one trade should be more than 20% of this money. If you had $50K in betting money, no position over 10%.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "88e068b040a61ff135ad049d75afcbc9",
"text": "An old buddy of mine used to trade penny's and supposedly made a killing. Was taking trips all over the country, bought a place at the beach, always had NBA tickets to the best games. Later found out that he was actually selling drugs instead and was basically making nothing on the penny stock trading.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d6785de13ddb0dbb31dddee8e6ca16c9",
"text": "Reuters has a service you can subscribe to that will give you lots of Financial information that is not readily available in common feeds. One of the things you can find is the listing/delist dates of stocks. There are tools to build custom reports. That would be a report you could write. You can probably get the data for free through their rss feeds and on their website, but the custom reports is a paid feature. FWIW re-listing(listings that have been delisted but return to a status that they can be listed again) is pretty rare. And I can not think of too many(any actually) penny stocks that have grown to be listed on a major exchange.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "32f50357802c0923cfd698e4cb1c513b",
"text": "I was hoping it wasn't real time and I was going to be able to look 20 min. into the future using real time quotes for a 100% success rate. Oh well. Don't you know you can't make money day trading? :-) Everyone on Reddit seems to think as much. What % are you up for the day?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d870d7a9719e33d21aa2f445333a56df",
"text": "\"Sorry but you already provided the answer to your own question. The simple answer is to 'not day trade' but hold things for a longer period and don't trade a large number of different stocks every week. Seriously, have a look at the rules and see what it implies.. an average of 20 buys and sells of longer term positions PER DAY is a pretty fair bit of trading, that's really churning through the positions compared to someone who might establish positions with say 25 well picked stocks and might change even 5 of those a week to a different stock. Or even a larger number of stocks but seeking to hold them for over a year so you get taxed at the long term cap gains rate. If you want to day trade, be prepared to be labeled as such and deal with your broker on that basis. Not like they will hate you given all the fees you are likely to rack up. And the government will love you also, since you'll be paying short term gains taxes. (and trust me, us bogelheads appreciate the liquidity the speculative and short term folks bring to the market.) In terms of how it would impact you, Expect to be required to have a fairly substantial balance ($25K) if you are maintaining a margin account. I'd suggest reading this thread My account's been labeled as \"\"day trader\"\" and I got a big margin call. What should I do? What trades can I place in the blocked period?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7ff39ab1376109ae17ca524f32bc25e3",
"text": "I suppose it depends on your goals and expectations, but I'd argue its not easy. Regardless of the chosen sub discipline of trading or investing you pursue there will be some theoretical and research work to do, some learning of the mechanics of the market, and some 'ropes' to learn upfront. After that the time frame you are working in, the complexity and time requirements of your methodology dictate how much time you need. I personally spend enough time on it to be considered equivalent to a part time job, but I enjoy continually learning and researching. If I weren't constantly trying to improve and research I would say the mechanics might take a half hour a day. However, I would gladly do it full time if I were able. I believe that is important, if you simply want to make lots of money but hate the process you will likely fail. As mentioned earlier if you are new to this the majority of your time will be spent initially learning whats out there, trying various things out, and finding what works for you. There are a lot of different ways to approach the market and a number of markets to approach. For me it took two years to find my niche and become profitable. Learn to loose small and keep your itchy fingers in check during that learning curve.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d0dc5fa4905cb40edf4151ebb4465f9b",
"text": "\"I've never invested in penny stocks. My #1 investing rule, buy what you know and use. People get burned because they hear about the next big thing, go invest! to just end up losing everything because they have no clue in what they're investing in. From what I've found, until you have minimum of $5k to invest, put everything in a single investment. The reason for this, as others have mentioned, is that commissions eat up just about all your profits. My opinion, don't put it in a bond, returns are garbage right now - however they are \"\"safe\"\". Because this is $1000 we're talking about and not your life savings, put it in a equity like a stock to try and maximize your return. I aim for 15% returns on stocks and can generally achieve 10-15% consistently. The problem is when you get greedy and keep thinking it will go above once you're at 10-15%. Sell it. Sell it right away :) If it drops down -15% you have to be willing to accept that risk. The nice thing is that you can wait it out. I try to put a 3 month time frame on things I buy to make money. Once you start getting a more sizable chunk of money to play around with you should start to diversify. In Canada at least, once you have a trading account with a decent size investment the commissions get reduced to like $10 a trade. With your consistent 10% returns and additional savings you'll start to build up your portfolio. Keep at it and best of luck!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8f81cfe7826c35c5015dcfe8210c013b",
"text": "\"I don't know really is the best investment strategy. People think that they have to know everything to make money. But realistically, out of the hundreds of thousands of publicly traded securities, you really can only invest in a tiny number of them. Of the course of a week, you literally have more than a million \"\"buy\"\" or \"\"don't buy\"\" decisions, because the prices of those securities fluctuate every day. Simply due to the fact that there are so many securities, you cannot know what everything is going to do. You have to say \"\"I don't know\"\". Also, when you do understand something, it is usually fairly priced. So will you make money on it? \"\"I don't know\"\". Only very rarely will you find something that you actually understand well and it is significantly undervalued. You can be looking at a company a day for two years before you find it. But people get trigger happy. They bet on 51%/49% odds when they should only bet on 90%/10% odds or higher. If you are forced to bet on everything, it makes sense that you bet on everything you believe is greater than 50% chance of winning. But since you cannot bet on everything, you should only bet on the highest quality bets, those with greater than 90% chance of winning. To find such a bet, you may have to shuffle through 100 different companies and only make 2-3 bets. You are looking for something that is at least 2 standard deviations away from the mean. People are not good at doing a lot of work, most of which yields nothing, to find one big payoff. They are wired to only look at the present, so they take the best bet they can see at the moment, which is often barely above 50% (and with any misjudgment, it may actually be well below 50%). And people are not good at understanding compound/geometric growth. You can keep multipling 10% gains (1.10 * 1.10 * 1.10 ...), but that can all be wiped out by multiplying by one zero, which is why taking a 51%/49% bet is so dangerous (even though technically it is an advantageous one). They forget to adjust for the geometric aspect of compounding. A 99%/1% bet is one you should take, but if you are allowed to repeat it and you keep going all-in, you will eventually lose and have $0, which is the same as if you took a single all-in bet that has 0% chance of winning. As Buffett says, if you are only allowed to make 20 investments over a lifetime, you will most likely do better because it prevents you from making many of these mistakes.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "29fe0c7d6df327399b6bcc2d68f757c9",
"text": "If you own the stock today, it doesn't matter what it traded for yesterday. If XYZ is trading for $40 and you own it, ask yourself if it's worth buying today for $40. If it isn't, you may want to consider selling it and buying something that is worth $40.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2be1313d57eeb1d2b7ff3bba4aed56de",
"text": "The penny pilot program has a dramatic effect on increasing options liquidity. Bids can be posted at .01 penny increments instead of .05 increments. A lot of money is lost dealing with .05 increments. Issues are added to the penny pilot program based on existing liquidity in both the stock and the options market, but the utility of the penny pilot program outweighs the discretionary liquidity judgement that the CBOE makes to list issues in that program. The reason the CBOE doesn't list all stocks in the penny pilot program is because they believe that their data vendors cannot handle all of the market data. But they have been saying this since 2006 and storage and bandwidth technology has greatly improved since then.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7b817ec03dd15fd9541bdb6b536bf2bd",
"text": "\"not sure if I will help or just spread more gibberish but maybe the first concept I'd look at is risk tolerance. Risk tolerance is discerning your ability to risk losing money to get better results. So you know the saying \"\"the higher the risk the higher the reward\"\"? The way most people are going to operate is somewhere on the midpoint of behavior - not doing the riskiest thing, but not doing the very most cautious thing either. So given that concept, some investments will be more appealing given different economic scenarios. Typically stocks are going to reward your investment a little more aggressively than a treasury bond if the economy is humming along. This drives prices of treasuries lower, stock yields higher. In a crappy economy, people want to move their money into conservative investments like a treasury bond. Bond prices rise while stock prices dip. If you google 'correlations between the market prices of stocks and the market prices of Treasury bonds' you will find plenty of helpful and hopefully not too convoluted articles a la http://finance.zacks.com/correlation-treasuries-stocks-10871.html Don't get freaked out by graphs, the graphs are just a way to put into a picture that correlation.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
a6d759124393b5af720208caeb113e76
|
Did an additional $32 billion necessarily get invested into Amazon.com stock on October 26th, 2017?
|
[
{
"docid": "ba69afe6737ba4bb5dd89ee462e20e5a",
"text": "Stock A last traded at $100. Stock A has 1 million shares outstanding. No seller is willing to sell Stock A for less than $110 a share. One buyer is willing to buy 1 share for $110. The order executes. The buyer pays the seller $110. Stock A's new price is $110. An $110 investment increased the market cap by $10 million. Neat trick (for all who own Stock A).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "010b125cc1d4bd32e988b62c1b1cffdd",
"text": "\"No, a jump in market capitalization does not equal the amount that has been invested. Market cap is simply the stock price times the total number of shares. This represents a theoretical value of the company. I say \"\"theoretical\"\" because the company might not be able to be sold for that at all. The quoted stock price is simply what the last buyer and seller of stock agreed upon for the price of their trade. They really only represent themselves; other investors may decide that the stock is worth more or less than that. The stock price can move on very little volume. In this case, Amazon had released a very good earnings report after the bell yesterday, and the price jumped in after hours trading. The stock price is up, but that simply means that the few shares traded overnight sold for much higher than the closing price yesterday. After the market opens today and many more shares are traded, we'll get a better idea what large numbers of investors feel about the price. But no matter what the price does, the change in market cap does not equal the amount of new money being invested in the company. Market cap is the price of the most recent trades extrapolated out across all the shares.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b1192c57a240d42fb0b50336f1dd4282",
"text": "\"The market capitalization of a stock is the number of shares outstanding (of each stock class), times the price of last trade (of each stock class). In a liquid market (where there are lots of buyers and sellers at all price points), this represents the price that is between what people are bidding for the stock and what people are asking for the stock. If you offer any small amount more than the last price, there will be a seller, and if you ask any small amount less than the last price, there will be a buyer, at least for a small amount of stock. Thus, in a liquid market, everyone who owns the stock doesn't want to sell at least some of their stock for a bit less than the last trade price, and everyone who doesn't have the stock doesn't want to buy some of the stock for a bit more than the last trade price. With those assumptions, and a low-friction trading environment, we can say that the last trade value is a good midpoint of what people think one share is worth. If we then multiply it by the number of shares, we get an approximation of what the company is worth. In no way, shape or form does it not mean that there is 32 billion more invested in the company, or even used to purchase stock. There are situations where a 32 billion market cap swing could mean 32 billion more money was invested in the company: the company issues a pile of new shares, and takes in the resulting money. People are completely neutral about this gathering in of cash in exchange for dilluting shares. So the share price remains unchanged, the company gains 32 billion dollars, and there are now more shares outstanding. Now, in some sense, there is zero dollars currently invested in a stock; when you buy a stock, you no longer have the money, and the money goes to the person who no longer has the stock. The issue here is the use of the continuous tense of \"\"invested in\"\"; the investment was made at some point, but the money doesn't really stay in this continuous state of being. Unless you consider the investment liquid, and the option to take money out being implicit, it being a continuous action doesn't make much sense. Sometimes the money is invested in the company, when the company causes stocks to come into being and sells them. The owners of stocks has invested money in stocks in that they spent that money to buy the stocks, but the total sum of money ever spent on stocks for a given company is not really a useful value. The market capitalization is an approximation, which under the efficient market hypothesis (that markets find the correct price for things nearly instantly) is reasonably accurate, of the value the company has collectively to its shareholders. The efficient market hypothesis isn't accurate, but it is an acceptable rule of thumb. Now, this value -- market capitalization -- is arguably not the total value of a company: other stakeholders include bond holders, labour, management, various contract counter-parties, government and customers. Some companies are structured so that almost all value is captured not by the stock owners, but by contract counter-parties (this is sometimes used for hiding assets or debts). But for most large publically traded companies, it (in theory) shouldn't be far off.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4281c150f771e7826991543427f819bb",
"text": "No. The market cap has no relation to actual money that flowed anywhere, it is simple the number of shares multiplied by the current price, and the current price is what potential buyers are (were) willing to pay for the share. So any news that increases or decreases interest in shares changes potentially the share price, and with that the market cap. No money needs to flow.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "7fb7c13002e733a544e44b933d8248ef",
"text": "Dividends would be a possible factor you are ignoring. If Dell has another quarter or two to pay out dividends that could account for some of the difference there. I don't think there is a confirmed date of when the deal is done yet other than around the end of Dell's second quarter which was in the LA Times link you cited. There is also the potential for the terms of the deal to be revised that is another possibility here. Have you examined other deals where a public company went private to see how the stock performed in the last few months before the deal closed?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9bdf2d69d773d5186d5aabbb80c32c1e",
"text": "Yeah the three companies they put weren't the best examples of market irrationality and there are better ones, but I think they were the biggest targets of a short news piece. TSLA is arguably one of the prime examples. I also listed CMG in my original statement but there are plenty more too that are continually pumped up for no good reason at all. Amazon is actually beginning to make some big leaps and bounds. I used to be a doubter (still don't invest in them or anything) but I do think Amazon has a bright future, barring the possibility of a gov't split up, but with how well the gov't has received Amazon so far, I don't see that as an issue for the near term, even though Amazon is getting to become quite a monopoly is many industries.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bad7eb5169b8e64cef17b745be8f02db",
"text": "So, the market thinks the value of Wholefoods to Amazon is about $19billion. Who cares? It's not about what Amazon gets, its about what Wholefood shareholders can get instead. What's they're alternative to this deal? Who will pay that much? Anyone? Just because it's a good deal for Amazon, doesn't mean it's a bad deal for Whole Food shareholders",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4abb0b19a0c5f907b80017b1f1b1ef0d",
"text": "\"Simply put, yes. I bought that call. I was betting the shares would rise in value by Jan 2018, and chose the $130 strike. With a strike nearly a year away, I paid a premium that was all time value as the shares traded at Now the shares are replaced by $128. The time value has gone to zero, and there is no intrinsic \"\"in the money\"\" value. If the shares were bought at $140, the time value stills drops to zero, but the option is closed at $10 in the money. My answer was for a cash deal. In a case where the old shares are replaced by new shares or a combination of shares and money, the options terms are changed to reflect the combination of new assets for old. Update based on disclosure that it's Monsanto we are discussing. Bayer and Monsanto have announced that they signed a definitive agreement under which Bayer will acquire Monsanto for USD 128 per share in an all-cash transaction. Based on Monsanto’s closing share price on May 9, 2016, the day before Bayer’s first written proposal to Monsanto, the offer represents a premium of 44 percent to that price. You can see that the deal has been in the works for some time now. Further research shows they expect the deal to close by \"\"the end of 2017\"\". It's not a done deal. This is why the options are still trading. Now the shares are replaced by $128. The time value has gone to zero, and there is no intrinsic \"\"in the money\"\" value. If the shares were bought at $140, the time value stills drops to zero, but the option is closed at $10 in the money. My answer was for a cash deal. In a case where the old shares are replaced by new shares or a combination of shares and money, the options terms are changed to reflect the combination of new assets for old. Update based on disclosure that it's Monsanto we are discussing. Bayer and Monsanto have announced that they signed a definitive agreement under which Bayer will acquire Monsanto for USD 128 per share in an all-cash transaction. Based on Monsanto’s closing share price on May 9, 2016, the day before Bayer’s first written proposal to Monsanto, the offer represents a premium of 44 percent to that price. You can see that the deal has been in the works for some time now. Further research shows they expect the deal to close by \"\"the end of 2017\"\". It's not a done deal. This is why the options are still trading.\"",
"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": "1191b085a69103a24611cadecff7bd21",
"text": "\"I did a quick search, they have a $2B/5yr deal with google cloud. Downside is Google is a competitor potentially, especially in the ad market. Upside is SNAP revenue increased from $58M in 2015 to just over $404M in 2016. I think in today's market, everyone wants to hold the next \"\"Amazon\"\" or \"\"Google\"\" stocks at their conception. Sure would be nice if you had a few thousand in Amazon at their IPO. So I think pure speculation is why they were trading above IPO price for so long. It could be the next biggest thing, or it could fail in 5 years we never know these things lol\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4223f8940def8819879518d111c3d238",
"text": "I think the $500mm number was bullshit. A common trick is that a private company will raise $50mm for 10% of the company, and say they're worth $500mm. But then it turns out that the new investors get preferences- like they're guaranteed to be paid back first if the company goes bankrupt, or they're guaranteed to get back the first $100mm of an IPO. Since the company really sold 10% of itself *plus other stuff*, they are worth less than $500mm. Therefore, I find Ellen Pao's claim that Reddit was worth $250mm in 2015 credible. It is also why I'm suspicious about the $1.7b number today.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c2b95717ae491f8621c0ad89783bdcd0",
"text": "Watch for Walmart to buy Blue Apron or the same time of businesssoon. Probably Blue Apron because the yare gonna be prime for buying the next year. I know people are all on the Amazon taking of the world bandwagon but losing sight at what Walmart is doing is dumb because they are far more primed to do so. Just my two cents though. EDIT: Also Amazon stock is insanely over priced and inflated while Walmart is right at the point where you want to jump that bandwagon and ride the wave to being rich.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4f4717c94f68f3964e5d74a248084bb4",
"text": "U.S. stocks traded slightly lower on Friday, weighed down by slumping Amazon.com shares following disappointing earnings while the main indexes were on track to finish the week with modest losses. ... what? DJI is up 250 points over the week, S&P is flat but slightly up. Whose news is this?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "487f70fefde2260535df8ddd74de4414",
"text": "NAV is how much is the stuff of the company worth divided by the number of shares. This total is also called book value. The market cap is share price times number of shares. For Amazon today people are willing to pay 290 a share for a company with a NAV of 22 a share. If of nav and price were equal the P/B (price to book ratio) would be 1, but for Amazon it is 13. Why? Because investors believe Amazon is worth a lot more than a money losing company with a NAV of 22.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e2d980bfbf8118c595eded6b6b4671af",
"text": "Not sure where you got the 296 crores figure. The data on the sheet shows activity by category of investors. In the end NET of all BUY and SELL across all categories will always be Zero. It has no bearing on whether the stock market goes up or goes down. If you compare only activity by certain category, say FII then there could be more SELL compared to BUY or vice-versa.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "86f7fb8aee91031e8893956bc83201aa",
"text": "Are you implying that Amazon is a better investment than GE because Amazon's P/E is 175 while GE's is only 27? Or that GE is a better investment than Apple because Apple's P/E is just 13. There are a lot of other ratios to consider than P/E. I personally view high P/E numbers as a red flag. One way to think of a P/E ratio is the number of years it's expected for the company to earn its market cap. (Share price divided by annual earnings per share) It will take Amazon 175 years to earn $353 billion. If I was going to buy a dry cleaners, I would not pay the owner 175 years of earnings to take control of it, I'd never see my investment back. To your point. There is so much future growth seemingly built in to today's stock market that even when a company posts higher than expected earnings, the company's stock may take a hit because maybe future prospects are a little less bright than everyone thought yesterday. The point of fundamental analysis is that you want to look at a company's management style and financial strategies. How is it paying its debt? How is it accumulating the debt? How is it's return on assets? How is the return on assets trending? This way when you look at a few companies in the same market segment you may have a better shot at picking the winner over time. The company that piles on new debt for every new project is likely to continue that path in to oblivion, regardless of the P/E ratio. (or some other equally less forward thinking management practice that you uncover in your fundamental analysis efforts). And I'll add... No amount of historical good decision making from a company's management can prepare for a total market downturn, or lack of investor confidence in general. The market is the market; sometimes it's up irrationally, sometimes it's down irrationally.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ef35ffb7ebe8a1683a42f55fa42e23bb",
"text": "From Wikipedia: 'Bezos was one of the first shareholders in Google, when he invested $250,000 in 1998. That $250,000 investment resulted in 3.3 million shares of Google stock worth about $3.1 billion today.' His wealth may be tied to amazon but he is a savvy investor. Recently, I was watching an early interview he did with Charlie Rose, and I read more about him - which led to reading the Wikipedia article.",
"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": "5a2597ff9b7701bb15d381e14a0bc724",
"text": "\"What does ETFs have to do with this or Amazon? Actually, investing in ETFs means you are killing actively managed Mutual Funds (managed by people, fund managers) to get an average return (and loss) of the market that a computer manage instead of a person. And the ETF will surely have Amazon stocks because they are part of the index. I only invest in actively managed mutual funds. Yes, most actively managed mutual funds can't do better than the index, but if you work a bit harder, you can find the many that do much better than the \"\"average\"\" that an index give you.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
c5ffab4ab7eb2818af2d9940227e73d0
|
How to maximise savings?
|
[
{
"docid": "351fdf0447a27914d72272e67c26e408",
"text": "First: it sounds like you are already making wise choices with your cash surplus. You've looked for ways to keep that growing ahead of inflation and you have made use of tax shelters. So for the rest of this answer I am going to assume you have between 3-6 months expenses already saved up as a “rainy day fund” and you're ready for more sophisticated approaches to growing your funds. To answer this part: Are there any other ways that I can save/ invest that I am not currently doing? Yes, you could look at, for example: 1. Peer to peer These services let you lend to a 'basket' of borrowers and receive a return on your money that is typically higher than what's offered in cash savings accounts. Examples of peer to peer networks are Zopa, Ratesetter and FundingCircle. This involves taking some risks with your money – Zopa's lending section explains the risks. 2. Structured deposits These are a type of cash deposit product where, in return for locking your money away for a time (typically 5 years), you get the opportunity for higher returns e.g. 5% + / year. Your deposit is usually guaranteed under the FSCS (Financial services compensation scheme), however, the returns are dependent on the performance of a stock market index such as the FTSE 100 being higher in x years from now. Also, structured deposits usually require a minimum £3,000 investment. 3. Index funds You mention watching the stock prices of a few companies. I agree with your conclusion – I wouldn't suggest trying to choose individual stocks at this stage. Price history is a poor predictor of future performance, and markets can be volatile. To decide if a stock is worth buying you need to understand the fundamentals, be able to assess the current stock price and future outlook, and be comfortable accepting a range of different risks (including currency and geographic risk). If you buy shares in a small number of companies, you are concentrating your risk (especially if they have things in common with each other). Index funds, while they do carry risks, let you pool your money with other investors to buy shares in a 'basket' of stocks to replicate the movement of an index such as the FTSE All Share. The basket-of-stocks approach at least gives you some built-in diversification against the risks of individual stocks. I suggest index funds (as opposed to actively managed funds, where you pay a management fee to have your investments chosen by a professional who tries to beat the market) because they are low cost and easier to understand. An example of a very low cost index fund is this FTSE All Share tracker from Aberdeen, on the Hargreaves Lansdown platform: http://www.hl.co.uk/funds/fund-discounts,-prices--and--factsheets/search-results/a/aberdeen-foundation-growth-accumulation General principle on investing in stock market based index funds: You should always invest with a 5+ year time horizon. This is because prices can move up and down for reasons beyond your anticipation or control (volatility). Time can smooth out volatility; generally, the longer the time period, the greater your likelihood of achieving a positive return. I hope this answer so far helps takes into account the excess funds. So… to answer the second part of your question: Or would it be best to start using any excess funds […] to pay off my student loan quicker? Your student loan is currently costing you 0.9% interest per annum. At this rate it's lower than the last 10 years average inflation. One argument: if you repay your student loan this is effectively a 0.9% guaranteed return on every pound repaid – This is the equivalent of 1.125% on a cash savings account if you're paying basic rate tax on the interest. An opposing argument: 0.9% is lower than the last 10 years' average inflation in the UK. There are so many advantages to making a start with growing your money for the long term, due to the effects of compound returns, that you might choose to defer your loan repayments for a while and focus on building up some investments that stand a chance to beat inflation in the long term.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "0a5855b5ced372bdbf8af7f1267c5ced",
"text": "I think your best strategy is to learn more about the behavior of what you're investing in. Learn everything you can about it. Specialize in it. The more you study, the more the proper strategy will present itself. Answer the questions you ask in paragraph 3 through your own study.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eecd86f6b715a52cd18cb0f621378177",
"text": "It's really not possible to know what your best investment strategy is without knowing more about you, which isn't the place of a site like this. However I'll make some general comments about insurance policies as savings. Insurance policies are extremely inflexible. They lay down specific payments, and specific returns that you will get back. However typically if you don't follow the shcedule of payments laid down, you will lose almost all the benefit of the investment. Since you say you are a beginner, I'll assume you are young too. Maybe in a few years you will want to buy a house, or a nice car, or get married, or put money into some other investment opportunity. If you are committed to making insurance policy payments you will have less available for the other things you want to do. Related to this is the 'estimated returns'. You say the 'nonguaranteed bonus is around 3.75%-5.25%'. But because an insurance policy locks you in, if it turns out that it's the low end of that - or worse - you can't get out, even if other investments are outperforming it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2fc79b65310eb6cba590a08089bf4016",
"text": "Try the Envelope Budgeting System. It is a pretty good system for managing your discretionary outflows. Also, be sure to pay yourself first. That means treat savings like an expense (mortgage, utilities, etc.) not an account you put money in when you have some left over. The problem is you NEVER seem to have anything leftover because most people's lifestyle adjusts to fit their income. The best way to do this is have the money automatically drafted each month without any action required on your part. An employer sponsored 401K is a great way to do this.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "30feb5a4ba881b67248e3400ceb0ad70",
"text": "\"What a lovely position to find yourself in! There's a lot of doors open to you now that may not have opened naturally for another decade. If I were in your shoes (benefiting from the hindsight of being 35 now) at 21 I'd look to do the following two things before doing anything else: 1- Put 6 months worth of living expenses in to a savings account - a rainy day fund. 2- If you have a pension, I'd be contributing enough of my salary to get the company match. Then I'd top up that figure to 15% of gross salary into Stocks & Shares ISAs - with a view to them also being retirement funds. Now for what to do with the rest... Some thoughts first... House: - If you don't want to live in it just yet, I'd think twice about buying. You wouldn't want a house to limit your career mobility. Or prove to not fit your lifestyle within 2 years, costing you money to move on. Travel: - Spending it all on travel would be excessive. Impromptu travel tends to be more interesting on a lower budget. That is, meeting people backpacking and riding trains and buses. Putting a resonable amount in an account to act as a natural budget for this might be wise. Wealth Managers: \"\"approx. 12% gain over 6 years so far\"\" equates to about 1.9% annual return. Not even beat inflation over that period - so guessing they had it in ultra-safe \"\"cash\"\" (a guaranteed way to lose money over the long term). Give them the money to 'look after' again? I'd sooner do it myself with a selection of low-cost vehicles and equal or beat their return with far lower costs. DECISIONS: A) If you decided not to use the money for big purchases for at least 4-5 years, then you could look to invest it in equities. As you mentioned, a broad basket of high-yielding shares would allow you to get an income and give opportunity for capital growth. -- The yield income could be used for your travel costs. -- Over a few years, you could fill your ISA allowance and realise any capital gains to stay under the annual exemption. Over 4 years or so, it'd all be tax-free. B) If you do want to get a property sooner, then the best bet would to seek out the best interest rates. Current accounts, fixed rate accounts, etc are offering the best interest rates at the moment. Usual places like MoneySavingExpert and SavingsChampion would help you identify them. -- There's nothing wrong with sitting on this money for a couple of years whilst you fid your way with it. It mightn't earn much but you'd likely keep pace with inflation. And you definitely wouldn't lose it or risk it unnecessarily. C) If you wanted to diversify your investment, you could look to buy-to-let (as the other post suggested). This would require a 25% deposit and likely would cost 10% of rental income to have it managed for you. There's room for the property to rise in value and the rent should cover a mortgage. But it may come with the headache of poor tenants or periods of emptiness - so it's not the buy-and-forget that many people assume. With some effort though, it may provide the best route to making the most of the money. D) Some mixture of all of the above at different stages... Your money, your choices. And a valid choice would be to sit on the cash until you learn more about your options and feel the direction your heart is pointing you. Hope that helps. I'm happy to elaborate if you wish. Chris.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d21867c972360814f32cb09707c59ad6",
"text": "Yes, you will come out ahead slightly by putting the money in the savings account, then paying off your mortgage later. However, we don't know what will happen to these interest rates after 1 year. If you put the £300 per month into the savings account for a year, then put the money into you mortgage, you will save about £78 for the year over just putting the money toward your mortgage in the first place. For me, I'm more concerned about longer term strategy. What happens to your mortgage rate after 2 years? What happens to your savings account rate after 1 year? The mortgage rate likely goes up and the savings account rate likely goes down, making the savings of this strategy even less after the first year. Instead, you may want to put this £300 per month toward retirement investments (assuming you have no other debt), which should, over the long term, earn more than the savings account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7ba5c8e77be27b5bbb0c9e0ac99adff3",
"text": "\"@MrChrister - Savings is a great idea. Coudl also give them 1/2 the difference, rather than the whole difference, as then you both get to benefit... Also, a friend of mine had the Bank of Dad, where he'd keep his savings, and Dad would pay him 100% interest every year. Clearly, this would be unsustainable after a while, but something like 10% per month would be a great way to teach the value of compounding returns over a shorter time period. I also think that it's critical how you respond to things like \"\"I want that computer/car/horse/bike/toy\"\". Just helping them to make a plan on how to get there, considering their income (and ways to increase it), savings, spending and so on. Help them see that it's possible, and you'll teach them a worthwhile lesson.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0bde434c915299ee959f96420043a2b2",
"text": "The first thing you need to do is to set yourself a budget. Total all your money coming in (from jobs, allowances, etc.) and all your money going out (including rent, utilities, loan repayments, food, other essential and the luxuries). If your money coming in is more than your money going out, then you are onto a positive start. If on the other hand your money going out is more than the money coming in, then you are at the beginning of big trouble. You will have to do at least one of 2 things, either increase your income or reduce your expenses or both. You will have to go through all your expenses (money going out) and cut back on the luxuries, try to get cheaper alternatives for some of your essential, and get a second job or increase your hours at your current job. The aim is to always have more money coming in than the money you spend. The second thing to do is to pay off any outstanding debts by paying more than the minimum amounts and then have some savings goals. You said you wanted to save for a car - that is one saving goal. Another saving goal could be to set up a 6 month emergency fund (enough money in a separate account to be able to survive at least 6 months in case something happened, such as you lost your job or you suddenly got sick). Next you could look at getting a higher education so you can go out and get higher paying jobs. When you do get a higher paying job, the secret is not to spend all your extra money coming in on luxuries, you should treat yourself but do not go overboard. Increase the amounts you save and learn how to invest so you can get your savings to work harder for you. Building a sound financial future for yourself takes a lot of hard work and discipline, but once you do get started and change the way you do things you will find that it doesn't take long for things to start getting easier. The one thing you do have going for you is time; you are starting early and have time on your side.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5b5a9693833bb4297095593573f88ccf",
"text": "Budget. Figure out how much money you need to keep for your own spending purposes, then figure out from that how much you can afford to move to longer term savings for youeself and/or the kid. Try it for a while, see if it works, adjust how much you can afford to save, repeat. (Actually, you want to further reduce the savings a bit until the emergency fund comes up to a level you feel comfortable at, then increase them to acceptable targets.) It's OK if you miss or reduce some deposits to the savings plans while you get the emergency fund up to a level you're comfortable at. If you don't feel you're saving enough after making these adjustments, you need to economize somewhere so you have more money to save, or make more money, or recalibrate your expectations. You can't get a gallon out of a quart container.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8d07f217bf11d292c3d979d2b5a04220",
"text": "\"People should borrow and spend less, and save more. Is this truly correct? Isn't the fundamental problem high supply and no demand? Shouldn't it be \"\"borrow less but spend more\"\" - which of course would mean getting higher wages. Am I wrong? Please to be educating.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "721e2da6d1dd2e44f93811e7378c9a42",
"text": "Basically the first thing you should do before you invest your money is to learn about investing and learn about what you want to invest in. Another thing to think about is that usually low risk can also mean low returns. As you are quite young and have some savings put aside you should generally aim for higher risk higher return investments and then when you start to reach retirement age aim for less risky lower return investments. In saying that, just because an investment is considered high risk does not mean you have to be exposed to the full risk of that investment. You do this by managing your risk to an acceptable level which will allow you to sleep at night. To do this you need to learn about what you are investing in. As an example about managing your risk in an investment, say you want to invest $50,000 in shares. If you put the full $50,000 into one share and that share price drops dramatically you will lose a large portion of your money straight away. If instead you spent a maximum of $10,000 on 5 different shares, even if one of them falls dramatically, you still have another 4 which may be doing a lot better thus minimising your losses. To take it one step further you might say if anyone of the shares you bought falls by 20% then you will sell those shares and limit your losses to $2000 per share. If the worst case scenario occurred and all 5 of your shares fell during a stock market crash you would limit your total losses to $10,000 instead of $50,000. Most successful investors put just as much if not more emphasis on managing the risk on their investments and limiting their losses as they do in selecting the investments. As I am not in the US, I cannot really comment whether it is the right time to buy property over there, especially as the market conditions would be different in different states and in different areas of each state. However, a good indication of when to buy properties is when prices have dropped and are starting to stabilise. As you are renting at the moment one option you might want to look at is buying a place to live in so you don't need to rent any more. You can compare your current rent payment with the mortgage payment if you were to buy a house to live in. If your mortgage payments are lower than your rent payments then this could be a good option. But whatever you do make sure you learn about it first. Make sure you spend the time looking at for sale properties for a few months in the area you want to buy before you do buy. This will give you an indication of how much properties in that area are really worth and if prices are stable, still falling or starting to go up. Good luck, and remember, research, research and more research. Even if you are to take someone elses advice and recommendations, you should learn enough yourself to be able to tell if their advice and recommendations make sense and are right for your current situation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2aee2f45e6e92de4cf4cfe1c7c1d28f3",
"text": "\"There are many tactics you can use. If your biggest problem is regretting your larger purchases, I'd suggest giving yourself rules before making any purchases over a certain minimum dollar amount that you set for yourself. For example, if that amount is $50 for an item, then any item starting at an average price of $51 would be subject to these rules. One of your long-term goals ought to be to become the kind of person who finds joy in saving money rather than spending it. Make friends with frugal people - look for those who prefer games nights and potlucks to nights out at the club buying expensive drinks and dinners at the newest steak joint in town. Learn the thrill of a deal, but even more learn the thrill of your savings growing. You don't want to enjoy money in the bank for the purposes of becoming a miser. Instead you want to realize that money in the bank helps you achieve your goals — buying the house you want, donating a significant amount of money to a cause you ardently support, allowing you to take a dream vacation, letting you buy with cash the car you always wanted, the possibilities are endless. As Dave Ramsey says, \"\"Live like no one else, so you can live like no one else.\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d7f3055a6ea408d66f24c5675bb13b15",
"text": "\"BLUF: Your question is subjective and as such, the answer varies from person to person. The rent you \"\"should be\"\" paying is the tricky part. Minimum is whatever is the least you can find. Maximum is the most you can afford. To be financially responsible, you would live as close to that minimum as you can bear. However, this can cause stress if you are trying to subsist on lower than you can actually bear. You have certain expenses that are required to survive. Housing, clothing, food. These are your needs. Everything else is convenience or luxury. Best way to develop a budget is to list the categories of everything you have spent over several months. Figure out a monthly amount for each one. Divide them up into groups of things you need, things that make life bearable, and things you can do without. Then start with your income and figure out how much you bring home each pay period. When you get paid, allocate the money to your needs until they're all covered. If there's anything left, fund the second group, then on to the third. Continue tracking your spending and adjust where you allocate the money. After 2-3 months, you'll start having a decent idea on how much you actually spend on each category. You'll probably find areas where you're spending a lot more than you realize. The method I've just described is the one advised by \"\"You Need a Budget\"\" software, but you don't need the software to use the method. Though it does help. Also, if there's any debt, that goes in with the 'needs' because we all need to pay our bills.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ca37bdb301183b7b8d71e98500c3119e",
"text": "You're asking for opinions here, which is kindof against the rules, but I'll give it a try. 1) Does emergency funds and saving money(eg.Money plan to buy a house) should be in same Saving Account? 2) or should each specific saving plan set up in particular Saving Account? No, it doesn't. It's a matter of convenience. I personally find it more convinient to have different stashes for different purposes, but it means extra overhead of keeping an eye on one more account. Fortunately, with on-line access, mint.com and spreadsheets, it's not that big of an overhead. 3) If saved in same Saving Account, how could I manage easily which percentage is planned for which? Excel spreadsheet comes to mind. Banks may have some tools too, for example Wells Fargo (where I'll be closing my account soon), has a nice on-line goals manager that allows you to keep track of your savings per assigned goals (they allow one goal per savings account, but you can have multiple accounts for multiple goals, and it will show the goals and progress pretty nicely). 4) If not saved in same Saving Account, the interest earned would be smaller because they all clutter across multiple Saving Accounts? In some banks interest rates are tiered. But in most on-line savings accounts they're not, and you get the same high rate from the first $1 deposited. So if in the bank where you keep the money they only pay a decent rate if you deposit some big lump of money - just open an account elsewhere. Places to check: American Express FSB, ING Direct, E*Trade savings, Capital One, Ally, and many more.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0a9e5e503ff2d51c31561721478e15c2",
"text": "You can't max out your retirement savings. There are vehicles that aren't tax-advantaged that you can fund after you've exhausted the tax-advantaged ones. Consider how much you want to put into these vehicles. There are disadvantages as well as advantages. The rules on these can change at any time and can make it harder for you to get your money out. How's your liquid (cash) emergency fund? It sounds like you're in a position to amass a good one. Don't miss this opportunity. Save like crazy while you can. Kids make this harder. Paying down your mortgage will save you interest, of course, but make sure you're not cash-poor as a result. If something happens to your income(s), the bank will still foreclose on you even if you only owe $15,000. A cash cushion buys you time.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "97ae846da79dfb8cf406399d59a40041",
"text": "For questions 1 and 2. 1) If you are packing the loans into a CDO, they are being sold on the open market. Once it achieves a AAA rating, as most did even though they were mostly subprime, alt a, or arm, it is sold and shipped off the originator's books (While the originator of the CDO collects X% in fees) Basically how the originator makes their money is by X amount of CDOs they sell. There was no incentive to pick and choose the best borrowers to sell a loan to because how the CDOs were sold they achieved the best rating regardless of the borrowers credit risk. Due to this model, people are going to try and get as many people into the homes and sell the CDO asap. This caused questionable lending practices to result, NINJA (no income, no job, no assets) loans, manipulating borrowers income, assets, etc. Things that could be changed to help not have this occur again: a) Feds monetary policy was pretty meh during this period, due to low interest rates the banks had pretty much an endless supply of money and when all the reasonable ventures dried up they had to explore other opportunities to lend. b) Ratings agencies need an overhaul in how they receive their commission, preferably they should be being paid by the investor not the person issuing the security. This will help to eliminate the bias that results. c) Having X% (2-5) remain on the institutions books who created the CDO will help to make them responsibly lend. This is because if they are required to have it remain on their books, they will make better longer term decisions in who to lend to. I'm pretty sure all of these issues are discussed in Nouriel Roubini's book [Crisis Economics](http://www.amazon.com/Crisis-Economics-Course-Future-Finance/dp/1594202508) Another Great book already mentioned in this thread is by Michael Lewis [The Big Short](http://www.amazon.com/Big-Short-Inside-Doomsday-Machine/dp/0393338827/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1324140607&sr=1-1) If your interested in the European Crisis Michael Lewis also just came out with [Boomerang](http://www.amazon.com/Boomerang-Travels-New-Third-World/dp/0393081818/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1324140665&sr=1-1)",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
cbb89f87a5283898c450e991a0ee64b5
|
How trading in currency pair works, underlying techniques and mechanisms
|
[
{
"docid": "5c00f8c665e4ec0b23f34c604d02a242",
"text": "\"Without going into minor details, an FX transaction works essentially like this. Let's assume you have SEK 100 on your account. If you buy 100 USD/RUB at 1.00, then that transaction creates a positive cash balance on your account of USD 100 and a negative cash balance (an overdraft) of RUB 100. So right after the transaction (assuming there is not transaction cost), the \"\"net equity\"\" of your account is: 100 SEK + 100 USD - 100 RUB = 100 + 100 - 100 = 100 SEK. Let's say that, the day after, the RUB has gone down by 10% and the RUB 100 is now worth SEK 90 only. Your new equity is: 100 SEK + 100 USD - 100 RUB = 100 + 100 - 90 = 110 SEK and you've made 10%(*): congrats! Had you instead bought 100 SEK/RUB, the result would have been the same (assuming the USD/SEK rate constant). In practice the USD/SEK rate would probably not be constant and you would need to also account for: (*) in your example, the USD/RUB has gone up 10% but the RUB has gone down 9.09%, hence the result you find. In my example, the RUB has gone down 10% (i.e. the USD has gone up 11%).\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "bac039338b7d35deb88310614fc1cdde",
"text": "Swaps form backstop to a shit load of int'l trade. Liquidity of currency is a huge factor in being a govt reserve currency, which USD currently has the VAST majority of holdings. This agreement is a shove against USE dominance in trade settlements, which is negative. Also challenges us general capital markets dominance a bit",
"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": "aeaed7656b849572a06fdfc76899b390",
"text": "\"Arbitrage is basically taking advantage of a difference in price. Generally extending to \"\"in different places for the same thing\"\". A monetary version would be interlisted stocks, that is stocks in companies that are on both the NYSE/Nasdaq and Toronto stock exchanges. If somebody comes along and buys a large number of shares in Toronto, that will tend to make the price go up - standard supply and demand. But if someone else can buy shares instead in NY, and then sell them in Toronto where the first person is buying up shares, where the price is higher, they the the arbitrageur (second person) can make pretty easy money. By its very nature, this tends to bring the prices back in line, as NY will then go up and Toronto will then go down (ignoring FX rates and the like for ease of explanation). The same can work for physical goods, although it does tend to get more complex with taxes, duties, and the like.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "43dc85864d4e91c60c56b2e9969d2747",
"text": "You have stumbled upon a classic trading strategy known as the carry trade. Theoretically you'd expect the exchange rate to move against you enough to make this a bad investment. In reality this doesn't happen (on average). There are even ETFs that automate the process for you (and get better transaction costs and lending/borrowing rates than you ever could): DBV and ICI.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "128d222913be065a4e270541bff04ba4",
"text": "Depends on the countries and their rules about moving money across the border, but in this case that appears entirely reasonable. Of course it would be a gamble unless you can predict the future values of currency better than most folks; there is no guarantee that the exchange rate will move in any particular direction. I have no idea whether any tax is due on profit from currency arbitrage.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "b89990eeba193697f81dbf2659aaadf4",
"text": "\"First it is worth noting the two sided nature of the contracts (long one currency/short a second) make leverage in currencies over a diverse set of clients generally less of a problem. In equities, since most margin investors are long \"\"equities\"\" making it more likely that large margin calls will all be made at the same time. Also, it's worth noting that high-frequency traders often highly levered make up a large portion of all volume in all liquid markets ~70% in equity markets for instance. Would you call that grossly artificial? What is that volume number really telling us anyway in that case? The major players holding long-term positions in the FX markets are large banks (non-investment arm), central banks and corporations and unlike equity markets which can nearly slow to a trickle currency markets need to keep trading just for many of those corporations/banks to do business. This kind of depth allows these brokers to even consider offering 400-to-1 leverage. I'm not suggesting that it is a good idea for these brokers, but the liquidity in currency markets is much deeper than their costumers.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "5d0b360de7d5745d006ae345e6072492",
"text": "The value of the asset doesn't change just because of the exchange rate change. If a thing (valued in USD) costs USD $1 and USD $1 = CAN $1 (so the thing is also valued CAN $1) today and tomorrow CAN $1 worth USD $0.5 - the thing will continue being worth USD $1. If the thing is valued in CAN $, after the exchange rate change, the thing will be worth USD $2, but will still be valued CAN $1. What you're talking about is price quotes, not value. Price quotes will very quickly reach the value, since any deviation will be used by the traders to make profits on arbitrage. And algo-traders will make it happen much quicker than you can even notice the arbitrage existence.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9f133cca76377676a8232941e01f0ef7",
"text": "This would effectively be currency speculation, betting that the Pound will be stronger vs. the Euro in November (or whenever) than it is today. This would be a profitable transaction if the exchange fees are less than the swing between the two. In my (very limited) experience, exchange fees are going to be at least a few percent, and she's going to have to do the exchange twice if she wants to turn current Euros into Pounds and back into Euros later; that's at least a 6% hit. I'd recommend against this. While it's quite plausible for the two currencies to move more than 6% against each other in that time, it's also quite possible for them to move the other way, causing her a large loss. The unfortunate thing about large, heavily traded things like GBP/EUR is that you're very unlikely to have some information that the big traders don't. While lots of people think that the pound is going to become stronger, just as many people think that the Euro is going to be stronger. These two camps are constantly bidding against each other, resulting in the 1.15 Pounds/Euro exchange rate as of this writing. The current price and current direction that the line is moving in no way tells you what it's going to do next.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a27a2131386bb326d295d3241415a143",
"text": "If I knew a surefire way to make money in FOREX (or any market for that matter) I would not be sharing it with you. If you find an indicator that makes sense to you and you think you can make money, use it. For what it's worth, I think technical analysis is nonsense. If you're just now wading in to the FOREX markets because of the Brexit vote I suggest you set up a play-money account first. The contracts and trades can be complicated, losses can be very large and you can lose big -- quickly. I suspect FOREX brokers have been laughing to the bank the last couple weeks with all the guppies jumping in to play with the sharks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "cef4fa3efefe86f85f703ff4e020704f",
"text": "\"If there is a very sudden and large collapse in the exchange rate then because algorithmic trades will operate very fast it is possible to determine “x” immediately after the change in exchange rate. All you need to know is the order book. You also need to assume that the algorithmic bot operates faster than all other market participants so that the order book doesn’t change except for those trades executed by the bot. The temporarily cheaper price in the weakened currency market will rise and the temporarily dearer price in the strengthened currency market will fall until the prices are related by the new exchange rate. This price is determined by the condition that the total volume of buys in the cheaper market is equal to the total volume of sells in the dearer market. Suppose initially gold is worth $1200 on NYSE or £720 on LSE. Then suppose the exchange rate falls from r=0.6 £/$ to s=0.4 £/$. To illustrate the answer lets assume that before the currency collapse the order book for gold on the LSE and NYSE looks like: GOLD-NYSE Sell (100 @ $1310) Sell (100 @ $1300) <——— Sell (100 @ $1280) Sell (200 @ $1260) Sell (300 @ $1220) Sell (100 @ $1200) ————————— buy (100 @ $1190) buy (100 @ $1180) GOLD-LSE Sell (100 @ £750) Sell (100 @ £740) ————————— buy (200 @ £720) buy (200 @ £700) buy (100 @ £600) buy (100 @ £550) buy (100 @ £530) buy (100 @ £520) <——— buy (100 @ £500) From this hypothetical example, the automatic traders will buy up the NYSE gold and sell the LSE gold in equal volume until the price ratio \"\"s\"\" is attained. By summing up the sell volumes on the NYSE and the buy volumes on the LSE, we see that the conditions are met when the price is $1300 and £520. Note 800 units were bought and sold. So “x” depends on the available orders in the order book. Immediately after this, however, the price of the asset will be subject to the new changes of preference by the market participants. However, the price calculated above must be the initial price, since otherwise an arbitrage opportunity would exist.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a0fd3892b5b4a6ff7c51355d21f1b976",
"text": "For the US government, they've just credited Person B with a Million USD and haven't gained anything (afterall, those digits are intangible and don't really have a value, IMO). Two flaws in this reasoning: The US government didn't do anything. The receiving bank credited the recipient. If the digits are intangible, such that they haven't gained anything, they haven't lost anything either. In practice, the role of governments in the transfer is purely supervisory. The sending bank debits the sender's account and the receiving bank credits the recipient's account. Every intermediary makes some money on this transaction because the cost to the sender exceeds the credit to the recipient. The sending bank typically receives a credit to their account at a correspondent bank. The receiving bank typically receives a debit from their account at a correspondent bank. If a bank sends lots of money, eventually its account at its correspondent will run dry. If a bank receives lots of money, eventually its account at its correspondent will have too much money. This is resolved with domestic payments, sometimes handled by governmental or quasi-governmental agencies. In the US, banks have an account with the federal reserve and adjust balances there. The international component is handled by the correspondent bank(s). They also internally will credit and debit. If they get an imbalance between two currencies they can't easily correct, they will have to sell one currency to buy the other. Fortunately, worldwide currency exchange is extremely efficient.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a990852a5fbc94b6c23aa4c32112c7c2",
"text": "There are two obvious cases in which your return is lower with a heavily leveraged investment. If a $100,000 investment of your own cash yields $1000 that's a 1% return. If you put in $50,000 of your own money and borrow $50,000 at 2%, you get a 0% return (After factoring in the interest as above.) If you buy an investment for $100,000 and it loses $1000, that's a -1% return. If you borrow $100,000 and buy two investments, and they both lose $1000, that's a -2% return.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
72e9a63e9cd8ddd9c82d04d543a78ef8
|
What capital gains taxes do I owe on stock sales in India?
|
[
{
"docid": "0bfbb3a0f9d2ac58c9bb99f9390209f7",
"text": "\"Long term: Assuming you sold stock ABC through a registered stock exchange, e.g., the Bombay Stock Exchange or the National Stock Exchange of India, and you paid the Securities Transaction Tax (STT), you don't owe any other taxes on the long term capital gain of INR 100. If you buy stock BCD afterwards, this doesn't affect the long term capital gains from the sale of stock ABC. Short term: If you sell the BCD stock (or the ABC stock, or some combination therein) within one year of its purchase, you're required to pay short term capital gains on the net profit, in which case you pay the STT and the exchange fees and an additional flat rate of 15%. The Income Tax Department of India has a publication titled \"\"How to Compute your Capital Gains,\"\" which goes into more detail about a variety of relevant situations.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "34e87e91ff8b78526824f05425be21de",
"text": "You would not owe any taxes in the 2015 year, unless you got exercised and called away in 2015. The premium would be short term capital gains barring some other exception I'm not aware of, and if you retain a gain on the underlying shares then that would still be long term capital gains. If it gets called in say April 2016, is the premium+profit+dividends all long term capital gains for the year 2016? The profits are long term capital gains and the premium serves to lower your cost basis, dividends have their own conditions so you'll have to do separate research on that, fortunately they'll likely be negligible compared to the potential capital gains and options premium.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ac92b9bf00a4d1b18d5a4e79b41b059e",
"text": "Typically, the discount is taxable at sale time But what about taxes? When the company buys the shares for you, you do not owe any taxes. You are exercising your rights under the ESPP. You have bought some stock. So far so good. When you sell the stock, the discount that you received when you bought the stock is generally considered additional compensation to you, so you have to pay taxes on it as regular income. Source: Turbotax. Second source. Your pretax rate of return would be: 17% (100/85) In your scenario where the stock price is fixed at $100. Your tax rate would be your marginal rate. If the stock stayed at 100, you would still be taxed as income on $15/share (the discount) and would receive no benefit for holding the stock one year. Assuming you are in the 25% tax bracket, your after tax rate of return would be 13% ((15*.75)+85)/85)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b7976020809b0020375b57fb5be4dbcb",
"text": "Is the remaining amount tax free? As in, if the amount shown (which I can sell) on etrade is $5000 then if I sell the entire shares will my bank account be increased by $5000? The stocks they sell are withholding. So let's say you had $7000 of stock and they sold $2000 for taxes. That leaves you with $5000. But the actual taxes paid might be more or less than $2000. They go in the same bucket as the rest of your withholding. If too much is withheld, you get a refund. Too little and you owe them. Way too little and you have to pay penalties. At the end of the year, you will show $7000 as income and $2000 as withheld for taxes from that transaction. You may also have a capital gain if the stock increases in price. They do not generally withhold on stock sales, as they don't necessarily know what was your gain and what was your loss. You usually have to handle that yourself. The main point that I wanted to make is that the sale is not tax free. It's just that you already had tax withheld. It may or may not be enough.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5f9f12283747233c77cd51b2d3cbe33c",
"text": "France taxes capital / dividend gains accrued in France. Hence you will not be able to reduce this liability. India does have a Double Tax Avoidance Treaty with France and you can claim relief for the tax paid in France.",
"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": "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": "ee913e8ea8db7a5465c14f52c1d98bf1",
"text": "The tax cost at election should be zero. The appreciation is all capital gain beyond your basis, which will be the value at election. IRC §83 applies to property received as compensation for services, where the property is still subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture. It will catch unvested equity given to employees. §83(a) stops taxation until the substantial risk of forfeiture abates (i.e. no tax until stock vests) since the item is revocable and not yet truly income. §83(b) allows the taxpayer to make a quick election (up to 30 days after transfer - firm deadline!) to waive the substantial risk of forfeiture (e.g. treat shares as vested today). The normal operation of §83 takes over after election and the taxable income is generally the value of the vested property minus the price paid for it. If you paid fair market value today, then the difference is zero and your income from the shares is zero. The shares are now yours for tax purposes, though not for legal purposes. That means they are most likely a capital asset in your hands, like other stocks you own or trade. The shares will not be treated as compensation income on vesting, and vesting is not a tax matter for elected shares. If you sell them, you get capital gain (with tax dependent on your holding period) over a basis equal to FMV at the election. The appreciation past election-FMV will be capital gain, rather than ordinary income. This is why the §83(b) election is so valuable. It does not matter at this point whether you bought the restricted shares at FMV or at discount (or received them free) - that only affects the taxes upon §83(b) election.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3e4e0889cafa3e615afc8b6cef174d5a",
"text": "We have a house here in India worth Rs. 2 Crores. We want to sell it and take money with us. Selling the house in India will attract Capital Gains Tax. Essentially the price at which you sell the property less of the property was purchased [or deemed value when inherited by you]. The difference is Capital Gains. You have to pay tax on this gains. This is currently at 10% without Indexation and 20% with Indexation. Please note if you hold these funds for more than an year, you would additionally be liable for Wealth tax at 1% above Rs 50 lacs. Can I gift this whole amount to my US Citizen Daughter or what is the maximum limit of Gift amount What will be the tax liability on me and on my Daughter in case of Gift Whether I have to show it in my Income Tax Return or in my Daughter's Tax Return. What US Income Tax Laws says. What will be the procedure to send money as Gift to my Daughter. Assuming you are still Indian citizen when to gift the funds; From Indian tax point of you there is no tax to you. As you daughter is US citizen, there is no gift tax to her. There is no limit in India or US. So you can effectively gift the entire amount without any taxes. If you transfer this after you become a US Resident [for tax purposes], then there is a limit of USD 14,000/- per year per recipient. Effective you can gift your daughter and son-in-law 14,000/- ea and your husband can do the same. Net 14,000 * 4 USD per year. Beyond this you either pay tax or declare this and deduct it from life time estate quota. Again there is no tax for your daughter. What are the routes to take money from India to US Will the money will go directly from my Bank Act.to my Daughter's Bank Account. Will there will be wire transfer from bank to bank Can I send money through other money sender Certified Companies also. The best way is via Bank to Bank transfer. A CA Certificate is required to certify that taxes have been paid on this funds being transferred. Under the liberalized remittance scheme in India, there is a limit of USD 1 Million per year for moving funds outside of India. So you can move around Rs 6-7 Crore a year.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "bd32fe9ac63a48f7adcb39dea2923ad9",
"text": "I am an Israeli based citizen who represents and Indian company who sells its products in Israel. As an agent I am entitled to commission on sales on behalf the Indian company who advised that. Any commission paid to you will be applicable to TDS at 20.9% of the commission amount, the tax will be paid and a Tax paid certificate will be given to you. According to a Bilateral Double tax avoidance treaty if the tax has been deducted in India you will get credit for this tax in Israel.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "18d8988a421db7d06a74d7eb76b12ac8",
"text": "From India Tax point of view: Some one else may give the US tax treatment. Refer to this similar question what taxes I need to pay in India Capital Gains. My accountant never asked or reported the bought property in taxes- should he reported in taxes?Did he do wrong not reporting should I report the property in my next year taxes? If you mean in IT Returns, yes it should be declared. Can i bring the money back if needed? By Back if you mean repatriate to US, The capital portion would be Ease if the loan property was purchased or loan repaid from NRE. Else there is limit on the amount and paperwork. Consult a CA. If I rent the property instead of selling, do I have to report the income and what income? should I be filling taxes on the rental income in India or just in USA or both You are taxable for the rent and have to report it as income and pay taxes in India.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c6748f8cb4a00cd6c66001641b1ec61a",
"text": "Looks like there are no specific rule in India to prevent Wash sales. See the link below. http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/wealth/personal-finance-news/investors-can-rejig-portfolio-book-short-term-loss-to-save-tax/articleshow/7812788.cms?intenttarget=no",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "70772d40b7d6a28b23290a08fa72a915",
"text": "This is taxable in India. You need to declare the income and pay taxes accordingly",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b0b2c3803926031441d17b0be5547416",
"text": "\"You owe no tax on the option transaction in 2015 in this case. How you ultimately get taxed depends on how you dispose of the position. If it expires, then you will have a short-term capital gain on the option position at expiration. If it is exercised, then the option is \"\"gone\"\" for tax purposes and your basis in the underlying is adjusted. From IRS Publication 550: If a call you write is exercised and you sell the underlying stock, increase your amount realized on the sale of the stock by the amount you received for the call when figuring your gain or loss. The gain or loss is long term or short term depending on your holding period of the stock. In your case, this will be a long-term capital gain. For completeness, if you buy to cover the option back from the market before expiration or exercise, then it is also a short-term capital gain. Also, keep in mind that this all assumes that this covered call is \"\"qualified\"\" so that it does not count as a straddle. You can find more about that in Pub 550. https://www.irs.gov/publications/p550/ch04.html#en_US_2014_publink100010630 All of this is for US tax purposes.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.