query_id
stringlengths 32
32
| query
stringlengths 6
5.38k
| positive_passages
listlengths 1
22
| negative_passages
listlengths 9
100
| subset
stringclasses 7
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|
ffc60d9924a066706e693cb7d155927a
|
What is a bond fund?
|
[
{
"docid": "0fb0c4177cc716f854530a6410375def",
"text": "\"As Michael Pryor answered, a bond fund is a mutual fund that invests in bonds. I'd also consider an ETF based on bonds to be a bond fund, but I'm not sure that all investors would consider these as \"\"bond funds\"\". Not all bond funds are the same -- just like stock funds. You can classify bond funds based on the issuer of the bonds: You can also classify funds based on the time to maturity: In general, bond funds have lower risk and lower expected return than stock funds. Sometimes bond funds have price movements that are not tightly correlated to the price movements in the equity markets. This can make them a decent hedge against declines in your equity investments. See Michal Pryor's answer for some info on how you can get tax free treatment for your bond fund investments.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2d664e07aaf29064a1f9ccdfd68672f5",
"text": "\"I used the term \"\"bond fund\"\" to mean a mutual fund which invests in bonds. Vanguard has a list. If you live in PA, OH, MA, FL, CA, NJ, or NY there are tax free funds you can invest in on that list.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c976a1f9cf1a5014ba73a9b00bd8da2b",
"text": "A mutual fund that purchases bonds is a bond fund. Bond funds are considered to be less risk than a traditional stock mutual fund. The cost of this less risk is that they have earned (on average) less than mutual funds investing in stocks. Sometimes, bonds have different tax consequences than stocks.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "a594531713f25db64f1f7048814d8604",
"text": "A stock is an ownership interest in a company. There can be multiple classes of shares, but to simplify, assuming only one class of shares, a company issues some number of shares, let's say 1,000,000 shares and you can buy shares of the company. If you own 1,000 shares in this example, you would own one one-thousandth of the company. Public companies have their shares traded on the open market and the price varies as demand for the stock comes and goes relative to people willing to sell their shares. You typically buy stock in a company because you believe the company is going to prosper into the future and thus the value of its stock should rise in the open market. A bond is an indebted interest in a company. A company issues bonds to borrow money at an interest rate specified in the bond issuance and makes periodic payments of principal and interest. You buy bonds in a company to lend the company money at an interest rate specified in the bond because you believe the company will be able to repay the debt per the terms of the bond. The value of a bond as traded on the open exchange varies as the prevailing interest rates vary. If you buy a bond for $1,000 yielding 5% interest and interest rates go up to 10%, the value of your bond in the open market goes down so that the payment terms of 5% on $1,000 matches hypothetical terms of 10% on a lesser principal amount. Whatever lesser principal amount at the new rate would lead to the same payment terms determines the new market value. Alternatively, if interest rates go down, the current value of your bond increases on the open market to make it appear as if it is yielding a lower rate. Regardless of the market value, the company continues to pay interest on the original debt per its terms, so you can always hold onto a bond and get the original promised interest as long as the company does not go bankrupt. So in summary, bonds tend to be a safer investment that offers less potential return. However, this is not always the case, since if interest rates skyrocket, your bond's value will plummet, although you could just hold onto them and get the low rate originally promised.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ca8fac4806f4b0fd56b54a22da82a967",
"text": "ETFs are just like any other mutual fund; they hold a mix of assets described by their prospectus. If that mix fits your needs for diversification and the costs of buying/selling/holding are low, it's as worth considering as a traditional fund with the same mix. A bond fund will hold a mixture of bonds. Whether that mix is sufficiently diversified for you, or whether you want a different fund or a mix of funds, is a judgement call. I want my money to take care of itself for the most part, so most of the bond portion is in a low-fee Total Bond Market Index fund (which tries to match the performance of bonds in general). That could as easily be an ETF, but happens not to be.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7678d76e4983abfebdf8c18da0f8280e",
"text": "The only reason I can think of is that the bonds are bought automatically by some investment pools, groups or institutions. That will stop very quickly once the management finds some other place to put the money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fcc5c09042f1b8f94def4d09030f3687",
"text": "As keshlam said, an ETF holds various assets, but the level of diversification depends on the individual ETF. A bond ETF can focus on short term bonds, long term bonds, domestic bonds, foreign bonds, government bonds, corporate bonds, low risk, high risk, or a mixture of any of those. Vanguard Total International Bond ETF (BNDX) for instance tries to be geographically diverse.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "3a1962707304e58f79eb56f2e61454ad",
"text": "Significantly less effort to buy into any of several international bond index funds. Off the top of my head, VTIBX.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c941410dd4f741827307544a592e6fee",
"text": "Lipper publishes data on the flow of funds in / out of stock and bond funds: http://www.lipperusfundflows.com Robert Shiller works on stock market confidence indices that are published by Yale: http://som.yale.edu/faculty-research/our-centers-initiatives/international-center-finance/data/stock-market-confidence",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f8b09becad77e75ae4672acfab2fd135",
"text": "From wikipedia: In finance, a high-yield bond (non-investment-grade bond, speculative-grade bond, or junk bond) is a bond that is rated below investment grade at the time of purchase. These bonds have a higher risk of default or other adverse credit events, but typically pay higher yields than better quality bonds in order to make them attractive to investors. In terms of your second question, you have the causality backwards. They are called junk bonds because they have a higher risk of default.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6fdf8698afbbce4fdfcff1a82a3e7435",
"text": "\"A growth fund is looking to invest in stocks that will appreciate in stock price over time as the companies grow revenues and market share. A dividend fund is looking to invest in stocks of companies that pay dividends per share. These may also be called \"\"income\"\" funds. In general, growth stocks tend to be younger companies and tend to have a higher volatility - larger up and down swings in stock price as compared to more established companies. So, growth stocks are a little riskier than stocks of more established/stable companies. Stocks that pay dividends are usually more established companies with a good revenue stream and well established market share who don't expect to grow the company by leaps and bounds. Having a stable balance sheet over several years and paying dividends to shareholders tends to stabilize the stock price - lower volatility, less speculation, smaller swings in stock price. So, income stocks are considered lower risk than growth stocks. Funds that invest in dividend stocks are looking for steady reliable returns - not necessarily the highest possible return. They will favor lower, more reliable returns in order to avoid the drama of high volatility and possible loss of capital. Funds that invest in growth stocks are looking for higher returns, but with that comes a greater risk of losing value. If the fund manager believes an industry sector is on a growth path, the fund may invest in several small promising companies in the hopes that one or two of them will do very well and make up for lackluster performance by the rest. As with all stock investments, there are no guarantees. Investing in funds instead of individual stocks allows you invest in multiple companies to ride the average - avoid large losses if a single company takes a sudden downturn. Dividend funds can lose value if the market in general or the industry sector that the fund focuses on takes a downturn.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "39585d900a023fb7a6a63923010f4aee",
"text": "\"The fund will take a small percentage of its assets to cover the expenses. Reported returns come after the expense ratio has been factored into things. Money market mutual funds can have a zero yield in some cases though breaking the buck can happen in some cases as noted on Wikipedia: The first money market mutual fund to break the buck was First Multifund for Daily Income (FMDI) in 1978, liquidating and restating NAV at 94 cents per share. An argument has been made that FMDI was not technically a money market fund as at the time of liquidation the average maturity of securities in its portfolio exceeded two years.[7] However, prospective investors were informed that FMDI would invest \"\"solely in Short-Term (30-90 days) MONEY MARKET obligations.\"\" Furthermore, the rule, which restricts the maturities which money market funds are permitted to invest in, Rule 2-a7 of the Investment Company Act of 1940, was not promulgated until 1983. Prior to the adoption of this rule, a mutual fund had to do little other than present itself as a money market fund, which FMDI did. Seeking higher yield, FMDI had purchased increasingly longer maturity securities and rising interest rates negatively impacted the value of its portfolio. In order to meet increasing redemptions the fund was forced to sell a certificate of deposit at a 3% loss, triggering a restatement of its NAV and the first instance of a money market fund \"\"breaking the buck\"\". The Community Bankers US Government Fund broke the buck in 1994, paying investors 96 cents per share. This was only the second failure in the then 23-year history of money funds and there were no further failures for 14 years. The fund had invested a large percentage of its assets into adjustable rate securities. As interest rates increased, these floating rate securities lost value. This fund was an institutional money fund, not a retail money fund, thus individuals were not directly affected. No further failures occurred until September 2008, a month that saw tumultuous events for money funds. However, as noted above, other failures were only averted by infusions of capital from the fund sponsors. Thus consider how likely is Fidelity Investments prepared to have people question how safe is their money with them which is why fund sponsors rarely break the buck.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2b0f50c6befa43aa0f99833600320dd9",
"text": "\"First, you don't state where you are and this is a rather global site. There are people from Canada, US, and many other countries here so \"\"mutual funds\"\" that mean one thing to you may be a bit different for someone in a foreign country for one point. Thanks for stating that point in a tag. Second, mutual funds are merely a type of investment vehicle, there is something to be said for what is in the fund which could be an investment company, trust or a few other possibilities. Within North America there are money market mutual funds, bond mutual funds, stock mutual funds, mutual funds of other mutual funds and funds that are a combination of any and all of the former choices. Thus, something like a money market mutual fund would be low risk but quite likely low return as well. Short-term bond funds would bring up the risk a tick though this depends on how you handle the volatility of the fund's NAV changing. There is also something to be said for open-end, ETF and closed-end funds that are a few types to consider as well. Third, taxes are something not even mentioned here which could impact which kinds of funds make sense as some funds may invest in instruments with favorable tax-treatment. Aside from funds, I'd look at CDs and Treasuries would be my suggestion. With a rather short time frame, stocks could be quite dangerous to my mind. I'd only suggest stocks if you are investing for at least 5 years. In 2 years there is a lot that can happen with stocks where if you look at history there was a record of stocks going down about 1 in every 4 years on average. Something to consider is what kind of downside would you accept here? Are you OK if what you save gets cut in half? This is what can happen with some growth funds in the short-term which is what a 2 year time horizon looks like. If you do with a stock mutual fund, it would be a gamble to my mind. Don't forget that if the fund goes down 10% and then comes up 10%, you're still down 1% since the down will take more.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e35e94be845ac3a99740aec83febfe7c",
"text": "The short term bond fund, which you are pretty certain to have as an option, functions in this capacity. Its return will be low, but positive, in all but the most dramatic of rising rate scenarios. I recall a year in the 90's when rates rose enough that the bond fund return was zero or very slightly negative. It's not likely that you'd have access to simple money market or cash option.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7752f67b871bc3bc345990de3f5221fa",
"text": "why would anyone buy a long-term bond fund in a market like this one, where interest rates are practically bottomed out? 1) You are making the assumption that interest rates has bottom out hence there is no further possibility of it going down further , i mean who expected Lehman Brother to go bankrupt 2) Long term investors who are able to wait for the bad times of the bond market to end and in the mean time dont mind some dividend payment of 2-3%",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7c73f3efee233cebf09efa70a897dd2c",
"text": "It may be true for a bond fund. But it is not true for bond etf. Bond etf will drop by the same amount when it distribute dividend on ex-dividend date.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "de4d908439a19fe8f5c4f2cbea1e82f2",
"text": "I'm assuming you are buying bond mutual funds or bond etfs here, not the actual bonds directly. There are a significant variety of different types of bond funds, reflecting the sort of bonds they invest in. For example, you can invest in risky, non-commercial grade bonds, also known as junk bonds. Or you can invest in short-term bonds, which are much safer but return much less. There's no such thing as the 'average bond'. So, let's go for somewhere in the middle. Let's go for 3% return, after fees. Now, it's fairly simple math. You want $3,000 a month, or $36,000 a year. To generate that sort of return, you'd need to invest $1,200,000. If we are more optimistic, we could go for a 4% return, after fees. That reduces your investment to $900,000. Note that it would almost certainly not make sense to invest all that money in bonds. Instead, you'd want to invest in a mix of stocks and bonds. This could likely reduce your risk while increasing your expected return.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
27f88516483b25c5d23d0df3d44601f3
|
International (ex-US) ETFs with low exposure to financial sector?
|
[
{
"docid": "5a4a9d5252e6accab3df197c05881df3",
"text": "If you are looking for a European financials ETF to short, you could take a look at the iShares EURO STOXX Banks, which is traded on a a few German stock exchanges (Frankfurt etc.): iShares Euro Stoxx Banks Website You find its current holdings here: holdings.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5a7dd2ef55aeca098b705a7849fad959",
"text": "Another European financial ETF that you could sell short is the iShares MSCI Europe Financials Sector Index Fund (EUFN). It's traded on American exchanges, so it should be easier to access if you're in the United States. It is a relatively low-volume issue, however, so it may be difficult to locate shares to short, and the bid/ask spread could be a significant factor.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "e74fbe8c8fb6c2e5882b9e9b841fa878",
"text": "You can trade currency ETF options on IB. It is SIPC insured; the options are just like vanilla options in Saxo.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0b4d041501b889e30080b61b2a31216c",
"text": "You could certainly look at the holdings of index funds and choose index funds that meet your qualifications. Funds allow you to see their holdings, and in most cases you can tell from the description whether certain companies would qualify for their fund or not based on that description - particularly if you have a small set of companies that would be problems. You could also pick a fund category that is industry-specific. I invest in part in a Healthcare-focused fund, for example. Pick a few industries that are relatively diverse from each other in terms of topics, but are still specific in terms of industry - a healthcare fund, a commodities fund, an REIT fund. Then you could be confident that they weren't investing in defense contractors or big banks or whatever you object to. However, if you don't feel like you know enough to filter on your own, and want the diversity from non-industry-specific funds, your best option is likely a 'socially screened' fund like VFTSX is likely your best option; given there are many similar funds in that area, you might simply pick the one that is most similar to you in philosophy.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4bb3abcd14a58afbb8f891284510f413",
"text": "We face the same issue here in Switzerland. My background: Institutional investment management, currency risk management. My thoughs are: Home Bias is the core concept of your quesiton. You will find many research papers on this topic. The main problems with a high home bias is that the investment universe in your small local investment market is usually geared toward your coutries large corporations. Lack of diversification: In your case: the ASX top 4 are all financials, actually banks, making up almost 25% of the index. I would expect the bond market to be similarly concentrated but I dont know. In a portfolio context, this is certainly a negative. Liquidity: A smaller economy obviously has less large corporations when compared globally (check wikipedia / List_of_public_corporations_by_market_capitalization) thereby offering lower liquidity and a smaller investment universe. Currency Risk: I like your point on not taking a stance on FX. This simplifies the task to find a hedge ratio that minimises portfolio volatility when investing internationally and dealing with currencies. For equities, you would usually find that a hedge ratio anywhere from 0-30% is effective and for bonds one that ranges from 80-100%. The reason is that in an equity portfolio, currency risk contributes less to overall volatility than in a bond portfolio. Therefore you will need to hedge less to achieve the lowest possible risk. Interestingly, from a global perspective, we find, that the AUD is a special case whereby, if you hedge the AUD you actually increase total portfolio risk. Maybe it has to do with the AUD being used in carry trades a lot, but that is a wild guess. Hedged share classes: You could buy the currency hedged shared classes of investment funds to invest globally without taking currency risks. Be careful to read exactly what and how the share class implements its currency hedging though.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9e4e5154c4a2adf1d4ec1972f97af03c",
"text": "I quite like the Canadian Couch Potato which provides useful information targeted at investors in Canada. They specifically provide some model portfolios. Canadian Couch Potato generally suggests investing in indexed ETFs or mutual funds made up of four components. One ETF or mutual fund tracking Canadian bonds, another tracking Canadian stocks, a third tracking US stocks, and a fourth tracking international stocks. I personally add a REIT ETF (BMO Equal Weight REITs Index ETF, ZRE), but that may complicate things too much for your liking. Canadian Couch Potato specifically recommends the Tangerine Streetwise Portfolio if you are looking for something particularly easy, though the Management Expense Ratio is rather high for my liking. Anyway, the website provides specific suggestions, whether you are looking for a single mutual fund, multiple mutual funds, or prefer ETFs. From personal experience, Tangerine's offerings are very, very simple and far cheaper than the 2.5% you are quoting. I currently use TD's e-series funds and spend only a few minutes a year rebalancing. There are a number of good ETFs available if you want to lower your overhead further, though Canadians don't get quite the deals available in the U.S. Still, you shouldn't be paying anything remotely close to 2.5%. Also, beware of tax implications; the website has several articles that cover these in detail.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4fa345328cc8d114885c2f61dce4428a",
"text": "\"Buy the ETF with ticker \"\"SPY\"\". This will give you exposure to exactly the S&P 500 stocks, This is similar to the mutual fund suggestion by Ben Miller, except that the ETF has several advantages over mutual funds, especially as regards taxes. You can find information on the difference between ETF and mutual fund in other questions on this site or by searching the web.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5a83c41e0a07b2235e9e033cc4f9bab3",
"text": "Go to fidelity.com and open a free brokerage account. Deposit money from your bank account into your fidelity account. (expect a minimum of $2500, FBIDX requires more I believe) Buy free to trade ETF Funds of your liking. I tend to prefer US Bonds to stocks, FBIDX is a decent intermediate US Bond etf, but the euro zone has added a little more volatile lately than I'd like. If you do really want to trade stocks, you may want to go with a large cap fund like FLCSX, but it is more risky especially in this economy. (but buy low sell high right?) I've put my savings into FBIDX and FGMNX (basically the same thing, intermediate bond ETF funds) and made $700 in interest and capitol gains last year. (started with zero initially, have 30k in there now)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3f8d64a7173e83e85807bda067af93aa",
"text": "If S&P crashes, these currencies will appreciate. Note that the above is speculation, not fact. There is definitely no guarantee that, say, the CHF/CAD currency pair is inversely linked to the performance of the US stock market when measured in USD, let alone to the performance of the US stock market as measured in CAD. How can a Canadian get exposure to a safe haven currency like CHF and JPY? I don't want a U.S. dollar denominated ETF. Three simple options come to mind, if you still want to pursue that: Have money in your bank account. Go to your bank, tell them that you want to buy some Swiss francs or Japanese yen. Walk out with a physical wad of cash. Put said wad of cash somewhere safe until needed. It is possible that the bank will tell you to come back later as they might not have the physical cash available at the branch office, but this isn't anything really unusual; it is often highly recommended for people who travel abroad to have some local cash on hand. Contact your bank and tell them that you want to open an account denominated in the foreign currency of your choice. They might ask some questions about why, there might be additional fees associated with it, and you'll probably have to pay an exchange fee when transferring money between it and your local-currency-denominated accounts, but lots of banks offer this service as a service for those of their customers that have lots of foreign currency transactions. If yours doesn't, then shop around. Shop around for money market funds that focus heavily or exclusively on the currency area you are interested in. Look for funds that have a native currency value appreciation as close as possible to 0%. Any value change that you see will then be tied directly to the exchange rate development of the relevant currency pair (for example, CHF/CAD). #1 and #3 are accessible to virtually anyone, no large sums of money needed (in principle). Fees involved in #2 may or may not make it a practical option for someone handling small amounts of money, but I can see no reason why it shouldn't be a possibility again in principle.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "af7535b950b00daa65f3e587fcb3e827",
"text": "Most of the “recommendations” are just total market allocations. Within domestic stocks, the performance rotates. Sometimes large cap outperform, sometimes small cap outperform. You can see the chart here (examine year by year): https://www.google.com/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=1&chvs=maximized&chdeh=0&chfdeh=0&chdet=1428692400000&chddm=99646&chls=IntervalBasedLine&cmpto=NYSEARCA:VO;NYSEARCA:VB&cmptdms=0;0&q=NYSEARCA:VV&ntsp=0&ei=_sIqVbHYB4HDrgGA-oGoDA Conventional wisdom is to buy the entire market. If large cap currently make up 80% of the market, you would allocate 80% of domestic stocks to large cap. Same case with International Stocks (Developed). If Japan and UK make up the largest market internationally, then so be it. Similar case with domestic bonds, it is usually total bond market allocation in the beginning. Then there is the question of when you want to withdraw the money. If you are withdrawing in a couple years, you do not want to expose too much to currency risks, thus you would allocate less to international markets. If you are investing for retirement, you will get the total world market. Then there is the question of risk tolerance. Bonds are somewhat negatively correlated with Stocks. When stock dips by 5% in a month, bonds might go up by 2%. Under normal circumstances they both go upward. Bond/Stock allocation ratio is by age I’m sure you knew that already. Then there is the case of Modern portfolio theory. There will be slight adjustments to the ETF weights if it is found that adjusting them would give a smaller portfolio variance, while sacrificing small gains. You can try it yourself using Excel solver. There is a strategy called Sector Rotation. Google it and you will find examples of overweighting the winners periodically. It is difficult to time the rotation, but Healthcare has somehow consistently outperformed. Nonetheless, those “recommendations” you mentioned are likely to be market allocations again. The “Robo-advisors” list out every asset allocation in detail to make you feel overwhelmed and resort to using their service. In extreme cases, they can even break down the holdings to 2/3/4 digit Standard Industrial Classification codes, or break down the bond duration etc. Some “Robo-advisors” would suggest you as many ETF as possible to increase trade commissions (if it isn’t commission free). For example, suggesting you to buy VB, VO, VV instead a VTI.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "49080bb18e7e57c5f67ab948d03e22b9",
"text": "\"The recommendations you read were, very probably, talking about US listed funds in US dollars. The mexican Bolsa de Valores says that they list over 600 mutual funds so \"\"Yes\"\" you can invest in Mexico using Pesos if that is what you want. You need a Corredor de Bolsa or mexico broker. Here they are. Most international investors use exchange traded funds ETF because theirs fees are cheaper than mutual funds. The ETF are mostly listed and traded in us stock exchange. Here they are. US mutual funds are in dollars and, because you are living in Mexico, you will have a currency risk and probably taxes. Mexico mutual funds in Pesos do not carry any currency exposure unless the companies involved do business in the United States. You have to think about your currency exposure. B. Veo\"",
"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": "503261d5bff005c524a8682b785a5b54",
"text": "International equity are considered shares of companies, which are headquartered outside the United States, for instance Research in Motion (Canada), BMW (Germany), UBS (Switzerland). Some investors argue that adding international equities to a portfolio can reduce its risk due to regional diversification.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "618a3e2994080b42870518e5c9ec136c",
"text": "\"This answer is somewhat incomplete as I don't have definitive conclusions about some parts of your question. Your question includes some very specific subquestions that may best be answered by contacting the investment companies you're considering. I don't see any explicit statement of fees for TIAA-CREF either. I suggest you contact them and ask. There is mention on the site of no-transaction-fee funds (NTF), but I wasn't able to find a list of such funds. Again, you might have to ask. Vanguard also offers some non-Vanguard funds without transaction fees. If you go the Vanguard page on other mutual funds you can use the dropdown on the right to select other fund companies. Those with \"\"NTF\"\" by the name have no transaction fees. Scottrade also offers NTF funds. You can use their screener and select \"\"no load\"\" and \"\"no transaction fee\"\" as some of your filters. You are correct that you want to choose an option that will offer a good lineup of funds that you can buy without transaction fees. However, as the links above show, Vanguard and TIAA-CREF are not the only such options. My impression is that almost any firm that has their own funds will sell them (or at least some of them) to you without a transaction fee. Also, as shown above, many places will sell you other companies' funds for free too. You have plenty of options as far as free trades, so it really depends on what funds you like. If you google for IRA providers you will find more than you can shake a stick at. If you're interested in low-cost index funds, Vanguard is pretty clearly the leader in that area as their entire business is built around that concept. TIAA-CREF is another option, as is Fideltiy (which you didn't mention), and innumerable others. Realistically, though, you probably don't need a gigantic lineup of funds. If you're juggling money between more than a handful of funds, your investment scheme is probably needlessly complex. The standard advice is to decide on a broad allocation of money into different asset classes (e.g., US stocks, US bonds, international stocks, international bonds), find a place that offers funds in those areas with low fees and forget about all the other funds.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6b6e8cff3e2d1fc406184a1a836df5a9",
"text": "Use an exchange traded fund ETF, namely SPDR MSCI Japan EUR Hdg Ucits ETF. It is hedged and can be bought in the UK by this broker State Street Global Advisors on the London Stock Exchange LSE. Link here. Article on JAPAN ETF hedged in Sterling Pound here.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fb821ad5bbe752f81848cd2213cece62",
"text": "\"I'm *really* surprised to see Schwab as \"\"only\"\" #5.. They don't specialize in \"\"niche\"\" ETFs, but for the core \"\"lazy portfolio\"\" style ETFs, I've always considered them neck-and-neck with Vanguard. That said - There's nothing wrong with obscure players in the market! I'd rather they had more exposure and therefore lower ERs, but the fact that something like $BBC *can* exist makes me sooo happy! That's pretty much my personal \"\"ultra high risk\"\" basket in one convenient form!\"",
"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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
6b40cb07a0d9e27314b890ba131f3415
|
Explanation on Warren Buffett's famous quote
|
[
{
"docid": "d7e580929c80c1a59673b0da603501aa",
"text": "In the short term the market is a popularity contest In the short run which in value investing time can extend even to many years, an equity is subject to the vicissitudes of the whims by every scale of panic and elation. This can be seen by examining the daily chart of any large cap equity in the US. Even such large holdings can be affected by any set of fear and greed in the market and in the subset of traders trading the equity. Quantitatively, this statement means that equities experience high variance in the short rurn. in the long term [the stock market] is a weighing machine In the long run which in value investing time can extend to even multiple decades, an equity is more or less subject only to the variance of the underlying value. This can be seen by examining the annual chart of even the smallest cap equities over decades. An equity over such time periods is almost exclusively affected by its changes in value. Quantitatively, this statement means that equities experience low variance in the long run.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "48c5a83a8b0e449471cb6bfc7255714b",
"text": "I think he was trying to say that in the long term the company's fundamental intrinsic value will drive the price of a company's stock, but in the short term stocks move on emotion and publicity that are not necessarily a reflection of their true underlying value.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "0a2789990856d8afd6cbc98beec94ec6",
"text": "Crisis and volatility benefit financiers and the wealthy, even more now than they did then. Back then, anybody left standing could buy at the bottom of a depression--while it was those who needed wages to eat who really suffered. Nowadays, arbitrage and derivatives (not to mention federal policy) make volatility itself a profitable proposition for people with lots of money to invest. That said, I don't think it's a necessary conclusion from Garfield's statement that he thought those at the top *intentionally* caused inflation and depression--merely that their actions brought it about. Maybe he was complaining that the economy would be healthier and more stable if it were truly a free market, or maybe he was arguing that greed at the top led to imprudent policy.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8d3c21eba51022126c7f646fa09411ca",
"text": "Ya and they popped because he did, now they're slumping again and he's out with his quick buck. Berkshire is a positive feedback loop these days, anything they choose to invest in will get loads of interest and appreciate in value, making them look like brilliant investors in the process. Not that buffet isn't brilliant, he's clearly proven that over the years, but the Buffet fandom has gone off the rails",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8953063491a0162c87cdf123213b6f1a",
"text": "I think it's because there are people who build entire wealth-gain strategies around certain conditions. When those conditions change, their mechanism of gaining wealth is threatened and they may take a short term loss as they transform their holdings to a new strategy.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fec0b9f2050588f17b3585a5a3ccca38",
"text": "George Carlin pointed out that economic theory says that if you give the poor money they will stop working, but that if you don't give the rich enough money they will stop working. Which is it? To little money makes you stop working or too much money makes you stop working? It can't be one rule for the poor and one rule for the rich.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e34cc3a908ca41889fbf8177fb23690b",
"text": "> “The economy, as measured by gross domestic product, can be expected to grow at an annual rate of about 3 percent over the long term, and inflation of 2 percent would push nominal GDP growth to 5 percent, Buffett said. Stocks will probably rise at about that rate and dividend payments will boost total returns to 6 percent to 7 percent, he said.” [Warren Buffett](https://www.csmonitor.com/Business/The-Simple-Dollar/2013/0506/What-Warren-Buffett-s-stock-market-math-means-for-your-retirement) This isn't the whole picture, but it's a start.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bb54f32db9a48072c23addc3e299c8d3",
"text": "\"I think this is a bit too simplistic, because you need to keep in mind that Buffet was managing the money as his career. Had he paid the 1% fee he could have \"\"made more money\"\" doing something else. People who hire money managers usually do so because it A. saves them time managing their own portfolios and B. because they don't believe they would do a better job managing it themselves.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4a6bfcf503aa247982a0f722fe5f2c7e",
"text": "To understand his comments about bear-market performance it's important to take them in context. (My research method was Crtl+F: bear; read around the highlights. This is not a complete survey of 60+ years of letters.) In his earlier letters, statements about bull market performance are always made in reference to Buffet's belief that many of BH's current holdings are in undervalued securities. Ex: To the extent possible, therefore, I am attempting to create my own work-outs by acquiring large positions in several undervalued securities. Such a policy should lead to the fulfillment of my earlier forecast – an above average performance in a bear market. It is on this basis that I hope to be judged (p 6; emphasis mine). Similar statements are made throughout the earlier letters, along with this interesting note: In a year when the general market had a substantial advance I would be well satisfied to match the advance of the Averages (p 6). So to your question of why BH fund performance is likely to be better in a bear market than in a bull market, I believe the implicit assertion is that undervalued securities are more resilient in a bear market (presumably because they don't have as far to fall, and are also less likely to be subject to a bubble). Buffet is also explicitly asserting that when facing a choice to either (a) position BH to weather a possible downturn or (b) position BH to enjoy a bullish stock that is outpacing the market, he would choose the former over the later. As to your assertion that he always says this, I can find no reference to bear market's in the letters past 1960.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fa64825e5a1fe2f472238b911fd6d406",
"text": "> The demand for fiat currencies comes from the fact they are necessary to pay taxes Only because the collective population has decided that the fiat currency has value. Taxes are not handed down by some benevolent leader, it is you and I deciding that we can do better things if we pool a portion of our wealth together. Let's say we want to build a road between our homes to improve the act of visiting each other. We decide to share the cost of building the road. I throw in 10 chicken, and you toss in 100 seashells. We work our way over to our road-building friend's place. We give him our offering in exchange for building the road. He doesn't like seashells, but he is willing to take 20 chickens in exchange for building the road. But now we are 10 chickens short from reaching our goal of having a new road between our homes. We decide to implement a strict agreement that all future pooling of wealth needs to be done with chickens. Seashells are not acceptable. And now we have a tax paid by a mutually agreed upon exchange medium. It works because everyone agrees that chickens have value. If everyone suddenly became vegetarian and saw chickens as having no value, our tax pool would become worthless. The fact that our tax is paid for in chickens does not mean that chickens will forever have value.",
"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": "82339139bbb9b8bb71750d006d3719de",
"text": "While Warren Buffett is an amazing investor, he does have the benefit of having his working career start around mid-WW2 and ride the baby boomer phenomena afterward. While there were bear blips in the past decades, there never really was much of a bear market outside the 70s energy crisis and inflation of the early 80s that nevertheless still could be leveraged for gains unlike the Great Depression. The question really is, will the next generation be so lucky? Idk, could be but I'm a doubter. He's right in his criticism (I wouldn't bet my retirment on Bitcoin) but the same critique could apply to the US dollar in parts (which admittedly has the fundamental strength as being accepted for US taxes, but as a consequence also severe drawback in being tied to the economic welfare and trust in the US Government). In the end, bitcoin and Warren Buffett are at fundamental odds. Bitcoins is for, among other niches, Currency and Market pessimists (around the world btw and not just US-centric) and Warren Buffet is a product of his time and generally an US-centered optimist.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c3ac0b78be10b95f31383ab7fc2eb0a9",
"text": "He owns some giants. I'd bet Coca-Cola is his biggest cash cow. This is a non-story. The revenue naturally follows actual value provided, as opposed to buying and selling shares with the swings of the stock market. Buffet buys and holds, and builds and collects the revenue from his companies, that's been his core philosophy since the beginning.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a1c98ccc768243eed86cf029e1f1b71b",
"text": "Warren Buffet also isn't the CEO of a major company - or at least one that matters in this context. He is the CEO of Berkshire Hathaway. That is a holding company that owns a handful of other companies. It doesn't have customers, it doesn't sell a product. It owns companies that do those things, some of which directly rely on technology and need their CEO to have a strong understanding of technology. The things is though, that each of those companies? They have their own CEO - not Warren Buffett.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "649ef789d568c6c872bfffbf1b6f17af",
"text": "Your autograph analogy seems relevant to me. But it is not just speculation. In the long run, investing in stocks is like investing in the economy. In the long run, the economy is expected to grow , hence stock prices are expected to go up. Now in theory: the price of any financial instrument is equal to the net present value today of all the future cash flows from the instrument. So if company's earnings improve, shareholders hope that the earnings will trickle down to them either in form of dividends or in form of capital gain. So they buy the stock, creating demand for it. I can try to explain more if this did not make any sense. :)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fc16c0ddb3b952236c6e45aae930c66a",
"text": "> but most recognize that money can't buy happiness. The acquisition of money is quite exhilarating though. People don't easily part with it, so it feels like you're doing something pretty awesome every time new money flows your way. Money is like a drug. That feeling quickly fades, leaving you wanting more. I imagine that's why people who have all the money they could ever possibly spend still seek more.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "648dc0f65d1f823e09181327ef4871ea",
"text": "I'm not sure I'd say the assets they had were worthless. One of the big controversies was whether it was a solvency crisis (bad assets) or a liquidity crisis (fine assets, but if everyone sells illiquid assets there's a fire sale problem). The US and Buffett bet it was a liquidity crisis, and they were proven right.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
0d128c3618b382e839f7aa4d740786f9
|
Married, 55, grown kids: Should I buy life insurance, or invest in stocks? The ultimate decision
|
[
{
"docid": "bdea0f94441eba4e4c4c84bc4f917503",
"text": "\"The following is from Wikipedia - Term life insurance (with very minor editing) Because term life insurance is a pure death benefit, its primary use is to provide coverage of financial responsibilities, for the insured. Such responsibilities may include, but are not limited to, consumer debt, dependent care, college education for dependents, funeral costs, and mortgages. Term life insurance is generally chosen in favor of permanent life insurance because it is usually much less expensive (depending on the length of the term). Many financial advisors or other experts commonly recommend term life insurance as a means to cover potential expenses until such time that there are sufficient funds available from savings to protect those whom the insurance coverage was intended to protect. For example, an individual might choose to obtain a policy whose term expires near his or her retirement age based on the premise that, by the time the individual retires, he or she would have amassed sufficient funds in retirement savings to provide financial security for their dependents. This suggests the questions \"\"why do you have this policy?\"\" also \"\"how many term life policies do you need?\"\" or \"\"how much insurance do you need?\"\" Clearly you will be better off investing the premiums in the market. Your beneficiaries may be better off either way (depends when you die and to a lesser extent on market performance). If you are not able to retire now but expect to be able to later, you should strongly consider having sufficient insurance to provide income replacement for your spouse. This is a fairly common why.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d3e80c45ba965e888546e407bc8bf122",
"text": "Life insurance is not an investment -- by definition, since the companies need to take a profit out of it, the average amount paid in exceeds the amount paid out, yielding a negative rate of return. Get life insurance if your death would cause severe financial hardship for someone. If you have sufficient savings that your wife could recover and move on with her life without hardship, and your kids are grown, you probably DO NOT need life insurance.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "de7ee1baa847682dc933b5ff2a57f1b3",
"text": "If I were in your shoes, I would invest conservatively fully aware that for the next few years the stock market is going to be depressed, but then again, don't take that as advice. Every situation is different, weigh the pros and cons carefully and if required, consult a qualified professional.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "6bb6cc39fc29a550c12b6215f91af9d9",
"text": "\"I was going to ask, \"\"Do you feel lucky, punk?\"\" but then it occurred to me that the film this quote came from, Dirty Harry, starring Clint Eastwood, is 43 years old. And yet, the question remains. The stock market, as measured by the S&P has returned 9.67% compounded over the last 100 years. But with a standard deviation just under 20%, there are years when you'll do better and years you'll lose. And I'd not ignore the last decade which was pretty bad, a loss for the decade. There are clearly two schools of thought. One says that no one ever lost sleep over not having a mortgage payment. The other school states that at the very beginning, you have a long investing horizon, and the chances are very good that the 30 years to come will bring a return north of 6%. The two decades prior to the last were so good that these past 30 years were still pretty good, 11.39% compounded. There is no right or wrong here. My gut says fund your retirement accounts to the maximum. Build your emergency fund. You see, if you pay down your mortgage, but lose your job, you'll still need to make those payments. Once you build your security, think of the mortgage as the cash side of your investing, i.e. focus less on the relatively low rate of return (4.3%) and more on the eventual result, once paid, your cash flow goes up nicely. Edit - in light of the extra information you provided, your profile reads that you have a high risk tolerance. Low overhead, no dependents, and secure employment combine to lead me to this conclusion. At 23, I'd not be investing at 4.3%. I'd learn how to invest in a way I was comfortable with, and take it from there. Disclosure (Updated) - I am older, and am semi-retired. I still have some time left on the mortgage, but it doesn't bother me, not at 3.5%. I also have a 16 year old to put through college but her college account i fully funded.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "5cb871765cef7636b0ae4f9b40607303",
"text": "\"Life Insurance can be a difficult decision. We have to first assess the \"\"want\"\" for it vs. the \"\"need\"\" for it, and that differs from person to person. Any Life licensed agent should be happy to do this calculation for you at no cost and no obligation. Just be sure you are well educated in the subject to make sure they are looking after YOUR needs and not their wallets. For the majority of clients, when looking at \"\"needs\"\" we will be sure to look at income coverage (less what the household needs with one less body) as well as debt coverage, education costs etc. More importantly make sure you are buying the RIGHT insurance, as much as the right amount.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a6d30c4e2ec0ff2272db0f800414b25d",
"text": "\"It is not an either/or decision. If you \"\"want to retire decades early\"\", then you will need to have a taxable account anyway, as you won't be able to stuff enough money into the tax-advantaged accounts to meet that goal. And if you are \"\"making a huge sum\"\", then you will be in a high tax bracket and so the tax advantages of saving into a 401K or IRA will be substantial. So, max out your 401K/IRA, and then save the rest into the taxable brokerage account. When you retire at 39, live off your taxable account until you are old enough to tap the other ones without penalty. Unless you plan to die decades early, as well as retire decades early. In that case, you can bypass the 401K/IRA.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5091949ed7952e25b0a8a025af0aa5ee",
"text": "Pretty simple: When is Cash Value Life Insurance a good or bad idea? It is never a good idea. How can life insurance possibly work as investment? It can't. Just as car, home, or health insurance is not an investment. Note for counter example providers: intent to commit insurance fraud is not an investment. Why not live your life so in 15 or 20 years you are debt free, have a nice emergency fund built and have a few 100 thousand in investments? Then you can self-insure. If you die with a paid off home, no debt, 20K in a money market, and 550,000 in retirement accounts would your spouse and children be taken care of?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2d29f10957e2b14100a27d8ab2ce1cbd",
"text": "\"There are two types of insurance: whole life and term. I don't recommend whole life insurance, because you are insuring against something that will happen, your death. Maybe you could buy it if members of your family have a history of outliving the averages. This is called \"\"adverse selection.\"\" Term is different: it insures against your UNTIMELY death. Many people I know take term insurance for the X years until their last child leaves college, or some other well defined \"\"term.\"\" They don't want to die before this term but will be satisfied with the insurance as a \"\"consolation\"\" prize.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "319ecafcdb8a3aec5bded1d3b26698c9",
"text": "First, welcome to Money.SE. If you are interested in saving and investing, this is a great site to visit. Please take the tour and just start to read the questions you find interesting. 1 - even though this is hypothetical, it scales down to an average investor. If I own 1000 shares of the 1 billion, am I liable if the company goes under? No. Stocks don't work that way. If all I have is shares, not a short position, not options, I can only see my investment go to zero. 2 - Here, I'd ask that you edit your country in the tags. I can tell you that my newborn (who is soon turning 17) had a stock account in her name when she was a few months old. It's still a custodian account, meaning an adult has to manage it, and depending on the state within the US, the age that it's hers with no adult, is either 18 or 21. Your country may have similar regional rules. Also - each country has accounts specifically geared toward retirement, with different favorable rules regarding taxation. In the US, we have accounts that can be funded at any age, so long as there's earned income. My daughter started one of these accounts when she started baby sitting at age 12. She will have more in her account by the time she graduates college than the average retiree does. It's good for her, and awful for the general population that this is the case.",
"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": "abfe341af61637ca246e2c5f0a6d6b15",
"text": "\"First of all, congratulations on being in an incredible financial position. you have done well. So let's look at the investment side first. If you put 400,000 in a decent index fund at an average 8% growth, and add 75,000 every year, in 10 years you'll have about $1.95 Million, $800k of which is capital gain (more or less due to market risk, of course) - or $560k after 30% tax. If you instead put it in the whole life policy at 1.7% you'll have about $1.3 Million, $133k of which is tax-free capital gain. So the insurance is costing you $430K in opportunity cost, since you could have done something different with the money for more return. The fund you mentioned (Vanguard Wellington) has a 10-year annualized growth of 7.13%. At that growth rate, the opportunity cost is $350k. Even with a portfolio with a more conservative 5% growth rate, the opportunity cost is $178k Now the life insurance. Life insurance is a highly personal product, but I ran a quick quote for a 65-year old male in good health and got a premium of $11,000 per year for a $2M 10-year term policy. So the same amount of term life insurance costs only $110,000. Much less than the $430k in opportunity cost that the whole life would cost you. In addition, you have a mortgage that's costing you about $28K per year now (3.5% of 800,000). Why would you \"\"invest\"\" in a 1.7% insurance policy when you are paying a \"\"low\"\" 3.5% mortgage? I would take as much cash as you are comfortable with and pay down the mortgage as much as possible, and get it paid off quickly. Then you don't need life insurance. Then you can do whatever you want. Retire early, invest and give like crazy, travel the world, whatever. I see no compelling reason to have life insurance at all, let alone life insurance wrapped in a bad investment vehicle.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cdf68c6c26bc84f1100866f1718ccd61",
"text": "\"I would refer you to this question and answers. Here in the US we have two basic types of life insurance: term and whole life. Universal life is a marketing response to whole life being such a bad deal, and is whole life just not quite as bad. I am not familiar with the products in India, but given the acronym (ULIP), it is probably universal life, and as you describe is variable universal life. Likely Description \"\"Under the hood\"\", or in effect, you are purchasing a term life policy and investing excess premiums in a collection of stock mutual funds. This is a bad deal for a few reasons: A much better option is to buy \"\"level term insurance\"\" and invest on your own. You won't necessarily lose money, but you can make better financial decisions. It is good to invest, it is good to have life. A better decision would not to combine the two into a single product.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "90e5c075808444b3079a84d19def23ea",
"text": "\"There is an economic, a social and a psychological side to the decision whether to buy insurance or not, and if yes, which one. Economically, as you say already in your question, an insurance is on average a net loss for the insured. The key word here is \"\"average\"\". If you know that there are many cancer cases in your family buy health insurance by all means; it's a sound investment. If you are a reckless driver make sure you have extensive coverage on your liability insurance. But absent such extra risks: Independently of somebody's wealth insurance should be limited to covering catastrophic events. What is often overlooked is that the insurance by all means should really cover those catastrophic events. For example the car liability minimums in many states are not sufficient. The typical upper middle class person could probably pay the 15k/30k/10k required in Arizona with a loan on their house; but a really catastrophic accident is simply not covered and would totally ruin that person and their family. Insuring petty damage is a common mistake: economically speaking, all insurances should have deductibles which are as high as one could afford to pay without feeling too much pain. That \"\"pain\"\" qualification has an economical and a social aspect. Of course any risk which materialized is an economical damage of some kind; perhaps now I can't buy the PS4, or the diamond ring, or the car, or the house, or the island which had caught my eye. I could probably do all these things, just perhaps without some extras, even if I had paid for insurance; so if I don't want to live with the risk to lose that possibility I better buy insurance. Another economical aspect is that the money may not be available without selling assets, possibly on short notice and hence not for the best price. Then an insurance fee takes the role of paying for a permanent backup credit line (and should not be more expensive than that). The social aspect is that even events which wouldn't strictly ruin a person might still force them to, say, sell their Manhattan penthouse (no more parties!) or cancel their country club membership. That is a social pain which is probably to be avoided. Another socioeconomic aspect is that you may have a relationship to the person selling you the insurance. Perhaps he buys his car at your dealership? Perhaps he is your golf buddy? Then the insurance may be a good investment. It is only borderline bad to begin with; any benefits move the line into the profit zone. The psychological aspect is that an insurance buys peace of mind, and that often seems to be the most important benefit. A dart hits the flat screen? Hey, it was insured. Junior totals the Ferrari? Hey, it was insured. Even if the house burns down having fire insurance will be a consolation.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "44d368f9c761debde9b6911dd5d7e889",
"text": "The problem with the cash value is that it's really slow to accumulate. For the first many years you'll just be paying premiums which are front loaded until the insurance company gets their money back. Whole life is NOT an investment, regardless of what your 'advisor' says. It's insurance, and expensive insurance at that.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fbcc31b3b194bb4a06218bfa4438d6f3",
"text": "The stock market at large has about a 4.5% long-term real-real (inflation-fees-etc-adjusted) rate of return. Yes: even in light of the recent crashes. That means your money invested in stocks doubles every 16 years. So savings when you're 25 and right out of college are worth double what savings are worth when you're 41, and four times what they're worth when you're 57. You're probably going to be making more money when you're 41, but are you really going to be making two times as much? (In real terms?) And at 57, will you be making four times as much? And if you haven't been saving at all in your life, do you think you're going to be able to start, and make the sacrifices in your lifestyle that you may need? And will you save enough in 10 years to live for another 20-30 years after retirement? And what if the economy tanks (again) and your company goes under and you're out of a job when you turn 58? Having tons of money at retirement isn't the only worthy goal you can pursue with your money (ask anyone who saves money to send kids to college), but having some money at retirement is a rather important goal, and you're much more at risk of saving too little than you are of saving too much. In the US, most retirement planners suggest 10-15% as a good savings rate. Coincidentally, the standard US 401(k) plan provides a tax-deferred vehicle for you to put away up to 15% of your income for retirement. If you can save 15% from the age of 20-something onward, you probably will be at least as well-off when you retire as you are during the rest of your life. That means you can spend the rest on things which are meaningful to you. (Well, you should also keep around some cash in case of emergencies or sudden unemployment, and it's never a good idea to waste money, but your responsibilities to your future have at least been satisfied.) And in the UK you get tax relief on your pension contribution at your income tax rate and most employers will match your contributions.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "578ff589a1e623f1b93e026614a3c2e6",
"text": "Oh, don't expect us to take sides, we love both our parents the same! As to the pragmatic decision making - simple math. The disagreement is whether to pay off the HELOC or to invest into the mutual fund instead. Well, check the yield of the fund, compare to the costs of keeping the HELOC balance, and see which one makes more sense. Just compare the expected payments and gains for each of the scenarios and you'll get your answer.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8051eb2ea12e2d460297e28e51d2f554",
"text": "Bull. Facebook is exploding overseas, where local knockoff flavors of Facebook have long held dominance, as they improve their internationalization. Even in the US, kids aren't giving up Facebook for other sites, but instead tieing in other sites TO facebook - you can tweet straight from your news feed, you can share your tumblr posts with your friends through facebook. Pinterest doesn't have the same utility as Facebook, but instead only serves a small portion of the features to an even smaller portion of the Facebook user base. And foursquare? Completely different market, I don't know why the author failed to realize that a location sharing app is *completely* different than a social media site. Not only that, but kids will become mayor of a place on Foursquare only so as to brag about it on Facebook! This article makes the grievous mistake of thinking that just because people visit other sites *besides* Facebook, that this is a sign of Facebook's imminent demise. This is such an overused news subject - the death of facebook, that it's becoming a major cliche. The fact of the matter is, Facebook was grossly over valued on the expectation that they'll continue their exponential growth pattern, but they won't. Facebook will continue to grow and dominate the market because they have the best and the brightest programmers and they really understand their market. Just don't expect them growing like they have in the past five years all over again.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
ed1f19e28113705a0cb86c989daa4d3c
|
Using stock options to lower income tax in the USA?
|
[
{
"docid": "b29640c8014917d91e8d24c91f1d8522",
"text": "You're talking about NQO - non-qualified stock options. Even assuming the whole scheme is going to work, the way NQO are taxed is that the difference between the fair market value and the strike price is considered income to you and is taxed as salary. You'll save nothing, and will add a huge headache and additional costs of IPO and SEC regulations.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "a57f8a7e43f68fa77372db1607017ea4",
"text": "But investing into your own company is already a tax deductible event. Expenditures like Research & Development, employee compensation, and acquiring new equipment are all things that reduce taxable income. https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/markets/2016/05/20/third-cash-owned-5-us-companies/84640704/ > Apple (AAPL), Microsoft (MSFT), Alphabet (GOOGL), Cisco Systems (CSCO) and Oracle (ORCL) are sitting on $504 billion, or 30%, of the $1.7 trillion in cash and cash equivalents held by U.S. non-financial companies in 2015, according to an analysis released Friday by ratings agency Moody's Investors Service. That's even more cash concentration than in previous years, as these five companies held 27% of cash in 2014 and 25% in 2013. Apple alone is holding more cash and investments than eight of the 10 entire industry sectors. 1/3 of all dollars created by the US Federal Reserve banking system (physically minted or otherwise) is collectively held by 5 companies. Companies exist to accumulate wealth and will seek to avoid unnecessary expenditures, which includes taxes. The corporate income tax rate is 35%. For individuals, the top income tax bracket (for every dollar of income above $400,000) is 39.6%. I argue that dropping the top individual income tax bracket down to 34% will not materially affect these companies (paying 35% income tax) from continuing to just sit on a ludicrous sum of wealth.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bc4f14329bcfa724201199f9e476f193",
"text": "\"You have multiple issues buried within this question. First, we don't know your tax bracket. For my answer, I'll assume 25%. This simply means that in 2016, you'll have a taxable $37,650 or higher. The interesting thing is that losses and gains are treated differently. A 25%er's long term gain is taxed at 15%, yet losses, up to $3000, can offset ordinary income. This sets the stage for strategic tax loss harvesting. In the linked article, I offered a look at how the strategy would have resulted in the awful 2000-2009 decade producing a slight gain (1%, not great, of course) vs the near 10% loss the S&P suffered over that time. This was by taking losses in down years, and capturing long term gains when positive (and not using a carried loss). Back to you - a 15%er's long term gain tax is zero. So using a gain to offset a loss makes little sense. Just as creating a loss to offset the gain. The bottom line? Enjoy the loss, up to $3000 against your income, and only take gains when there's no loss. This advice is all superseded by my rule \"\"Don't let the tax tail wag the investing dog.\"\" For individual stocks, I would never suggest a transaction for tax purposes. You keep good stocks, you sell bad ones. Sell a stock to take a short term loss only to have it recover in the 30 day waiting period just once, and you'll learn that lesson. Learn it here for free, don't make that mistake at your own expense.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e4a93aa71ea93cf43c6833fd969880cb",
"text": "If you make 100K in the U.S., you are most definitely NOT paying 25.7% tax federally. Only money that you made over 37.5K is even charged at 25% AND you didn't even factor in that you get deductions which decrease your effective tax rate. Where are you pulling your numbers?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9dabce99288cdc12648af5ffe804b5c2",
"text": "The top long-term capital gains tax rate will rise to 20% effective 1 Jan, 2011, unless Congress decides to do something about it before then. (Will they? Who knows!! There's been talk about it, but, well, it's Congress. They don't even know what they're going to do.) Anyway. The rules about when you can sell stock are mostly concerned with when you can realize a capital loss: if you sell a stock at a loss and then re-buy it for tax purposes within 30 days, it's a wash sale and not eligible for a deduction. However, I don't believe this applies to any stocks once you realize a gain - once you've realized the gain and paid your tax for it, it's all yours, locked in at whatever rate. Your replacement stock will be subject to short-term capital gains for the next year afterwards, and you might need to be careful with identifying the holding period on different lots of your stock, but I don't believe there will be any particular trouble. Please do not rely entirely on my advice and consult also with your tax preparer or lawyer. :) And the IRS documentation: Special Addendum for Nov/Dec 2012! Spoiler alert! Congress did indeed act: they extended the rates, but only temporarily, so now we're looking at tax hikes starting in 2013 instead, only the new top rate++ will be something like 23.8% on account of an extra 3.8% medicare tax on passive earnings (brought to you via Obamacare legislation). But the year and the rates' specifics aside, same thing still applies. And the Republican house and Democratic senate/President are still duking it out. Have fun. ++ 3.8% surtax applies to the lesser of (a) net investment income (b) income over $200,000 ($250k if married). 20% tax rate applies to people in the 15% income tax bracket for ordinary income or higher. Additional tax discounts for property held over 5 years may be available. Consult tax law and your favorite tax professional and prepare to be confused.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a29180a712ea495058ea51adf0648e0b",
"text": "Oh it definitely makes sense on a state level and from my experience working taxes I would say it is much more prevalent to the extent I would have to bet every Fortune 1000 company does it. You can completely eliminate State Income Tax in many states (although states are rapidly closing the loopholes) which at corporate tax rates for most states between 6 and 8% this turns into a lot of money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "61c13cf9a0b369acedef93cf0ee9c8cc",
"text": "If so, are there ways to reduce the amount of taxes owed? Given that it's currently December, I suppose I could sell half of what I want now, and the other half in January and it would split the tax burden over 2 years instead, but beyond that, are there any strategies for tax reduction in this scenario? One possibility is to also sell stocks that have gone down since you bought them. Of course, you would only do this if you have changed your mind about the stock's prospects since you bought it -- that is, it has gone down and you no longer think it will go up enough to be worth holding it. When you sell stocks, any losses you take can offset any gains, so if you sell one stock for a gain of $10,000 and another for a loss of $5,000, you will only be taxed on your net gain of $5,000. Even if you think your down stock could go back up, you could sell it to realize the loss, and then buy it back later at the lower price (as long as you're not worried it will go up in the meantime). However, you need to wait at least 30 days before rebuying the stock to avoid wash sale rules. This practice is known as tax loss harvesting.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fa4477615bdc6b15ed541c628b8f46f1",
"text": "Welcome to the real world :-) There really aren't all that many ways for ordinary employees to lower taxes. You could put more in your 401k, buy a house (for the mortgage interest deduction, which lets you deduct some other things instead of taking standard deduction), or move to a different state to get rid of the state tax.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "797b16b3563fe6ae859003ee4dcf5569",
"text": "Restricted Stock Units are different from stock options because instead of buying them at a particular strike price, you receive the actual shares of stock. They are taxed as ordinary income at the time that the restriction is lifted (you don't have to sell them to be taxed). Usually, you can choose to have a percentage of the stock withheld to cover tax withholding or pay for the withholding out of pocket (so you can retain all of your shares).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "619d9bf8f60fc3b352242259405401bb",
"text": "No. Black Scholes includes a number of variables to calculate the value of the derivative but taxation isn't one of them. Whether you are trading options or futures, the dividend itelf may be part of the equation, but not the tax on said dividend.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "177dba10aa106984233079276be83d24",
"text": "\"Hence why keeping the capital gains tax rate down is not such a bad idea. Sure, it may benefit \"\"rich\"\" people, but it will also allow RESPONSIBLE low and middle class income families to reinvest their capital gains and accumulate more wealth.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7af6de2300ef6bb4adbd025f53c0dfad",
"text": "\"Do you have other income that you are not considering? Interest and dividends would be an example, but there are all sorts of options. Also with your witholding is it set up such that your employers have any idea of your tax bracket ultimately based on your combined incomes? Usually what they do is take out money assuming you will be in the tax bracket of any given paycheck spread out over the course of a year. For example, for federal I had an option to select (in an online form that fills out my W4 for me) \"\"married: withold at higher single rate\"\" and did to try and cover this fact. Eventually I may end up having to calculate my own witholding to fix a too-low problem like yours.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "29af954b3b5d2f33d38175d849fcf8ac",
"text": "You should get a 1099-MISC for the $5000 you got. And your broker should send you a 1099-B for the $5500 sale of Google stock. These are two totally separate things as far as the US IRS is concerned. 1) You made $5000 in wages. You will pay income tax on this as well as FICA and other state and local taxes. 2) You will report that you paid $5000 for stock, and sold it for $5500 without holding it for one year. Since this was short term, you will pay tax on the $500 in income you made. These numbers will go on different parts of your tax form. Essentially in your case, you'll have to pay regular income tax rates on the whole $5500, but that's only because short term capital gains are treated as income. There's always the possibility that could change (unlikely). It also helps to think of them separately because if you held the stock for a year, you would pay different tax on that $500. Regardless, you report them in different ways on your taxes.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ab4e8f980720ba23c8a6f3b80ca1a3cf",
"text": "Note that you're asking about withholding, not about taxing. Withholding doesn't mean this is exactly the tax you'll pay: it means they're withholding a certain amount to make sure you pay taxes on it, but the tax bill at the end of the year is the same regardless of how you choose to do the withholding. Your tax bill may be higher or lower than the withholding amount. As far as tax rate, that will be the same regardless - you're just moving the money from one place to the other. The only difference would be that your tax is based on total shares under the plan - meaning that if you buy 1k shares, for example, at $10, so $1,500 discounted income, if you go the payroll route you get (say) $375 withheld. If you go the share route, you either get $375 worth of stock (so 38 shares) withheld (and then you would lose out on selling that stock, meaning you don't get quite as much out of it at the end) or you would ask them to actually buy rather more shares to make up for it, meaning you'd have a slightly higher total gain. That would involve a slightly higher tax at the end of it, of course. Option 1: Buy and then sell $10000 worth, share-based withholding. Assuming 15% profit, and $10/share at both points, then buy/sell 1000 shares, $1500 in profit to take into account, 38 shares' worth (=$380) withheld. You put in $8500, you get back $9620, net $1120. Option 2: Buy and then sell $13500 worth, share based withholding. Same assumptions. You make about $2000 in pre-tax profit, meaning you owe about $500 in tax withholding. Put in $11475, get back $13000, net $1525. Owe 35% more tax at the end of the year, but you have the full $1500 to spend on whatever you are doing with it. Option 3: Buy and then sell $1000 worth, paycheck withholding. You get the full $10000-$8500 = $1500 up front, but your next paycheck is $375 lighter. Same taxes as Option 1 at the end of the year.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8d9f37b88061af0d87608c619c63a7ab",
"text": "Hundreds of millions of stock options isn't hundreds of millions of income yet though. And once they cash out they do get taxed as income so it's effectively the same. If we taxed the stock options it would be double taxation. I know it's ridiculous how much money they make still though something has to be done but just pointing that out.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "72175f90adc2e004c434fd308c1d2327",
"text": "That is a weird one. Typically one never needs to layout cash to exercise an option. One would only choose to use option 1, if one is seeking to buy the options. This would occur if an employee was leaving a company, would no longer be eligible for the ISO (and thereby forfeit any option grant), and does not want to exercise the options. However, what is not weird is the way income tax works, you are taxed on your income in the US. I assume you are talking about the US here. So if you exercise 10K shares, if under either option, you will be taxed on the profit from those share. Profit = (actual price - strike price) * shares - fees",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
b2dbc6239b966519f169d48d2a7bd9e4
|
What is the maximum I can have stored in a traditional 401(k) and a Roth 401(k)?
|
[
{
"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": "82b6a2a5bc1315d91a89c6104c98a82a",
"text": "The numbers aside (I'd not assume 12%/yr) there is no limit to the balance. There are 401(k) accounts that have great matching and profit sharing deposits putting the per year limit closer to $45k, combine that with company stock in, say, Apple which has risen 60 fold this past decade, and balances in the tens of millions are possible.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "2452848d304d45a8eec636f6ec03ba5f",
"text": "Does your employer provide a matching contribution to your 401k? If so, contribute enough to the 401k that you can fully take advantage of the 401k match (e.g. if you employer matches 3% of your income, contribute 3% of your income). It's free money, take advantage of it. Next up, max out your Roth IRA. The limit is $5000 currently a year. After maxing your Roth, revisit your 401k. You can contribute up to 16,500 per year. You savings account is a good place to keep a rainy day fund (do you have one?), but it lacks the tax advantages of a Roth IRA or 401k, so it is not really suitable for retirement savings (unless you have maxed out both your 401k and Roth IRA). Once you have take care of getting money into your 401k and Roth IRA accounts, the next step is investing it. The specific investment options available to you will vary depending on who provides your retirement account(s), so these are general guidelines. Generally, you want to invest in higher-risk, higher-return investments when you are young. This includes things like stocks and developing countries. As you get older (>30), you should look at moving some of your investments into things that less volatile. Bond funds are the usual choice. They tend to be safer than stocks (assuming you don't invest in Junk bonds), but your investment grows at a slower rate. Now this doesn't mean you immediately dump all of your stock and buy bonds. Rather, it is a gradual transition over time. As you get older and older, you gradually shift your investments to bond funds. A general rule of thumb I have seen: 100 - (YOUR AGE) = Percentage of your portfolio that should be in stocks Someone that is 30 would have 70% of their portfolio in stock, someone that is 40 would have 60% in stock, etc. As you get closer to retirement (50s-60s), you will want to start looking at investments that are more conservatie than bonds. Start to look at fixed-income and money market funds.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4a8bd91a31ca04c4af230c948f1b6a41",
"text": "I think you're missing several key issues here. First for the facts: IRA contributions are $5500 a year maximum (currently, it changes with inflation), i.e.: you cannot deposit $10K in an IRA account in a single year. IRA withdrawals can only be made if you have something liquid in the IRA. You cannot withdraw from Lending Club IRA unless you manage to sell the notes currently held by you there. Roth IRA is funded with after-tax money, and you can withdraw your deposits in Roth IRA any time for any reason. No 10K limit there, only limited by what you deposited. However the main thing you're missing is this: You can withdraw up to $10K from your IRA for first home purchase without penalty. Pay attention: not without tax but without penalty. So what is the point in depositing $10k into IRA just to withdraw it the next year?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "49ea687381fdb5a668454c098cefc491",
"text": "\"First, the limit this year is $16,500, $22,000 for age 50 or older. Next, does the company give you any match? If so, how much? Some will match your deposits dollar for dollar up to a certain percent of your pay. If you make $50k and deposit say 6%, that's $3k matched by company, for example. This deposit/match is the first priority. Next, you should understand the expenses in the account. A bad 401(k) with high cost quickly negates any tax deferral benefit. The 401(k) options also may be limited, what are the choices of investments? Is your income high enough that you can save $21,500? One thought is to save enough to drop back out of the 25% bracket, and go Roth after that. This is a good balance for most. By the way, Fairmark is a great site to see what bracket you are in. If your return is simple, you can just find your standard deduction and exemption numbers and get to your taxable income very simply. The debate of of Roth vs Pretax (for both IRA and 401(k) accounts) can get pretty complex, but I found the majority of earners falling into the \"\"live in the 15% bracket, tops\"\" range.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e591f2bbb0ae08accdfad6bf76f89cee",
"text": "401(k) can come in traditional and Roth forms, as can IRAs. Roth IRA money is not locked away for 40 years, only the earnings are locked away, and earnings can also be withdrawn for special cases. You might not be able to invest in an IRA if your income is too high, and if you don't get a match for your 401(k), that might not be the best option either. The biggest advantage of the 401(k) is the match (if it exists) if there's no match, the second biggest advantage is the tax deferral. If you are in a low tax bracket, that isn't as big of an advantage either. I would say that there are plenty of reasons why you might not max out the 401(k) for savings, but it's pretty easy to max out the Roth IRA if that makes more sense, so there aren't a lot of reasons why not.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "526ff54a34e7c72935adaef6d41c5467",
"text": "Is there any benefit to investing in a Roth 401(k) plan, as opposed to a Roth IRA? They have separate contribution limits, so how much you contribute to one does not change the amount you can contribute to the other. Which is relevant to your question because you said the earnings on that account compounded over the next 40 years growing tax-free will be much higher than what I'd save on current taxes on a traditional 401(k). This is only true if you max out your contribution limits. If you start with the same amount of money and have the same marginal tax rate in both years, it doesn't matter which one you pick. Start with $10,000 to invest. With the traditional, you can invest all $10,000. With the Roth, you pay taxes on it and then invest it. Let's assume a tax rate of 25%. So invest $7500. Let's assume that you invest either amount long enough to double four times (forty years at 7% return after inflation is about right). So the traditional has $160,000 and the Roth has $120,000. Now you withdraw them. For simplicity's sake, we'll pretend it's all one year. It's probably over several years, but the math is easier in a single year. With the Roth, you have $120,000. With the traditional, you have to pay tax. Again, let's assume 25%. So that's $40,000, leaving you with $120,000 from the traditional. That is the same amount as the Roth! So it would make sense to If you can max out both, great. You do that for forty years and your retirement will be as financially secure as you can make it. If you can't max them out, the most important thing is the employer match. That's free money. Then you may prefer your Roth IRA to the 401k. Note that you can also roll over your Roth 401k to a Roth IRA. Then you can withdraw your contributions from the Roth IRA without penalty or additional tax. Alternate source. Beyond answering your question, I would still like to reiterate that Roth or traditional does not have a big effect on your investment unless you max them out or you have different tax rates now versus in retirement. It may change other things. For example, you can roll over a Roth 401k to a Roth IRA without paying taxes. And the Roth IRA will act like it was contributed directly. You have to check with your employer what their rollover rules are. They may allow it any time or only at employment separation (when you leave the job). If you do max out your Roth accounts, then they will perform better than the traditional accounts at the same nominal contribution. This is because they are tax free while your returns in the other accounts will have to pay taxes. But it doesn't matter until you hit the limits. Until then, you could just invest the tax savings of the traditional as well as the money you could invest in a Roth.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "304819453c17e5a53069b7a6f1a7afe7",
"text": "\"Whether you contribute to an IRA (Traditional or Roth) and whether you contribute to a 401k (Traditional or Roth) are independent. IRAs have one contribution limit, and 401ks have another contribution limits, and these limits are independent. I see no reason why you wouldn't maximize the amount of money in tax-advantaged accounts, if you can afford to. In your first year of work, especially if you only work for part of the year, you're likely in a lower tax bracket than in the future, so Roth is better than Traditional. Another thing to note is that the money in the Roth IRA can be part of your \"\"safety net\"\" -- contributions to a Roth IRA (but not earnings) can be withdrawn at any time without tax or penalty. So if there is an emergency you can withdraw it, and it wouldn't be any worse than in a taxable account. And if you don't need it, then it will enjoy the tax benefits of being in the IRA.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "86e0bb3dc4107664219376ebcca5c4d4",
"text": "\"To answer the first part of your question: yes, I've done that! I did even a bit more. I once had a job that I wasn't sure I'd keep and the economy wasn't great either. In case my next employer wouldn't let me contribute to a 401(k) from day one, and because I didn't want to underfund my retirement and be stuck with a higher tax bill - I \"\"front-loaded\"\" my 401(k) contributions to be maxed out before the end of the year. (The contribution limits were lower than $16,500/year back then :-)) As for the reduced cash flow - you need of course a \"\"buffer\"\" account containing several months worth of living expenses to afford maxing out or \"\"front-loading\"\" 401(k) contributions. You should be paying your bills out of such buffer account and not out of each paycheck. As for the reduced cash flow - I think large-scale 401(k)/IRA contributions can crowd out other long-term saving priorities such as saving for a house down payment and the trade-off between them is a real concern. (If they're crowding out basic and discretionary consumer expenses, that's a totally different kind of problem, which you don't seem to have, which is great :-)) So about the trade-off between large-scale 401(k) contributions and saving for the down payment. I'd say maxing out 401(k) can foster the savings culture that will eventually pay its dividends. If, after several years of maxing out your 401(k) you decide that saving for the house is the top priority, you'll see money flow to the money-market account marked for the down payment at a substantial monthly rate, thanks to that savings culture. As for the increasing future earnings - no. Most people I've known for a long time, if they saved 20% when they made $20K/year, they continued to save 20% or more when they later made $100K/year. People who spent the entire paycheck while making $50K/year, always say, if only I got a raise to $60K/year, I'd save a few thousand. But they eventually graduate to $100K/year and still spend the entire paycheck. It's all about your savings culture. On the second part of your question - yes, Roth is a great tool, especially if you believe that the future tax rates will be higher (to fix the long-term budget deficits). So, contributing to 401(k) to maximize the match, then max out Roth, as others suggested, is a great advice. After you've done that, see what else you can do: more 401(k), saving for the house, etc.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "14ec6cac8c7da14b46e08507111a0ef2",
"text": "Assuming you max-out your Roth IRA with $5000 in inflation-adjusted contributions every year from 25-65, your balance at age 65 will depend on the post-inflation return you get in the account. Assuming you withdraw 4% per year after that, here is what your income will be: (All numbers are in inflation-adjusted 2011 dollars.) If your post-inflation return is zero - if you buy treasury bonds, money-market accounts, or something like that - you'll have a simple $5000 * 40 = $200,000, which will give you an income of around $8000 per year. If you get a 3% post-inflation return - e.g. fairly safe Muni bonds, corporate bonds, and boring stocks - you'll approximately double your money to around $393,000, giving you an income of over $15,000 per year. If you get a 6% return - e.g. more aggressive stocks and more risk-taking - you'll approximately double your money again to over $825,000. A 4% withdrawal rate will give you an income of around $33,000 per year. Stocks have historically returned around inflation + 8% - that will get you over $1.4 million - and an annual income of over $56,000 per year. So, yes, it is feasible to retire on nothing but a maxed-out Roth IRA.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c64f991ac423274c722e5786f3402750",
"text": "You can't say I'm wrong and then go on to explain why exactly what I said is correct. :) You (and I) are in complete agreement that there's no LTCG on either Roth *or* Traditional 401ks, because you pay both as straight income - The former up front, the latter when you withdraw it. My point was that, for virtually everyone, their regular income tax rate is **higher** than their LTCG rate.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "50760dffd8fb709fb61ee9a6688fff43",
"text": "\"Couple points: 1) Since the Roth is after tax, you can effectively contribute more than you could with the Traditional IRA before hitting the limits. So in your example, if you had extra money you wanted to invest in an IRA, you could invest up to $1,750 more into the Roth but only $500 more into the Traditional (current limits are $5,500 per year for single filers under 50). Your example assumes that you have exactly $3,750 in spare money looking for an IRA home. 2) The contributions (but not earnings) can be withdrawn from the Roth at any time, penalty and tax free. 3) The tax rate \"\"lock-in\"\" can be significant, especially early on when you are at a relatively low tax bracket, say 15%, but expect to be higher at retirement. 4) Traditional IRAs and 401(k) are taxed as ordinary income, so you go through the tax brackets. Even if the marginal rate is 25%, the effective rate may be lower. If you have a Roth, conceivably you could reduce the amount you need to withdrawal from the Trad IRA/401(k) to reduce the effective tax rate on those (of course subject to minimum distributions and all that). This is more an argument to have a mix of pre- and post-tax retirement accounts than strictly a pro-Roth reason.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "53b1bf399946e6e878985ef0cf25bedb",
"text": "\"You seem to be treating your Roth IRA as a sort of savings account for use in emergency situations. I would use a savings account for savings as withdrawing money from an IRA will have penalties under various circumstances (more than contributions, Roth IRA less than 5 years old, more than $10k for a down payment). Also, you mention folding your IRA into your 401k so that it will \"\"grow faster\"\". However, this will not have that effect. Imagine you have $30k in an IRA and $100k in a 401k and you are averaging a return of 8% / year on each. This will be identical to having a single 401k with $130k and an 8% / year return. This is not one of your questions, but employer matches are not counted in the 401k contribution limit. If your 22% calculation of your salary includes the match to reach the max contribution, you can still contribute more.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a448d95f22d848cd9953392e69d8a3c6",
"text": "If you exceed the income limit for deducting a traditional IRA (which is very low if you are covered by a 401(k) ), then your IRA options are basically limited to a Roth IRA. The Cramer person probably meant to compare 401(k) and IRA from the same pre-/post-tax-ness, so i.e. Traditional 401(k) vs. Traditional IRA, or Roth 401(k) vs. Roth IRA. Comparing a Roth investment against a Traditional investment goes into a whole other topic that only confuses what is being discussed here. So if deducting a traditional IRA is ruled out, then I don't think Cramer's advice can be as simply applied regarding a Traditional 401(k). (However, by that logic, and since most people on 401(k) have Traditional 401(k), and if you are covered by a 401(k) then you cannot deduct a Traditional IRA unless you are super low income, that would mean Cramer's advice is not applicable in most situations. So I don't really know what to think here.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2e71cd5192f756c882f64cc62bd4fcf9",
"text": "You have two questions - first - no, if you are above the deduction limit, then you still have a traditional IRA deposit but with post tax money, tracked via form 8606. Second - If I read this right, if you cannot take the deduction, but can do the Roth, by all means, this is the 'no-brainer' decision. Makes no sense to deposit non-deducted to a traditional IRA if you can do Roth. But - for sake of the full picture - if above the Roth limit, you still should make the post tax deposit (to the traditional.) If you have no pretax IRA at all, you can convert immediately. If you have a mix, you have the option to convert piecemeal paying the tax on the pro-rated amount the pretax represents.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a214f765ad8bf0850db57657119533be",
"text": "\"Your contribution limit to a 401(k) is $18,000. Your employer is allowed to contribute to your 401(k), usually a \"\"matching contribution\"\". That matching contribution comes from your employer, so is not subject to your personal contribution limit. A contribution to a regular 401(k) is typically made with pre-tax money (i.e. you don't pay payroll taxes on the money you contribute) so you pay less taxes for the current tax year. However when you retire and you take money out, you pay taxes on the money you take out. On one hand, your tax rate may be lower when you have retired, but on the other hand, if your investments have appreciated over time, the total amount of tax you pay would be higher. If your company offers a Roth 401(k) plan, you can contribute $18,000 of after tax money. This way you pay the tax on the $18,000 today, as you would if you did not put the money in the 401(k), but when you take the money out at retirement, you would not have to pay tax. In my opinion, that serves as a way to pay effectively more money into your 401(k). Some firms put vesting provisions on the amount that they match in your 401(k), e.g. 4 years at 25% per year. So you have to work 1 full year to be entitled to 25% of their matching contribution, 2 years for 50%, and 4 years to receive all of it. Check your company's Summary Plan Description of the 401(k) to be sure. You are not allowed to invest pre-tax money into a Traditional IRA if you are already contributing to a 401(k) plan and have reached the income limits ($62,000 AGI for single head of household). You are allowed to contribute post-tax money to a Traditional IRA plan if you have already contributed to a 401(k), which you can then Roll-over into a Roth IRA (look up 'backdoor IRA'). The IRA contribution limit applies to all IRA accounts over that calendar year. You could put some money in a traditional IRA, a Roth IRA, another traditional IRA, etc. so long as the total amount is not more than the contribution limit. This gives you an upper limit of 5.5k + 18k = 23.5 investments in retirement accounts. Note however, once you reach age 50, these limits increase to 6.5k (IRA) + 24k (401(k)). They also are adjusted periodically with the rate of inflation. The following approach may be more efficient for building wealth: This ordering is the subject of debate and people have different opinions. There is a separate discussion of these priorities here: Best way to start investing, for a young person just starting their career? Note however, a 401(k) loan becomes payable if you leave your company, and if not repaid, is an unauthorised distribution from your 401k (and therefore subject to an additional 10% tax penalty). You should also be careful putting money into an IRA, as you will be subject to an additional 10% tax penalty if you take out the money (distribution) before retirement, unless one of the exceptions defined by the IRA applies (e.g. $10,000 for first time home purchase), which could wipe out more than any gains you made by putting it in there in the first place. Your specific circumstances may vary, so this approach may not be best for you. A registered financial advisor may be able to help - ensure they are legitimate: https://adviserinfo.sec.gov\"",
"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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
38d142e4ef1e46a6c15f81460ee006fc
|
What kind of traditional IRA should I use to hold funds from old employer 401K plans?
|
[
{
"docid": "beed71391be81e99b6336575872a510f",
"text": "Magazines like SmartMoney often have an annual issue that reviews brokers. One broker may have a wider variety of no-fee mutual funds, and if that's your priority, then the stock commissions may be a moot issue for you. In general, you can't go wrong with a Fidelity or Schwab, and to choose investments within the accounts with an eye toward low expenses.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "6a17e74a3d67faa9e2afbcbf1b45754a",
"text": "I would always suggest rolling over 401(k) plans to traditional IRAs when possible. Particularly, assuming there is enough money in them that you can get a fee-free account at somewhere like Fidelity or Vanguard. This is for a couple of reasons. First off, it opens up your investment choices significantly and can allow you significantly reduced expenses related to the account. You may be able to find a superior offering from Vanguard or Fidelity to what your employer's 401(k) plan allows; typically they only allow a small selection of funds to choose from. You also may be able to reduce the overhead fees, as many 401(k) plans charge you an administrative fee for being in the plan separate from the funds' costs. Second, it allows you to condense 401(k)s over time; each time you change employers, you can rollover your 401(k) to your regular IRA and not have to deal with a bunch of different accounts with different passwords and such. Even if they're all at the same provider, odds are you will have to use separate accounts. Third, it avoids issues if your employer goes out of business. While 401(k) plans are generally fully funded (particularly for former employers who you don't have match or vesting concerns with), it can be a pain sometimes when the plan is terminated to access your funds - they may be locked for months while the bankruptcy court works things out. Finally, employers sometimes make it expensive for you to stay in - particularly if you do have a very small amount. Don't assume you're allowed to stay in the former employer's 401(k) plan fee-free; the plan will have specific instructions for what to do if you change employers, and it may include being required to leave the plan - or more often, it could increase the fees associated with the plan if you stay in. Getting out sometimes will save you significantly, even with a low-cost plan.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8ed05ba03b5f9286a96d556596e82a02",
"text": "\"What you're describing is a non-deductible traditional IRA. That is what happens when your employer 401K or your high income disqualifies gou from using a traditional IRA the normal way. Yes, non-deductible traditional IRAs are stupid.** Now let's be clear on the mechanism behind the difference. There's an axiom of tax law that the same money can't be taxed twice. This is baked so deep into tax law that it often isn't even specified particularly. The IRS is not allowed to impose tax on money already taxed, i.e. The original contribution on an ND Trad IRA. So this is not a new kind of IRA, it is simply a Trad IRA with an asterisk. **But then, some say so are deductible traditional IRAs when compared to the Roth. The real power of an ND Trad IRA is that it can be converted to Roth at all income levels. This is called the \"\"Roth Backdoor\"\". It combines three factors. Contribute to an ND Trad IRA, stick it in a money market/sweep fund, and a week later convert to Roth, pay taxes on the 17 cents of growth in the sweep fund since the rest was already taxed. The net effect is to work the same as a Roth contribution - not tax deductible, becomes a Roth, and is not taxed on distribution. If you already have traditional IRA money that you contributed that wasn't taxed, this really screws things up. Because you can't segment or LIFO your IRA money, the IRS considers it one huge bucket, and requires you draw in proportion. EEK! Suppose you contribute $5000 to an IRA in a non-deductible mode. But you also have a different IRA funded with pretax money that now has $45,000. As far as IRS is concerned, you have one $50,000 IRA and only $5000 (10%) is post-tax. You convert $5000 to Roth and IRS says 90% of that money is taxable, since it's the same pool of money. You owe taxes on all of it less the $500 fraction that was pre-taxed, and $4500 of already-taxed IRA remains in the account. The math gets totally out-of-hand after just a couple of conversions. Your best bet is to convert the whole shebang at one time -- and to avoid a monstrous tax hit, do this in a gap year.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ab078a1426cf4d4ad2c20cf55fc1744c",
"text": "\"Your funds are in a retirement account. Withdrawals from your IRA will be penalized if you withdraw before you turn 59.5 years old, and you appear to be decades away from that age. The general advice I would give you is to pick a \"\"target year fund\"\" that targets the year you turn 59.5. The stock market is more volatile, but its average gains will protect you from inflation just eating your funds. Bonds are in counterpoint to your stocks - more stable, and protecting you from the chance that stocks dip right before you want to withdraw. Target year funds start with higher amounts of stock, and gradually rebalance towards bonds over time. Thus, you take your market risks earlier while you can benefit from the market's gains, and then have stability when you actually would want to retire and depend on the savings.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1971e56ed94ccd46fa6b3bcda6e5db3a",
"text": "In a traditional IRA (or 401k or equivalent), income tax is not taken on the money when it is deposited or when dividends are reinvested, but money you take out (after you can do do without penalty) is taxed as if it were ordinary income. (I believe that's true; I don't think you get to take the long-term investment rate.) Note that Roth is the opposite: you pay income tax up front before putting money into the retirement account, but you will eventually withdraw without paying any additional tax at that time. Unlike normal investments, neither of these requires tracking the details to know how much tax to pay. There are no taxes due on the reinvested dividends, and you don't need to track cost basis.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "526ff54a34e7c72935adaef6d41c5467",
"text": "Is there any benefit to investing in a Roth 401(k) plan, as opposed to a Roth IRA? They have separate contribution limits, so how much you contribute to one does not change the amount you can contribute to the other. Which is relevant to your question because you said the earnings on that account compounded over the next 40 years growing tax-free will be much higher than what I'd save on current taxes on a traditional 401(k). This is only true if you max out your contribution limits. If you start with the same amount of money and have the same marginal tax rate in both years, it doesn't matter which one you pick. Start with $10,000 to invest. With the traditional, you can invest all $10,000. With the Roth, you pay taxes on it and then invest it. Let's assume a tax rate of 25%. So invest $7500. Let's assume that you invest either amount long enough to double four times (forty years at 7% return after inflation is about right). So the traditional has $160,000 and the Roth has $120,000. Now you withdraw them. For simplicity's sake, we'll pretend it's all one year. It's probably over several years, but the math is easier in a single year. With the Roth, you have $120,000. With the traditional, you have to pay tax. Again, let's assume 25%. So that's $40,000, leaving you with $120,000 from the traditional. That is the same amount as the Roth! So it would make sense to If you can max out both, great. You do that for forty years and your retirement will be as financially secure as you can make it. If you can't max them out, the most important thing is the employer match. That's free money. Then you may prefer your Roth IRA to the 401k. Note that you can also roll over your Roth 401k to a Roth IRA. Then you can withdraw your contributions from the Roth IRA without penalty or additional tax. Alternate source. Beyond answering your question, I would still like to reiterate that Roth or traditional does not have a big effect on your investment unless you max them out or you have different tax rates now versus in retirement. It may change other things. For example, you can roll over a Roth 401k to a Roth IRA without paying taxes. And the Roth IRA will act like it was contributed directly. You have to check with your employer what their rollover rules are. They may allow it any time or only at employment separation (when you leave the job). If you do max out your Roth accounts, then they will perform better than the traditional accounts at the same nominal contribution. This is because they are tax free while your returns in the other accounts will have to pay taxes. But it doesn't matter until you hit the limits. Until then, you could just invest the tax savings of the traditional as well as the money you could invest in a Roth.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c7efc2dd021ddf9a2a03b9622a11cf2a",
"text": "I have managed two IRA accounts; one I inherited from my wife's 401K and my own's 457B. I managed actively my wife's 401 at Tradestation which doesn't restrict on Options except level 5 as naked puts and calls. I moved half of my 457B funds to TDAmeritrade, the only broker authorized by my employer, to open a Self Directed account. However, my 457 plan disallows me from using a Cash-secured Puts, only Covered Calls. For those who does not know investing, I resent the contention that participants to these IRAs should not be messing around with their IRA funds. For years, I left my 401k/457B funds with my current fund custodian, Great West Financial. I checked it's current values once or twice a year. These last years, the market dived in the last 2 quarters of 2015 and another dive early January and February of 2016. I lost a total of $40K leaving my portfolio with my current custodian choosing all 30 products they offer, 90% of them are ETFs and the rest are bonds. If you don't know investing, better leave it with the pros - right? But no one can predict the future of the market. Even the pros are at the mercy of the market. So, I you know how to invest and choose your stocks, I don't think your plan administrator has to limit you on how you manage your funds. For example, if you are not allowed to place a Cash-Secured Puts and you just Buy the stocks or EFT at market or even limit order, you buy the securities at their market value. If you sell a Cash-secured puts against the stocks/ETF you are interested in buying, you will receive a credit in fraction of a dollar in a specific time frame. In average, your cost to owning a stock/ETF is lesser if you buy it at market or even a limit order. Most of the participants of the IRA funds rely too much on their portfolio manager because they don't know how to manage. If you try to educate yourself at a minimum, you will have a good understanding of how your IRA funds are tied up to the market. If you know how to trade in bear market compared to bull market, then you are good at managing your investments. When I started contributing to my employer's deferred comp account (457B) as a public employee, I have no idea of how my portfolio works. Year after year as I looked at my investment, I was happy because it continued to grow. Without scrutinizing how much it grew yearly, and my regular payroll contribution, I am happy even it only grew 2% per year. And at this age that I am ready to retire at 60, I started taking investment classes and attended pre-retirement seminars. Then I knew that it was not totally a good decision to leave your retirement funds in the hands of the portfolio manager since they don't really care if it tanked out on some years as long at overall it grew to a meager 1%-4% because they managers are pretty conservative on picking the equities they invest. You can generalize that maybe 90% of IRA investors don't know about investing and have poor decision making actions which securities/ETF to buy and hold. For those who would like to remain as one, that is fine. But for those who spent time and money to study and know how to invest, I don't think the plan manager can limit the participants ability to manage their own portfolio especially if the funds have no matching from the employer like mine. All I can say to all who have IRA or any retirement accounts, educate yourself early because if you leave it all to your portfolio managers, you lost a lot. Don't believe much in what those commercial fund managers also show in their presentation just to move your funds for them to manage. Be proactive. If you start learning how to invest now when you are young, JUST DO IT!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f8485f09a851494d5d064d155a997c7b",
"text": "You are right; Rollover is a process, and not an account type; the result is a Traditional IRA. There is no such thing as a 'Rollover IRA Account'. Rolling a 401(k) over to a Traditional IRA makes sense if a) you have to, because you leave the employer the 401(k) is with; b) because you Traditional IRA is cheaper or more flexible or in other ways 'better' for you, or c) if your next step is a backdoor rollover to a Roth IRA. Most of the time, it doesn't make sense, because employer 401(k) are often better and cheaper. Of course, for the investment company where you roll it too, it makes a lot of sense, because they get your money, so they recommend it. But that's only good for them, not for you. Of course you can roll into an existing account, if you want to roll. Making a new account has no advantage. I cannot imagine any IRA custodian wouldn't take rollovers; they would shoot themselves in the foot by that. What can happen - and you should consider this - that your IRA only accepts cash, and does not allow to transfer the shares you have in the 401(k). That means you have to sell and then re-buy, and you might lose a lot in fees there.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ba8562565ad66b18e5dffc4ca77c938d",
"text": "Companies usually have a minimum account balance required to keep a 401k for former employees. You will have to check whether $10k is sufficient to keep your funds in your former employer's 401k. If you are below their threshold, you will have to move your money. One option is to rollover into the new employer's 401k. You can rollover a 401k into a traditional IRA account that is independent of your employer. A traditional IRA has the same tax benefits as a 401k; it grows tax-free until you withdraw money from the account. Companies that offer IRAs include Vanguard, Fidelity, TIAA. Many companies have significant overhead costs in the their 401k management. It may be better for you to rollover your money into an IRA to save on these costs. I am not knowledgeable about loaning from retirement accounts, so I cannot help with that.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7c4e586ff0130e9e3fbab06b0e51fd03",
"text": "Post-tax (i.e. non-retirement account) investing is nothing to ignore. You don't mention a spouse, so for a start, you still have the $5500 to put in an IRA. The remaining investment funds will earn dividends, if any, at a tax preferred rate, and then the gain on sale will be taxed at 15% if the code doesn't change again. The gains accumulate tax deferred, and you control the timing of the sale. With a 401(k) all withdrawal are taxable as income. In your case, just the gain is taxed at a potential long term cap gain rate. Hopefully the new job pays more than the old one and the loss of 401(k) is compensated.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "02774bad616ec7caadba2ad0ca64f880",
"text": "\"If you are the sole owner (or just you and your spouse) and expect to be that way for a few years, consider the benefits of an individual 401(k). The contribution limits are higher than an IRA, and there are usually no fees involved. You can google \"\"Individual 401k\"\" and any of the major investment firms (Fidelity, Schwab, etc) will set one up free of charge. This option gives you a lot of freedom to decide how much money to put away without any plan management fees. The IRS site has all the details in an article titled One-Participant 401(k) Plans. Once you have employees, if you want to set up a retirement plan for them, you'll need to switch to a traditional, employer-sponsored 401k, which will involve some fees on your part. I seem to recall $2k/yr in fees when I had a sponsored 401(k) for my company, and I'm sure this varies widely. If you have employees and don't feel a need to have a company-wide retirement plan, you can set up your own personal IRA and simply not offer a company plan to your employees. The IRA contribution limits are lower than an individual 401(k), but setting it up is easy and fee-free. So basically, if you want to spend $0 on plan management fees, get an individual 401(k) if you are self-employed, or an IRA for yourself if you have employees.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dcb9f17b9d27ac5ab74a948bb20d0bdf",
"text": "Your assumptions are flawed or miss crucial details. An employer sponsored 401k typically limits the choices of investments, whereas an IRA typically gives you self directed investment choices at a brokerage house or through a bank account. You are correct in noticing that you are limited in making your own pre-tax contributions to a traditional IRA in many circumstances when you also have an employer sponsored 401k, but you miss the massive benefit you have: You can rollover unlimited amounts from a traditional 401k to a traditional IRA. This is a benefit that far exceeds the capabilities of someone without a traditional 401k who is subject to the IRA contribution limits. Your rollover capabilities completely gets around any statutory contribution limit. You can contribution, at time of writing, $18,000 annually to a 401k from salary deferrals and an additional $35,000 from employer contributions for a maximum of $53,000 annually and roll that same $53,000 into an IRA if you so desired. That is a factor. This should be counterweighed with the borrowing capabilities of a 401k, which vastly exceeds an IRA again. The main rebuttal to your assumptions is that you are not necessarily paying taxes to fund an IRA.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ef73570e8103f322daa288e4e2a6a291",
"text": "That would be my suggestion (and what I've personally done), but I can't tell you what's right for you. As an aside, you don't usually need to manually fund an IRA (traditional *or* Roth) to open it for a rollover - Just tell them you're doing a rollover, and they'll set you up and tell you where to have the 401k checks sent (and sometimes even arrange it all *for* you).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "54b755d001fa4278993f25e7ae2ba967",
"text": "If you want to 'offset' current (2016) income, only deductible contribution to a traditional IRA does that. You can make nondeductible contributions to a trad IRA, and there are cases where that makes sense for the future and cases where it doesn't, but it doesn't give you a deduction now. Similarly a Roth IRA has possible advantages and disadvantages, but it does not have a deduction now. Currently he maximum is $5500 per person ($6500 if over age 50, but you aren't) which with two accounts (barely) covers your $10k. To be eligible to make this deductible traditional contribution, you must have earned income (employment or self-employment, but NOT the distribution from another IRA) at least the amount you want to contribute NOT have combined income (specifically MAGI, Modified Adjusted Gross Income) exceeding the phaseout limit (starts at $96,000 for married-joint) IF you were covered during the year (either you or your spouse) by an employer retirement plan (look at box 13 on your W-2's). With whom. Pretty much any bank, brokerage, or mutual fund family can handle IRAs. (To be technical, the bank's holding company will have an investment arm -- to you it will usually look like one operation with one name and logo, one office, one customer service department, one website etc, but the investment part must be legally separate from the insured banking part so you may notice a different name on your legal and tax forms.) If you are satisified with the custodian of the inherited IRA you already have, you might just stay with them -- they may not need as much paperwork, you don't need to meet and get comfortable with new people, you don't need to learn a new website. But if they sold you an annuity at your age -- as opposed to you inheriting an already annuitized IRA -- I'd want a lot of details before trusting they are acting in your best interests; most annuities sold to IRA holders are poor deals. In what. Since you want only moderate risk at least to start, and also since you are starting with a relatively small amount where minimum investments, expenses and fees can make more of an impact on your results, I would go with one or a few broad (= lower risk) index (= lower cost) fund(s). Every major fund familly also offers at least a few 'balanced' funds which give you a mixture of stocks and bonds, and sometimes some 'alternatives', in one fund. Remember this is not committing you forever; any reasonable custodian will allow you to move or spread to more-adventurous (but not wild and crazy) investments, which may be better for you in future years when you have some more money in the account and some more time to ponder your goals and options and comfort level.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4b1a79654858ab8d0ddcb37a7560699f",
"text": "\"Close... Warning, I may be off a bit here; I'm sure someone will correct me if so. Traditional 401k or IRA: money goes in pre-tax (so, yes, you avoid paying tax on it now), grows untaxed, taxes are due when you retire and start taking money back out of the account -- but your income, including these withdrawals, is likely to be lower than your peak earning years so your tax rate will be lower. You don't avoid all the tax, but you delay it and hopefully reduce it, and by doing so there's more money in your account earning returns. Roth 401k or IRA: money goes in after taxes (you do pay income tax now). However, all returns on the money are untaxed (I believe), and you pay no tax when you're eligible to withdraw the funds. Either or both kinds of 401k may be eligible for some percentage of matching funds from your employer (there are some incentives for them to offer this benefit). I believe that even if you're doing a Roth 401k, the matching funds legally have to go in as traditional plan. And yes, as that implies, it is possible to split your contribution between the two styles. Note: the matching funds are \"\"free money.\"\" If your plan offers a match, it is highly recommended that you contribute enough to your 401k to capture the maximum match.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e7962fa0ff82d14ec19bf3efecef83e6",
"text": "\"You need to contact the institution that is holding your current account, have them sell your fund investment, and then close your account and send you a check for the balance. Then you can open an account directly with Vanguard (or call 800-319-4254). You don't need an account with an online broker unless you want to be able to invest in funds outside the Vanguard family. Fees will depend on the institution that you are currently using and the fund. With some funds you have to pay a \"\"load\"\" (percentage of your assets, in the neighborhood of a couple of percent) when you redeem shares. Your institution may charge you a fee for redeeming the fund (anywhere from $0/free to maybe $40 or higher). Some institutions will charge a fee for closing the account. (I've seen anything from $0/free to $40, but I haven't looked around in a while.) As MrChrister points out in a comment below, this is not the best method for an IRA. In that case, you'd want to make a transfer, and I'd recommend calling both your current institution and Vanguard (or wherever you end up transferring funds to) for forms and instructions on how best to do it.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
36dc8cf13c4de678d393e27d1141068a
|
Why does a company's stock price affect its ability to raise debt?
|
[
{
"docid": "23967dd4a0a7aa039fed9c1c857c1050",
"text": "As JB hints, it is likely due to superior or improving, fundamentals. If the fundamentals of a company improve then its ability to repay loans improves. If its ability to repay improves then more sources of cash become willing to lend to the company. Also if fundamentals are improving then more sources are willing to buy and/or hold the stock.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "3bdc9f43a6dbeae09b8d7384d8c5badd",
"text": "\"The first 3 are the same as owning stock in a company would be measured in shares and would constitute some percentage of the overall shares outstanding. If there are 100 shares in the company in total, then owning 80 shares is owning 80% is the same as owning 80% of the common stock. This would be the typical ownership case though there can also be \"\"Restricted stock\"\" as something to note here. Convertible debt would likely carry interest charges as well as the choice at the end of becoming stock in the company. In this case, until the conversion is done, the stock isn't issued and thus isn't counted. Taking the above example, one could have a note that could be worth 10 shares but until the conversion is done, the debt is still debt. Some convertible debt could carry options or warrants for the underlying stock as there was the Berkshire convertible notes years ago that carried a negative interest rate that was studied in \"\"The Negative Coupon Bond\"\" if you want an example here. Options would have the right but not the obligation to buy the stock where there are \"\"Incentive Stock Options\"\" to research this in more depth. In this case, one could choose to not exercise the option and thus no stock changes hands. This is where some companies will experience dilution of ownership as employees and management may be given options that put more shares out to the public. Issuing debt wouldn't change the ownership and isn't direct ownership unless the company goes through a restructuring where the creditors become the new stock holders in the case of a Chapter 11 situation in the US. Note that this isn't really investing in a small business as much as it is making a loan to the company that will be paid back in cash. If the company runs into problems then the creditor could try to pursue the assets of the company to be repaid.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "00a0f668c312a0bb26121ab7a1b1a124",
"text": "\"With debts exceeding assets by a billion dollars, this activity likely comes from penny stock speculators and \"\"pump and dump\"\" schemers. There is no rational expectation that the stock is even worth multiple pennies when the company is that far upside-down on its debts. Even if the debts could be restructured in a chapter 11, the equity shares would likely lose all of their value in the bankruptcy proceedings. Shareholders are at the bottom of the totem-pole when debts are being adjusted by the courts.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "78c1dad9e8e61a6da10385bf32fbcf66",
"text": "Let's assume that the bonds have a par value of $1,000. If conversion happens, then one bond would be converted into 500 shares. The price in the market is unimportant. Regardless of the share price in the market, the income per share would be increased by the absence of $70 in interest expense. It would be decreased by the lost tax deduction. It would be further diluted by the increase in 500 shares. Likewise, the debt would be extinguished and the equity section increased. Whether it increased or decreased on a per share basis would depend upon the average amount paid in per share in the currently existing structure, adjusted for changes in retained earnings since the initial offering and for any treasury shares. There would be a loss in value, generally, if it is trading far from $2.00 because it would be valued based on the market price. Had the bond not converted, it would trade in the market as a pure bond if the stock price is far below the strike price and as an ordinary pure bond plus a premium if near enough to the strike price in a manner that depends upon the time remaining under the conversion privilege. I cannot think of a general case where someone would want to convert below strike and indeed, barring a very strange tax, inheritance or legal situation (such as a weird divorce), I cannot think of a case where it would make sense. It often does not make sense to convert far from maturity either as the option premium only vanishes well above $2. The primary case for conversion would be where the after-tax dividend is greater than the after-tax interest payment.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "96a2942dfa624446406a128889324e34",
"text": "There's a premium or discount for various stocks subject to influence by the alternatives available to investors, meaning investments are susceptible to the principle of supply and demand. This is easily seen when industries or business models get hot, and everybody wants a tech company, a social media company, or a solar company in his portfolio. You'll see bubbles like the dotcom bubble, the RE bubble, etc., as people start to think that the industry and not its performance are all that matters. The stock price of a desired industry or company is inflated beyond what might otherwise be expected, to accommodate the premium that the investment can demand. So if bonds become uniformly less attractive in terms of returns, and certain institutional investors are largely obliged to continue purchasing them anyway, then flexible investors will need to look elsewhere. As more people want to buy stocks, the price rises. Supply and demand is sometimes so elementary it feels nearly counter-intuitive, but it applies here as elsewhere.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "68f7f3720f0dc243f21de291f3e79b07",
"text": "Unissued capital is only a token restriction. When a company is incorporated a maximum number of shares is specified in the legal documentation. Most companies will make this an extremely large number so they never face that limitation. See here. You wouldn't necessarily expect the stock price to change. The reason a company issues new stock is as a way to raise capital. Although new stock is issued, the cash raised by the sale becomes an Asset on the company's balance sheet. There's a good worked example in this Wikipedia article. Following a rights issue the Liabilities of the company will increase to account for the increase in owner's equity, but the Assets will also increase by the same amount with the cash received. Whether the stock price changes will depend upon what price the stock is issued at and on the market's opinions about the company's growth potential now it has new capital to invest. If the new stock is issued at the same price as the current market price, there's no particular reason to expect the share price to change. Again Wikipedia has more detail. When new stock is issued it is usually offered to existing shareholders first, in proportion to their current holding. If the shareholder decides to purchase the new stock in full then their position won't be diluted. If they opt not to buy the new stock, they will now own a smaller percentage of the company as their stocks will make up a smaller part of the now larger number of shares.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2c2ba8dba2f6f2b1e937ccfc001c4238",
"text": "\"In some cases, when a company purchases a minor stake, they often intend to increase the size of the stake over time. As a reference, note that Coca Cola has increased their stake in Green Mountain Coffee Roasters (GMCR) over time. It also adds some \"\"support\"\" to the price because these investors may be willing to step in and purchase the stock if there is any distress or poor performance. Finally, its generally a good \"\"tell\"\" that the stock has good things going for it and may be subject to additional interest from large investors.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dd3a39f62b2c1d88d7d979fe0bea2df1",
"text": "In addition to D. Stanley's very fine answer, the price of stocks change as a result of changing market conditions and the resulting investor estimation of its effect on the company's future earnings. Take these examples. Right now, in the USA, there is a housing shortage; that is, there are fewer houses available for purchase than there are willing buyers. Investors will correctly assume that the future earnings of home builders will be higher than they were, say ten years ago. Seeking to capitalize on these higher earnings, they will try to buy the stocks. However, the current owners of the stock, potentially the sellers, know the same thing as the investor-buyer and therefore demand a premium to entice a sale. The price of the stock has risen. The reverse is true, also. Brick and mortar retailers are declining as more consumers prefer on-line retail shopping. The current owners of these stocks will probably want to sell their stock before it is worth even less. The investor-buyer also knows the same facts; that future earnings will most likely be less for these companies. The potential buyer offers a very low price to entice a sale. The price of the stock has fallen. Finally, the price of stocks rise and fall with general market conditions. As an example, assume that next months jobs report is released showing that 350,000 new jobs were created in July. Investors will believe that if companies are hiring, then the companies are doing well; they are selling products and services at a higher than expected rate, requiring that they add new employees. They will also conclude that those 350,000 new employees will be spending their salaries to buy not just food, clothing and shelter, but also a few luxuries like a newer car, a TV, perhaps even a new home (please see paragraph 2!). All of these companies will have more business, more earnings and, likely, a higher stock price.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3be9de325005a3b81d2802bac87ba204",
"text": "Take a look at apple. It has no debt. So the ev is basically mkt cap - cash. Also remember market cap is the float * share price nothing else. Obviously share price takes into account the assets of the firm into perpituituy but the way you phrased it, adding debt , didnt sound quite right to me. We remove cash since someone buying a company isn't going to pay for your cash. In the transaction cash is distributed to share holders then the company is sold.",
"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": "66510e569c3a5f89618930166f832af3",
"text": "\"The correlation I heard most about in economics/finance was that stock prices and bond yields were negatively correlated; as the stock market does better, bond yields fall (company's doing well as evidenced by stocks, so it's a good credit risk, so YTM of its bonds on the market goes down). The correlation, if any, between the stock and futures market should be visible in the actual price histories. Index prices may be useful, but what's more likely is that various future prices have correlation with various companies' stocks. Where the future reflects the price of a raw material that is a significant cost of goods sold for a company, you'll see these two move inversely to each other in the short term. I think that if there is a causative relationship here, its that futures prices influence stock prices, not the other way around. The futures market generally represents the cost side of a consumer goods producer's bottom line. The stock market represents its profits. As futures go up, profit expectations go down, putting pressure on stock prices. Industries that deal in services, or in other types of goods, can still be affected because a rise in the cost of something consumers need will cause them to spend less on other things which affects margins in those other areas. So, in the short and medium term, when the futures market goes up the stock market sees a dip, and vice versa. However, companies adapt; they can put upward pressure on prices for their goods to restore their desired margins, usually by slowly increasing them to prevent sticker shock (though elasticity of demand plays a part; the more we need something no matter what it costs, the faster prices can increase). To maintain costs, they can make things cheaper using less expensive materials (more plastic, less steel). They can restructure production processes (translated: move factories offshore, or at least to \"\"right-to-work\"\" states with less union strength) to save costs elsewhere. All of these reduce costs and thus increase profits, but take time to implement. Many of these things reduce direct costs, reducing demand for the commodity and causing the futures prices to go back down. So, over the long term, these differences even out, and it's down to the things that affect the entire market (inflation, consumer/investor confidence, monetary policy).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "63f1724f4c0a0b3f2e97ed990bac83fe",
"text": "There is a highly related question which is much easier to answer: what normally value-increasing news about a company would cause that company to fall in value in the public stock market? By answering that, we can answer your question by proxy. The answer to that question being: anything that makes investors believe that the company won't be able to maintain the level of profit. For example, let's say a company announces a 300% profit growth compared to the previous year. This should push the stock upwards; maybe not by 300%, but certainly by quite a bit. Let's also say that this company is in the business of designing, manufacturing and selling some highly useful gadget that lots of people want to buy. Now suppose that the company managed such an profit increase by one of: In scenario 1 (firing the engineering department), it is highly unlikely that the company will be able to come up with, manufacture and sell a Next Generation Gadget. Hence, while profit is up now, it is highly likely to go down in the months and years coming up. Because stock market investors are more interested in future profits than in past profits, this should push the value of the company down. In scenario 2 (selling off the machinery), the company may very well be able to come up with a Next Generation Gadget, and if they can manufacture it, they might very well be able to sell it. However, no matter how you slice it, the short-term costs for manufacturing either their current generation Gadget, or the Next Generation Gadget, are bound to go up because the company will either need to rent machinery, or buy new machinery. Neither is good for future profits, so the value of the company again should go down in response. In scenario 3 (their product getting a large boost), the company still has all the things that allowed them to come up with, produce and sell Gadgets. They also have every opportunity to come up with, manufacture and sell Next Generation Gadgets, which implies that future profits, while far from guaranteed, are likely. In this case, the probability remains high that the company can actually maintain a higher level of profit. Hence, the value of the company should rise. Now apply this to a slightly more realistic scenario, and you can see why the value of a company can fall even if the company announces, for example, record profits. Hence, you are looking for news which indicate a present and sustained raised ability to turn a profit. This is the type of news that should drive any stock up in price, all else being equal. Obviously, buyer beware, your mileage may vary, all else is never equal, nothing ever hits the average, you are fighting people who do this type of analysis for a living and have every tool known available to them, etc etc. But that's the general idea.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0e8d94c657d16106d3755564d7398b58",
"text": "\"As others have pointed out, there are often many factors that are contributing to a stock's movement other than the latest news. In particular, the overall market sentiment and price movement very often is the primary driver in any stock's change on a given day. But in this case, I'd say your anecdotal observation is correct: All else equal, announcements of layoffs tend to drive stock prices upwards. Here's why: To the public, layoffs are almost always a sign that a company is willing to do whatever is needed to fix an already known and serious problem. Mass layoffs are brutally hard decisions. Even at companies that go through cycles of them pretty regularly, they're still painful every time. There's a strong personal drain on the chain of executives that has to decide who loses their livelihood. And even if you think most execs don't care (and I think you'd be wrong) it's still incredibly distracting. The process takes many weeks, during which productivity plummets. And it's demoralizing to everyone when it happens. So companies very rarely do it until they think they have to. By that point, they are likely struggling with some very publicly known problems - usually contracting (or negative) margins. So, the market's view of the company at the time just before layoffs occur is almost always, \"\"this company has problems, but is unable or unwilling to solve them.\"\". Layoffs signal that both of those possibilities are incorrect. They suggest that the company believes that layoffs will fix the problem, and that they're willing to make hard calls to do so. And that's why they usually drive prices up.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "2179472f1459f1f7ec70b6aac3a9d3be",
"text": "You are right that Facebook really doesn't get impacted as they got their $38. However it would make it slightly more difficult for Facebook to raise more money in future as large investors would be more cautious. This can keep the price lowers than it actually needs to be. Quite a few companies try to list the IPO at lower price so that it keeps going up and have more positive effect overall there by making it easier for future borrowings. See related question Why would a company care about the price of its own shares in the stock market?",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
f12c9f150683cc3a79641b27afd9e46a
|
Why is the number of issued shares less than the number of outstanding shares
|
[
{
"docid": "f15e1b1e2d695565c4dfa9ef72174040",
"text": "\"The formulae #issued shares = #outstanding shares + #treasury shares looks right. However it looks like the Treasury Shares are treated as -ve in accounting books and thus the outstanding shares are more than issued shares to the extent of Treasury shares. Further info at \"\"Accounting for treasury stock\"\" on wiki\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "36a14f2330785694a4d87d0fcc7a6ecc",
"text": "\"The language in the starbucks accounts is highly ambiguous. But Starbucks has no treasury shares which helps work out what is going on. Where it says \"\"respectively\"\" it is referring to the years 2014 and 2013 rather than \"\"issued and outstanding\"\"...even though it doesn't read that way. Not easy to work out. The figures are: Authorised 1200 2014 Issued 749.5 2014 Outstanding 749.5 2013 Issued 753.2 2013 Outstanding 753.2\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b1d04de4125e8aedd228979f9804cb86",
"text": "I have been asking myself a similar question about the financial statements of Weyerhaeuser. In response to Dheer's comment, whilst treasury shares are treated as a negative, it is issued shares less treasury shares (the negative) which gives the outstanding shares. So the original query remains unanswered. I've searched several sources and all state that outstanding shares will never be greater than issued shares. I've realized that the shares referred to are those authorized followed by those issued and outstanding (current year and prior year respectively) i.e. the shares that are both issued and outstanding as they must be issued in order to be outstanding This is supported in the example of Weyerhaeuser as there was a large increase in shares during Q1 2016 as a result of their merger with Plum Creek. Shares issued and outstanding are 510 million and 759 million respectively.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "a26da9e8aaa057b993b4972726e78b83",
"text": "For each class A share (GOOGL) there's a class C share (GOOG), hence the missing half in your calculation. The almost comes from the slightly higher market price of the class A shares (due to them having voting powers) over class C (which have no voting powers). There's also class B share which is owned by the founders (Larry, Sergei, Eric and perhaps some to Stanford University and others) and differs from class A by the voting power. These are not publicly traded.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c3a98c4cdebde920a4f48f427c33fca1",
"text": "Because people bought their shares under the premise that they would make more money and if the company completely lied about that they will be subject to several civil and criminal violations. If people didn't believe the company was going to make more money, they would have valued their shares lower during the IPO by not forming much of a market at all.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "297f5c1fde7a5eb34c626fd519b68de3",
"text": "Generally, when I run across this kind of situation, I look for the Investor Relations section of the corporate website for a 'Stock Information' (or similar) tab or link. This usually contains information explaining the different shares classes, how they relate (if at all), voting and/or dividend rights, and taxation differences for the different classes. However, I have trouble finding such a page on a central BYD corporate investor relations page. I did find this page detailing the HK1211 shares: http://www.byd.com/investor/base_information.html. I don't know what or why, but something tells me this is an older page. Searching on, I also found this page which looks newer and clarifies that the difference you are seeing is between 'A' and 'H' shares. http://www.byd.cn/BYDEnglish/basic/article.jsp?articleId=1524676. (I'm guessing but I'd think somewhere in the announcements on this byd.cn site, you may find more details of any structural differences between share classes -- I just didn't want to page through them all.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "503c22963a54960426fc7ceb089387e5",
"text": "If the company went bankrupt, the issued public shares that were outstanding at the time most likely were voided, in which case your shares are most definitely gone. The company might have done a new stock issuance coming out of bankruptcy with a different symbol, and while it could be substantially the same company, it doesn't mean much for you. It's unfortunate this may be the case, but it is one of the risks of investing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "de242c20e4e0b92003730a296c3ef71c",
"text": "The difference is that Yahoo is showing the unadjusted price that the security traded for on that date, while google is adjusting for price splits. This means that Google is showing how much you would have had to pay to get what is now one share. Since 1979, JNJ has split 3-for-1 once, and 2-for-1 four times. 3x2x2x2x2 = 48. If you bought 1 share at that time, you would now have 48 shares today. Yahoo is showing a price of $66 for what was then 1 share. $66/48 = 1.375, which Google rounds to 1.38. You can see this if you get the prices from May 14-21, 1981. The stock split 3-for-1, and the price dropped from 108 to 36.38. Yahoo's adjusted close column has not been accurate since they re-wrote the Finance website. It now just represents the closing price. The other relevant field on Yahoo is the Adj. Close. This adjusts for splits, but also adjusts for dividends. Hence why this doesn't match either the Google or Yahoo numbers.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "93fab222b68576800518b5b1a4e554ec",
"text": "Coca Cola doesn't seem to have any preferred shares outstanding. From the annual report, it does say that the number of common shares outstanding was 2,294,316,831 as of February 22, 2011. (cover page, right before the horizontal break) But normally, you can find it either toward the beginning of the document or in the statement of shareholder's equity.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "69997fc43a30d7d136f11e2c6cccf3ba",
"text": "Initially, Each company has 10k shares. Company B has $500k money and possibly other assets. Every company has stated purpose. It can't randomly buy shares in some other firm. Company A issued 5k new shares, which gives it $500k money. Listed companies can't make private placements without regulatory approvals. They have to put this in open market via Public issue or rights issue. Company B does the same thing, issuing 5k shares for $500k money. Company A bought those 5k shares using the $500k it just got There is no logical reason for shareholder of Company B to raise 5K from Company A for the said consideration. This would have to increase.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aa896ef199e1088f7bdc3a379dbc2767",
"text": "Less shares outstanding means that, holding the dividend per share constant you would have a lower total dividend expenditure. The more likely outcome is that, if you want to return capital to shareholders through a dividend, you just pay a higher amount per share.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "75d0ef524784e39bf4b944ea1d459050",
"text": "number of shares is finite Yes it is I would assume that the repurchase numbers exceed the numbers of created shares Number of shares repurchased by company would never exceed in theory the total number of shares. It can become Zero, however its unlikely as it would run on its own and its not possible. In practise company generally repurchase a small percentage say 5% - 10% of the outstanding shares. The number of shares additional created is irrelevant. Its the total shares that is relevant. Edit: A company starts with say 100 shares, over the period it creates new shares [via various mechanisms, Rights issue, split, Additional shares, etc] say to the extent of 50. So now the company has total shares of 150. This lets say is held by 15 entities. The company can buy back say 15 shares in a year, and keep doing this, next year another 10 etc. However a company if it purchased all 150 of its own shares is unlikely as the Majority shareholders will not like this to happen and loose control. There are 2 different things, buying out of minority shareholders, typically different percentage of the shares are held by non-promoters and available for trade can range from 10% to 70% ... there are also listing norms. Quite a few stock-exchange need atleast 10% shares to be available for trade [held by non-promotors]. In case a company has a small number of shares held by non-promoters, it can buy back the shares and delist the company from the exchange.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4aca16b8c90d88a5a94d287aa50dfd6f",
"text": "On NYSE it isn't the equity which is listed but is an ADR(American Depositary Receipt). Source A negotiable certificate issued by a U.S. bank representing a specified number of shares (or one share) in a foreign stock that is traded on a U.S. exchange. ADRs are denominated in U.S. dollars, with the underlying security held by a U.S. financial institution overseas. ADRs help to reduce administration and duty costs that would otherwise be levied on each transaction. Else people would make a killing on the arbitrage opportunity. Frankly speaking arbitrage opportunities are more or less non existent. They occur for maybe seconds or milliseconds and the HFT firms and banks trade on it to remove the arbitrage.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b152e7bee118585712db496fe8c45a9d",
"text": "There are a few reason why share prices increase or decrease, the foremost is expectation of the investors that the company/economy will do well/not well, that is expectation of profit/intrinsic value growth over some time frame (1-4 qtrs.)there is also demand & supply mismatch over (usually) short time. If you really see, the actual 'value' of a company is it's net-worth (cash+asset+stock in trade+brand value+other intangibles+other incomes)/no of shares outstanding, which (in a way) is the book value, then all shares should trade at their book value, the actual number but it does not, the expectation of investors that a share would be purchased by another investor at a higher price because the outlook of the company over a long time is good.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3d718680b0cd151f64d4cb4d777842e0",
"text": "\"Oh, I understand now -- we're having an absurd, meaningless conversation about an obscure theoretical point. When you can tell me how you can determine a \"\"minimum cash\"\" level from a public company's filings, we can continue the discussion. Otherwise, make a simplifying assumption and move on. I misunderstood -- I thought we were actually trying to understand the difference between enterprise value and equity value / understand the implication of an enterprise value multiple.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "66cf2a60fd5afb42e290e2d9d52f4199",
"text": "outstanding shares are the shares(regular shares) that are still tradable in the market, where the firm in question is listed. The term is primarily used to distinguish from shares held in treasury(treasury stock), which have been bought back(buybacks) from the market and aren't currently tradable in the market. Wikipedia is a bit more clearer and mentions the diluted outstanding shares(used for convertible bonds, warrants, etc) which is used to calculated diluted EPS.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d9b868a06fb178e5790de8cb625cead1",
"text": "\"The answer to your question has to do with the an explanation of \"\"shares authorized, issued and outstanding.\"\" Companies, in their Articles of Incorporation, specify a maximum number of shares they are authorized to issue. For example purposes let's assume Facebook is authorized to issue 100 shares. Let's pretend they have actually issued 75 shares, but only 50 are outstanding (aka Float, i.e. freely trading stock in the market) and stock options total 25 shares. So if someone owns 1 share, what percentage of Facebook do they own? You might think 1/100, or 1%; you might think 1/75, or 1.3%; or you might think 1/50, or 2%. 2% is the answer, but only on a NON-diluted basis. So today someone who owns 1 share owns 2% of Facebook. Tomorrow Facebook announces they just issued 15 shares to Whatsapp to buy the company. Now there are 65 shares outstanding and 90 issued. Now someone who owns 1 share of Facebook own only 1/65, or 1.5% (down from 2%)! P.S. \"\"Valuation\"\" can be thought of as the price of the stock at the time of the purchase announcement.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "43f6685ae874e53665a484231387c5c3",
"text": "Many companies actually just issue new shares for employee compensation instead of buying back existing ones. So actually, the share price should go down because the same value is now diluted over more shares. In addition, this would not necessarily affect companies with many employees than those with fewer employees because companies with more employees tend to be bigger and thus have more shares (among which the change in demand would be distributed). Also, I think many companies do not issue shares to employees every pay day, but just e.g. once every quarter.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
d82b098a57ab68e4b83236b201663859
|
How can I generate $250/month every month from $4000 that I have?
|
[
{
"docid": "56f564b7cc8b32bf7a7cf60fcef35f1d",
"text": "If you are looking to begin living off the money now, then Dheer's answer is correct - it is not possible. However, if you are looking to grow that money (and potentially additional money added at later dates), then you could make this work. 250 a month corresponds to 3000 per year. A first approximation is that you will need a diversified portfolio of 20-25x that amount (60k-75k) to get the required return. This approximation is based on the rule of thumb for how much life insurance to buy. Therefore you need to determine how to grow the 4k you currently have into 60-75k. These numbers, however, are not adjusted for inflation. In the US I would like put the long term inflation adjust diversified market return at 4% per year (your money doubles about every 18 years). So your best approach if you have time is a diversified portfolio with rebalancing and adding additional money each year.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c299930bb1943ea6460fcb344aecc6e6",
"text": "How can I use $4000 to make $250 per month for the rest of my life? This means the investment should generate close to 6.25% return per month or around 75% per year. There is no investment that gives this kind of return. The long term return of stock market is around 15-22% depending on the year range and country.",
"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": "cd532c8fa8610c87b3a63444613790b2",
"text": "Budget out the amount you save and owe per month. Make sure that amount doesn't stay liquid, invest it, send it out. Make it go away. Learn to live in the rest. If you still have some left over then enjoy the impulse buying (why not). Second rule, try to payout your credit cards every month.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4b55ebb357dfdd039c9e8b9a0dcf8743",
"text": "Is this the smart thing to do? You're essentially borrowing money at 2.7% to keep it in your bank account. No, that is not a smart financial decision. Pay the difference in cash and replenish your savings with the $1,100 a month. Some other notes:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e14660d08b4b2fa45f1d81f43002d2c7",
"text": "\"Wow, this turns out to be a much more difficult problem than I thought from first looking at it. Let's recast some of the variables to simplify the equations a bit. Let rb be the growth rate of money in your bank for one period. By \"\"growth rate\"\" I mean the amount you will have after one period. So if the interest rate is 3% per year paid monthly, then the interest for one month is 3/12 of 1% = .25%, so after one month you have 1.0025 times as much money as you started with. Similarly, let si be the growth rate of the investment. Then after you make a deposit the amount you have in the bank is pb = s. After another deposit you've collected interest on the first, so you have pb = s * rb + s. That is, the first deposit with one period's growth plus the second deposit. One more deposit and you have pb = ((s * rb) + s) * rb + s = s + s * rb + s * rb^2. Etc. So after n deposits you have pb = s + s * rb + s * rb^2 + s * rb^3 + ... + s * rb^(n-1). This simplifies to pb = s * (rb^n - 1)/(rb - 1). Similarly for the amount you would get by depositing to the investment, let's call that pi, except you must also subtract the amount of the broker fee, b. So you want to make deposits when pb>pi, or s*(ri^n-1)/(ri-1) - b > s*(rb^n-1)/(rb-1) Then just solve for n and you're done! Except ... maybe someone who's better at algebra than me could solve that for n, but I don't see how to do it. Further complicating this is that banks normally pay interest monthly, while stocks go up or down every day. If a calculation said to withdraw after 3.9 months, it might really be better to wait for 4.0 months to collect one additional month's interest. But let's see if we can approximate. If the growth rates and the number of periods are relatively small, the compounding of growth should also be relatively small. So an approximate solution would be when the difference between the interest rates, times the amount of each deposit, summed over the number of deposits, is greater than the fee. That is, say the investment pays 10% per month more than your bank account (wildly optimistic but just for example), the broker fee is $10, and the amount of each deposit is $200. Then if you delay making the investment by one month you're losing 10% of $200 = $20. This is more than the broker fee, so you should invest immediately. Okay, suppose more realistically that the investment pays 1% more per month than the bank account. Then the first month you're losing 1% of $200 = $2. The second month you have $400 in the bank, so you're losing $4, total loss for two months = $6. The third month you have $600 in the bank so you lose an additional $6, total loss = $12. Etc. So you should transfer the money to the investment about the third month. Compounding would mean that losses on transferring to the investment are a little higher than this, so you'd want to bias to transferring a little earlier. Or, you could set up a spreadsheet to do the compounding calculations month by month, and then just look down the column for when the investment total minus the bank total is greater than the broker fee. Sorry I'm not giving you a definitive answer, but maybe this helps.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1ee79f89d2eccdf0d137f986fd276ece",
"text": "It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to save up and wait to make a payment on any of these loans. Any dollar you pay today works better than saving it and waiting months to pay it, no matter which loan it will be applied to. Since your lender won't let you choose which loan your payment is being applied to, don't worry about it. Just make as big a payment as you can each month, and try to get the whole thing out of your life as soon as possible. The result of this will be that the smaller balance loans will be paid off first, and the bigger balance loans later. It is unfortunate that the higher interest rate loans will be paid later, but it sounds like you don't have a choice, so it is not worth worrying about. Instead of thinking of it as 5 loans of different amounts, think of it as one loan with a balance of $74,000, and make payments as quickly and as often as possible. For example, let's say that you have $1000 a month extra to throw at the loans. You would be better off paying $1000 each month than waiting until you have $4000 in the bank and paying it all at once toward one loan. How the lender divides up your payment is less significant than when the lender gets the payment.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "33886007c0805cafe83f5b5820b062a3",
"text": "Find a good financial advisor that is willing to teach you and not just interested in making a commission on your net worth. Talk to them and talk some more. Go slow and don't make impulsive buying decisions. If you don't understand it then don't buy it. Think long term - how do I turn this 250K into 2.5M? Congrats on the savings!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4f32f7e7afc39af60c5c839369e3106a",
"text": "If you were married the 250K protection can be expanded by the use of joint and individual accounts. A separate limit also exists for IRA accounts. With out those options you will have to put some additional money into another banking institution. This could be a bank or credit union. You have to be careful to make sure that any additional accounts have FDIC or NCUA (for Credit Unions) coverage. Some banking institutions try and turn customers to non-covered accounts that are either investment accounts or use a 3rd party to protect them. You could also use it to invest in US government bonds through Treasury direct. Though for just the few months that you will be in the excess position it probably isn't worth the hassle of treasury direct.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "07a139be6ffe16a27981b5a986c90724",
"text": "It depends on how much your time is worth. Those interest rates from that amount of money will not generate anything convenient. And the effort you make to fulfill the requirements can possibly turn into an overhead cost to getting that $34 a month. For instance, lets say you make $20/hour but you spent an hour trying to figure out how their billpay works. Suddenly not worth it. And if that interest rate is only granted up to $10k, then the compounding effects will be nullified because they won't even grant that same interest rate once the money starts to grow. Hope that helps.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "948a4f5649ea7e6eff5c881e7c1a1db5",
"text": "\"I think the real problem here is dealing with the variable income. The envelope solution suggests the problem is that your brother doesn't have the discipline to avoid spending all his money immediately, but maybe that's not it. Maybe he could regulate his expenses just fine, but with such a variable income, he can't settle into a \"\"normal\"\" spending pattern. Without any savings, any budget would have to be based on the worst possible income for a month. This isn't a great: it means a poor quality of life. And what do you do with the extra money in the better-than-worst months? While it's easy to say \"\"plan for the worst, then when it's better, save that money\"\", that's just not going to happen. No one will want to live at their worst-case standard of living all the time. Someone would have to be a real miser to have the discipline to not use that extra money for something. You can say to save it for emergencies or unexpected events, but there's always a way to rationalize spending it. \"\"I'm a musician, so this new guitar is a necessary business expense!\"\" Or maybe the car is broken. Surely this is a necessary expense! But, do you buy a $1000 car or a $20000 car? There's always a way to rationalize what's necessary, but it doesn't change financial reality. With a highly variable income, he will need some cash saved up to fill in the bad months, which is replenished in the good months. For success, you need a reasonable plan for making that happen: one that includes provisions for spending it other than \"\"please try not to spend it\"\". I would suggest tracking income accurately for several months. Then you will have a real number (not a guess) of what an average month is. Then, you can budget on that. You will also have real numbers that allow you to calculate how long the bad stretches are, and thus determine how much cash reserve is necessary to make the odds of going broke in a bad period unlikely. Having that, you can make a budget based on average income, which should have some allowance for enjoying life. Of course initially the cash reserve doesn't exist, but knowing exactly what will happen when it does provides a good motivation for building the reserve rather than spending it today. Knowing that the budget includes rules for spending the reserves reduces the incentive to cheat. Of course, the eventual budget should also include provisions for long term savings for retirement, medical expenses, car maintenance, etc. You can do the envelope thing if that's helpful. The point here is to solve the problem of the variable income, so you can have an average income that doesn't result in a budget that delivers a soul crushing decrease in quality of living.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "74cf4470cf01f474b7c3dd53538fde8a",
"text": "I am with Joe. Just doing some rough budgeting you should be able to swing 2-2.5K per month. Here is how I got that: You gross 60K, 5k per month. 75% of rent ~1000, 75% of 600 for groceries 450, 75% of 400 for utilities 300, 500 student loan. 5000-1000-450-300-500=2750. Deduct another 250 for gas, car repairs, clothes, hair cuts and you have 2500. What else are you doing with your money? This is with no help from your partner. I'd ask the same of him, what is he doing with all of his money? He makes 66% of what you do, but is only responsible for 25% of the bills. Combined you could be rocking this at like 5K per month. This is with not working an extra job. Being a victim is a choice, you can win with money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "260b3d0e6bfbae156178aa154e1b42fd",
"text": "\"Most online \"\"high yield\"\" savings accounts are paying just above 1%. That would be 1.05% for American Express personal savings, or 1.15% for Synchrony Bank (currently). Depending on the length of the season, you might want to work in some CD's. Six months CDs can be had at 1.2%, and 9 month at 1.25%. So if you know you won't need some of your earnings for 9 months, you could earn 1.25% on your money. However, I would proceed with caution on anything other than the high yield savings account. With your one friend having such a low emergency fund, there is very little room for error. Perhaps until that amount is built up into something significant, it is just best to stick with the online savings. Of course, one solution would be to find a way to create income during the off season. That will go a long way into helping one build wealth.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7b48cbbd4f123d229b5a0c52363ebd1d",
"text": "\"I use a \"\"sinking\"\" fund. If you want to buy a $1000 bicycle, you put $100 per month into a savings account. 10 months from now, you can buy your $1000 bicycle. If you get a $500 windfall, you can either put it in the sinking fund and buy the item earlier. If you lose some income, you can put $50 per month in the fund.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d77a9bd68fabec898654bb4fe39608eb",
"text": "Why is this on r/finance lol. But of course that's a common thing. 300 a month sounds extremely cheap depending on where you are. Sounds like your friend is trying to take advantage of your dad owning a house and stay there for free, no?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5c052759ecb56ba9111524d11db02526",
"text": "\"You cannot dump $450K of cash into any type of retirement account. Retirement accounts have maximum annual contribution limits and earned income requirements. If the $450K is already in a retirement account you may be able to \"\"rollover\"\" these funds into a different type of account. I personally invest in dividend paying stocks and recommend the strategy for just about everyone. $450K earning 4% in dividends would generate ~$18K in annual dividends the first year and, compounded, would generate ~$220K in dividends over a 10-year period. All this being said, I am not a registered professional of any kind and you should consult a professional before making any decisions. And yes, I know this question is from 2012 :)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "57133597d661974ecdbde235ef6f4c4a",
"text": "Markets are rational in the long term. Actors act rationally given the knowledge they have. They don't have perfect knowledge - meaning they're prone to make mistakes. However, in the LONG run, every would be a equilibrium. Facebook stock is clearly over valued and the market is adjusting to the real price. Nothing spectacular going on there.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
832be3bba6225e04d89c5a1088b954ff
|
How to invest in Japan's stock market from the UK
|
[
{
"docid": "6b6e8cff3e2d1fc406184a1a836df5a9",
"text": "Use an exchange traded fund ETF, namely SPDR MSCI Japan EUR Hdg Ucits ETF. It is hedged and can be bought in the UK by this broker State Street Global Advisors on the London Stock Exchange LSE. Link here. Article on JAPAN ETF hedged in Sterling Pound here.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "a0adec367236de98979284b2f06191c3",
"text": "I'm in the US as well, but some basic things are still the same. You need to trade through a broker, but the need for a full service broker is no longer necessary. You may be able to get by with a web based brokerage that charges less fees. If you are nervous, look for a big name, and avoid a fly by night company. Stick with non-exotic investments. don't do options, or futures or Forex. You may even want to skip shares all together and see if UK offers something akin to an index fund which tracks broad markets (like the whole of the FTSE 100 or the S&P 500) as a whole.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6e1a49099026facd9c7a976bb9804035",
"text": "I searched for FTSE 100 fund on Yahoo Finance and found POW FTSE RAF UK 100 (PSRU.L), among many others. Google Finance is another possible source that immediately comes to mind.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2b1a8a2a609b0f853660a8786305f123",
"text": "just pick a good bond and invest all your money there (since they're fairly low risk) No. That is basically throwing away your money and why would you do that. And who told you they are low risk. That is a very wrong premise. What factors should I consider in picking a bond and how would they weigh against each other? Quite a number of them to say, assuming these aren't government bonds(US, UK etc) How safe is the institution issuing the bond. Their income, business they are in, their past performance business wise and the bonds issued by them, if any. Check for the bond ratings issued by the rating agencies. Read the prospectus and check for any specific conditions i.e. bonds are callable, bonds can be retired under certain conditions, what happens if they default and what order will you be reimbursed(senior debt take priority). Where are interest rates heading, which will decide the price you are paying for the bond. And also the yield you will derive from the bond. How do you intend to invest the income, coupon, you will derive from the bonds. What is your time horizon to invest in bonds and similarly the bond's life. I have invested in stocks previously but realized that it isn't for me Bonds are much more difficult than equities. Stick to government bonds if you can, but they don't generate much income, considering the low interest rates environment. Now that QE is over you might expect interest rates to rise, but you can only wait. Or go for bonds from stable companies i.e. GE, Walmart. And no I am not saying you buy their bonds in any imaginable way.",
"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": "bf3a242bd5867bd1ea8d2adf71e360c9",
"text": "It's called carry-trade. They can borrow from governments that have 0% int rates, exchange it for dollars, and then buy u.s. treasuries. Japan would never ever raise their interest rates as their economy runs on keynesian fumes.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6f551685dbb152c7bc454f5022cfba94",
"text": "The link provided by DumbCoder (below) is only relevant to UK resident investors and does not apply if you live in Malaysia. I noticed that in a much older question you asked a similar question about taxes on US stocks, so I'll try and answer both situations here. The answer is almost the same for any country you decide to invest in. As a foreign investor, the country from which you purchase stock cannot charge you tax on either income or capital gains. Taxation is based on residency, so even when you purchase foreign stock its the tax laws of Malaysia (as your country of residence) that matter. At the time of writing, Malaysia does not levy any capital gains tax and there is no income tax charged on dividends so you won't have to declare or pay any tax on your stocks regardless of where you buy them from. The only exception to this is Dividend Withholding Tax, which is a special tax taken by the government of the country you bought the stock from before it is paid to your account. You do not need to declare this tax as it his already been taken by the time you receive your dividend. The rate of DWT that will be withheld is unique to each country. The UK does not have any withholding tax so you will always receive the full dividend on UK stocks. The withholding tax rate for the US is 30%. Other countries vary. For most countries that do charge a withholding tax, it is possible to have this reduced to 15% if there is a double taxation treaty in place between the two countries and all of the following are true: Note: Although the taxation rules of both countries are similar, I am a resident of Singapore not Malaysia so I can't speak from first hand experience, but current Malaysia tax rates are easy to find online. The rest of this information is common to any non-US/UK resident investor (as long as you're not a US person).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "432563b151d2e6afcfa8c7f9f577f54b",
"text": "I use and recommend barchart.com. Again you have to register but it's free. Although it's a US system it has a full listing of UK stocks and ETFs under International > London. The big advantage of barchart.com is that you can do advanced technical screening with Stochastics and RS, new highs and lows, moving averages etc. You're not stuck with just fundamentals, which in my opinion belong to a previous era. Even if you don't share that opinion you'd still find barchart.com useful for UK stocks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ea024c1c19d8d8a040dd4a8b2cba45b4",
"text": "The Japanese stock market offers a wide selection of popular ETFs tracking the various indices and sub-indices of the Tokyo Stock Exchange. See this page from the Japan Exchange Group site for a detailed listing of the ETFs being offered on the Tokyo exchange. As you have suggested, one would expect that Japanese investors would be reluctant to track the local market indices because of the relatively poor performance of the Japanese markets over the last couple of decades. However, this does not appear to be the case. In fact, there seems to be a heavy bias towards Tokyo indices as measured by the NAV/Market Cap of listed ETFs. The main Tokyo indices - the broad TOPIX and the large cap Nikkei - dominate investor choice. The big five ETFs tracking the Nikkei 225 have a total net asset value of 8.5Trillion Yen (72Billion USD), while the big four ETFs tracking the TOPIX have a total net asset value of 8.0Trillion Yen (68Billion USD). Compare this to the small net asset values of those Tokyo listed ETFs tracking the S&P500 or the EURO STOXX 50. For example, the largest S&P500 tracker is the Nikko Asset Management S&P500 ETF with net asset value of just 67Million USD and almost zero liquidity. If I remember my stereotypes correctly, it is the Japanese housewife that controls the household budget and investment decisions, and the Japanese housewife is famously conservative and patriotic with their investment choices. Japanese government bonds have yielded next to nothing for as long as I can remember, yet they remain the first choice amongst housewives. The 1.3% yield on a Nikkei 225 ETF looks positively generous by comparison and so will carry some temptations.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e1690ef048e092b7227b71e406ca5b96",
"text": "If you have such a long term investment goal there really is no reason to try time the markets, 1990s market high was nothing compared to 1999s market high which was nothing to 2006 etc and so on(years quoted as example). Also consider cost of opportunity missed by holding back investing your immediately available investment capital and have it sit in a bank account for 18-24months, collecting meager returns instead of a 5-10% potential return for example(which isnt a strech by any means). Now if you re really hell-bent on timing the market, since you re in the UK, if you really want to attempt it, I would pay close attention to Brexit news and talks that are scheduled for 2018 onwards. Any delays on that deal and/or potential bad development may lead to speculation and temporary lows for you to buy in. If thats worth the effort and cost of opportunity mentioned before is up to you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c75297b62f73553ec352cda7a9fff1b6",
"text": "\"I've done exactly what you say at one of my brokers. With the restriction that I have to deposit the money in the \"\"right\"\" way, and I don't do it too often. The broker is meant to be a trading firm and not a currency exchange house after all. I usually do the exchange the opposite of you, so I do USD -> GBP, but that shouldn't make any difference. I put \"\"right\"\" in quotes not to indicate there is anything illegal going on, but to indicate the broker does put restrictions on transferring out for some forms of deposits. So the key is to not ACH the money in, nor send a check, nor bill pay it, but rather to wire it in. A wire deposit with them has no holds and no time limits on withdrawal locations. My US bank originates a wire, I trade at spot in the opposite direction of you (USD -> GBP), wait 2 days for the trade to settle, then wire the money out to my UK bank. Commissions and fees for this process are low. All told, I pay about $20 USD per xfer and get spot rates, though it does take approx 3 trading days for the whole process (assuming you don't try to wait for a target rate but rather take market rate.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "686c79bee148b44dfd8d5893636b200c",
"text": "Does this make sense? I'm concerned that by buying shares with post tax income, I'll have ended up being taxed twice or have increased my taxable income. ... The company will then re-reimburse me for the difference in stock price between the vesting and the purchase share price. Sure. Assuming you received a 100-share RSU for shares worth $10, and your marginal tax rate is 30% (all made up numbers), either: or So you're in the same spot either way. You paid $300 to get $1,000 worth of stock. Taxes are the same as well. The full value of the RSU will count as income either way, and you'll either pay tax on the gains of the 100 shares in your RSU our you'll pay tax on gains on the 70 shares in your RSU and the 30 shares you bought. Since they're reimbursing you for any difference the cost basis will be the same (although you might get taxed on the reimbursement, but that should be a relatively small amount). This first year I wanted to keep all of the shares, due to tax reasons and because believe the share price will go up. I don't see how this would make a difference from a tax standpoint. You're going to pay tax on the RSU either way - either in shares or in cash. how does the value of the shares going up make a difference in tax? Additionally I'm concerned that by doing this I'm going to be hit by my bank for GBP->USD exchange fees, foreign money transfer charges, broker purchase fees etc. That might be true - if that's the case then you need to decide whether to keep fighting or decide if it's worth the transaction costs.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8b97d4bf72e0dd05ddcdc5bb3403b6ae",
"text": "There is no country tag, so I will answer the question generally. Is it possible...? Yes, it's possible and common. Is it wise? Ask Barings Bank whether it's a good idea to allow speculative investing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0dbe36e7d333c6d096f12c3665f9261e",
"text": "I think I have a better answer for this since I have been an investor in the stock markets since a decade and most of my money is either made through investing or trading the financial markets. Yes you can start investing with as low as 50 GBP or even less. If you are talking about stocks there is no restriction on the amount of shares you can purchase the price of which can be as low as a penny. I stared investing in stocks when I was 18. With the money saved from my pocket money which was not much. But I made investments on a regular period no matter how less I could but I would make regular investments on a long term. Remember one thing, never trade stock markets always invest in it on a long term. The stock markets will give you the best return on a long term as shown on the graph below and will also save you money on commission the broker charge on every transaction. The brokers to make money for themselves will ask you to trade stocks on short term but stock market were always made to invest on a long term as Warren Buffet rightly says. And if you want to trade try commodities or forex. Forex brokers will offer you accounts with as low as 25 USD with no commissions. The commission here are all inclusive in spreads. Is this true? Can the average Joe become involved? Yes anyone who wants has an interest in the financial markets can get involved. Knowledge is the key not money. Is it worth investing £50 here and there? Or is that a laughable idea? 50 GBP is a lot. I started with a few Indian Rupees. If people laugh let them laugh. Only morons who don't understand the true concept of financial markets laugh. There are fees/rules involved, is it worth the effort if you just want to see? The problem with today's generation of people is that they fear a lot. Unless you crawl you dont walk. Unless you try something you dont learn. The only difference between a successful person and a not successful person is his ability to try, fail/fall, get back on feet, again try untill he succeeds. I know its not instant money, but I'd like to get a few shares here and there, to follow the news and see how companies do. I hear that BRIC (brasil, russia, india and china) is a good share to invest in Brazil India the good thing is share prices are relatively low even the commissions. Mostly ROI (return on investment) on a long term would almost be the same. Can anyone share their experiences? (maybe best for community wiki?) Always up for sharing. Please ask questions no matter how stupid they are. I love people who ask for when I started I asked and people were generous enough to answer and so would I be.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "c06c8d85dd054196a8f18a0c3aee6c83",
"text": "\"Shares are for investors. Most of the rich are investors. Unfortunately, the reverse is not true. But if you want to get rich, the first step is to become an investor. (The second is to become a SUCCESSFUL investor. 50 pounds might be too little. Try to start with at least 500 at a time. You can ADD amounts of 50 pounds. There are definitely fees involved. You will \"\"pay for lessons.\"\" But it will be worth it, if you become even a moderately successful investor. As for rules, they'll teach you the rules. Everyone wants your business. People have gotten (modestly) rich, buying shares here and there. One man told me of investing $600 in a company called Limited, and ending up with $12,000 some years later. BRIC is not a \"\"share.\"\" It is an acronym for four countries \"\"of the future.\"\" High risk, high reward here.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
1fa3cbd0c6114f5f5e6485318ab886d9
|
What happened to GOOG-stock? Why isn't it 1.000 USD?
|
[
{
"docid": "e77ddd2280c1d877ae5147832817cef7",
"text": "The stock split, it is similar to what happened to Apple a little while back. When Google split 2 to 1, it means that each share holder got 2 shares for each 1 share they had and each share was 1/2 the price.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "e8a6a0a777a8c738708d9138af1f4966",
"text": "The price of the stock is not really relevant, as your return is measured as a percentage, 6% return on a $100 stock is the same as a 6% return on a $1 stock, you just hold 100 times more shares at the lower price. I personally really like Eurosun Mining ESM, they are greatly undervalued and have the potential to double or triple in the very near term.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "798f80156a8c795c90d4ca2e79efc918",
"text": "Too much fiddling with your portfolio if the difference is 3-4% or less (as it's become in recent months). Hands off is the better advice. As for buying shares, go for whichever is the cheapest (i.e. Goog rather than Googl) because the voting right with the latter is merely symbolic. And who attends shareholders' meetings, for Pete's sake? On the other hand, if your holdings in the company are way up in the triple (maybe even quadruple) figures, then it might make sense to do the math and take the time to squeeze an extra percentage point or two out of your Googl purchases. The idle rich occupying the exclusive club that includes only the top 1% of the population needs to have somethinng to do with its time. Meanwhile, the rest of us are scrambling to make a living--leaving only enough time to visit our portfolios as often as Buffett advises (about twice a year).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "607e98a64074c97a9e74627ac01992d4",
"text": "You would have sold at $10,000 or you’d be an absolute moron Edit: or when it dipped from $1k to $300 if you held through that you’re either clinically tarded or forgot you owned it. Not even the creators held their bitcoins through this",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3a66a5e43fcafe49252adcf58e4aacba",
"text": "I will assume that you are not asking in the context of high frequency trading, as this is Personal Finance Stack Exchange. It is completely acceptable to trade odd lots for retail brokerage customers. The odd lot description that you provided in your link, from Interactive Brokers is correct. But even in that context, it says, regarding the acceptability of odd lots to stock exchanges: The exception is that odd lots can be routed to NYSE/ARCA/AMEX, but only as part of a basket order or as a market-on-close (MOC) order. Google GOOG is traded on the NASDAQ. Everything on the NASDAQ is electronic, and always has been. You will have no problem selling or buying less than 100 shares of Google. There is also an issue of higher commissions with odd lots: While trading commissions for odd lots may still be higher than for standard lots on a percentage basis, the popularity of online trading platforms and the consequent plunge in brokerage commissions means that it is no longer as difficult or expensive for investors to dispose of odd lots as it used to be in the past. Notice what it says about online trading making it easier, not more difficult, to trade odd lots.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f2ec640fa7f7a0b70da50dfc98da4ee5",
"text": "\"To add on to the other answers, in asking why funds have different price points one might be asking why stocks aren't normalized so a unit price of $196 in one stock can be directly compared to the same price in another stock. While this might not make sense with AAPL vs. GOOG (it would be like comparing apples to oranges, pun intended, not to mention how would two different companies ever come to such an agreement) it does seem like it would make more sense when tracking an index. And in fact less agreement between different funds would be required as some \"\"natural\"\" price points exist such as dividing by 100 (like some S&P funds do). However, there are a couple of reasons why two different funds might price their shares of the same underlying index differently. Demand - If there are a lot of people wanting the issue, more shares might be issued at a lower price. Or, there might be a lot of demand centered on a certain price range. Pricing - shares that are priced higher will find fewer buyers, because it makes it harder to buy round lots (100 shares at $100/share is $10,000 while at $10/share it's only $1000). While not everyone buys stock in lots, it's important if you do anything with (standardized) options on the stock because they are always acting on lots. In addition, even if you don't buy round lots a higher price makes it harder to buy in for a specific amount because each unit share has a greater chance to be further away from your target amount. Conversely, shares that are priced too low will also find fewer buyers, because some holders have minimum price requirements due to low price (e.g. penny) stocks tending to be more speculative and volatile. So, different funds tracking the same index might pick different price points to satisfy demand that is not being filled by other funds selling at a different price point.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ee38ff2600bbead5ea7a8544ebc0d198",
"text": "Nanex just doesn't have the data. Some guy at CNBC, knowing that this stuff is great fodder for pageviews, *particularly* when there is a mysterious unnamed firm (its much too boring when there is an actual firm named, and the reason turns out to be something mundane like a slow market data feed), scooped it up and packaged it into a fear mongering story, and here we are.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fd85d07d09d329585823370209e3755a",
"text": "\"I may be underestimating your knowledge of how exchanges work; if so, I apologize. If not, then I believe the answer is relatively straightforward. Lets say price of a stock at time t1 is 15$ . There are many types of price that an exchange reports to the public (as discussed below); let's say that you're referring to the most recent trade price. That is, the last time a trade executed between a willing buyer and a willing seller was at $15.00. Lets say a significant buy order of 1M shares came in to the market. Here I believe might be a misunderstanding on your part. I think you're assuming that the buy order must necessarily be requesting a price of $15.00 because that was the last published price at time t1. In fact, orders can request any price they want. It's totally okay for someone to request to buy at $10.00. Presumably nobody will want to sell to him, but it's still a perfectly valid buy order. But let's continue under the assumptions that at t1: This makes the bid $14.99 and the ask $15.00. (NYSE also publishes these prices.) There aren't enough people selling that stock. It's quite rare (in major US equities) for anyone to place a buy order that exceeds the total available shares listed for sale at all prices. What I think you mean is that 1M is larger than the amount of currently-listed sell requests at the ask of $15.00. So say of the 1M only 100,000 had a matching sell order and others are waiting. So this means that there were exactly 100,000 shares waiting to be sold at the ask of $15.00, and that all other sellers currently in the market told NYSE they were only willing to sell for a price of $15.01 or higher. If there had been more shares available at $15.00, then NYSE would have matched them. This would be a trigger to the automated system to start increasing the price. Here is another point of misunderstanding, I think. NYSE's automated system does not invent a new, higher price to publish at this point. Instead it simply reports the last trade price (still $15.00), and now that all of the willing sellers at $15.00 have been matched, NYSE also publishes the new ask price of $15.01. It's not that NYSE has decided $15.01 is the new price for the stock; it's that $15.01 is now the lowest price at which anyone (known to NYSE) is willing to sell. If nobody happened to be interested in selling at $15.01 at t1, but there were people interested in selling at $15.02, then the new published ask would be $15.02 instead of $15.01 -- not because NYSE decided it, but just because those happened to be the facts at the time. Similarly, the new bid is most likely now $15.00, assuming the person who placed the order for 1M shares did not cancel the remaining unmatched 900,000 shares of his/her order. That is, $15.00 is now the highest price at which anyone (known to NYSE) is willing to buy. How much time does the automated system wait to increment the price, the frequency of the price change and by what percentage to increment etc. So I think the answer to all these questions is that the automated system does none of these things. It merely publishes information about (a) the last trade price, (b) the price that is currently the lowest price at which anyone has expressed a willingness to sell, and (c) the price that is currently the highest price at which anyone has expressed a willingness to buy. ::edit:: Oh, I forgot to answer your primary question. Can we estimate the impact of a large buy order on the share price? Not only can we estimate the impact, but we can know it explicitly. Because the exchange publishes information on all the orders it knows about, anyone tracking that information can deduce that (in this example) there were exactly 100,000 shares waiting to be purchased at $15.00. So if a \"\"large buy order\"\" of 1M shares comes in at $15.00, then we know that all of the people waiting to sell at $15.00 will be matched, and the new lowest ask price will be $15.01 (or whatever was the next lowest sell price that the exchange had previously published).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3a8594542185af5bcce88c4b1c35af8e",
"text": "you know, i'm curious. why did you feel it was overpriced? if it opened at $50 a share and you thought that was too high, might you buy 2 shares if it opened at $25 instead? would there be any notable difference in what you owned?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6bc624692d06ad64e7f32232c19638f6",
"text": "Your observation is mostly right, that 1 is a the number around which this varies. You are actually referencing PEG, P/E to Growth ratio, which is a common benchmark to use to evaluate a stock. The article I link to provides more discussion.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7087e71e1c3391d3fe316d13337cd21b",
"text": "In addition to the GE move, Buffett's firm also added a large share of Synchrony, equalling about $520.7 in value, and a $418.1 million stake in Store Capital. So, they bought one regular sized share? This is Why BI-journalists doesnt work in IB...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0c8f913a856ac688cfd1708acb1be602",
"text": "I have a hard time giving them a P/E higher than 25 on the absolute top end. Given current numbers, that takes another ~60% off their share price putting them right around $10. Now... that's my top end estimate, I'd probably be willing to buy right around $8. In order to support the IPO price, the models I've seen come in at projecting an average growth rate of 40% YoY for the next 5 years. If FB pulled that off, they'd be growing ~5X over the next 5 years (once compounded). As it stands, they've got 900B+ users. Doubling that would require a significant number of new people to start coming on line - 5x that would be impossible. So... next option... They figure out how to monetize existing users/traffic better. It's possible - they don't do a very good job with this as it stands, but they've got a fine line to walk. They need to pull it off without driving users, or advertisers, away. Suppose they were able to double their user base. They'd still need to do ~2.5x better per user to make the numbers. This doesn't take into account that the next billion users are significantly less valuable as an audience than the first billion. (Not in human terms, but in financial/marketing terms.) I'm willing to give them a 20% growth rate for the next 5 years. That'd put them at a bit better than 2.5x over that time. It's still a stretch. That should put them in the same P/E range as GOOG (currently trading at a P/E of 17ish). Any price higher than $10/share at this point is gambling on their ability to crack monetization. The higher you go, the higher you think the odds are. One last thing I'd keep in mind. Most of the early employees with options are locked out of selling for the first 6 months after the IPO. There's a fairly large number of shares that will become available when that time is up. I'm curious to see how many of the early employees call in rich and go start new companies. (Think about what happened to paypal after being sold to ebay - yelp, youtube, and others all came out of the early employees.) I'd be watching the quarterly reports through the quarter ending 12/31. The numbers at that point will give a better gauge of a proper valuation. I absolutely wouldn't hold shares of FB during the period when employees first have their chance to cash their lottery tickets.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f95035a67fb99d6a662045e74cec431d",
"text": "What happened here is pretty obvious: You were trying to sell 2000 shares and apparently didn't mark your order to permit partial execution. While they had a buyer at 94.66 they didn't want 2000 shares. Thus your order went unfilled.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "78c84c5efcb07192d4a37d43f50b678c",
"text": "I think the point is that m2 is 13.7 trillion usd, the Swiss investment is not even *half* a percent. The us equities marker valuation is larger at 22.5 trillion USD. Dumping an extra 100 bil usd is too little to do anything. Even dumping a trillion USD is a relatively small number.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "de242c20e4e0b92003730a296c3ef71c",
"text": "The difference is that Yahoo is showing the unadjusted price that the security traded for on that date, while google is adjusting for price splits. This means that Google is showing how much you would have had to pay to get what is now one share. Since 1979, JNJ has split 3-for-1 once, and 2-for-1 four times. 3x2x2x2x2 = 48. If you bought 1 share at that time, you would now have 48 shares today. Yahoo is showing a price of $66 for what was then 1 share. $66/48 = 1.375, which Google rounds to 1.38. You can see this if you get the prices from May 14-21, 1981. The stock split 3-for-1, and the price dropped from 108 to 36.38. Yahoo's adjusted close column has not been accurate since they re-wrote the Finance website. It now just represents the closing price. The other relevant field on Yahoo is the Adj. Close. This adjusts for splits, but also adjusts for dividends. Hence why this doesn't match either the Google or Yahoo numbers.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0f467cbe27dbe7e76823d12fcb70efe9",
"text": "The price of a shares reflects the expected future returns of that company. If it does not someone will notice and buy until it does. Look at this chart http://www.finanzen.net/chart/Arcandor (click on max), that's a former DAX company, so one of the largest german companys. Now it's bankrupt. Why do you think you are the only one who is going to notice? There are millions of people and even more computers, some a going to be smarter than you. Of course that does not happen to everyone but who knows. Is Volkswagen going to survive the current crisis? Probably. Is it coming back to former glory in the next half year? Who knows? Here comes the obvious solution: Don't buy single stocks, spread it out over many companies, some will shine, some will plument and you get the average. Oh that's an index, how convinent. Now if there were a way to save on all these transaction costs you're incurring...",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
7a3794f2209297abeb933c2d50548de6
|
How to find out the amount of preferred stock of Coca Cola Company?
|
[
{
"docid": "93fab222b68576800518b5b1a4e554ec",
"text": "Coca Cola doesn't seem to have any preferred shares outstanding. From the annual report, it does say that the number of common shares outstanding was 2,294,316,831 as of February 22, 2011. (cover page, right before the horizontal break) But normally, you can find it either toward the beginning of the document or in the statement of shareholder's equity.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7dc0c905c71416bca38ebeb58f9d7f7c",
"text": "You can find this in the annual report. Preferred value is not the same as common value.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "00d040a88cddf90ebb0203ae84ef7fcc",
"text": "\"From The Coca-Cola Company website, section for Investors: Stock History, Issues Year 1919 Original issue -- 600,000 shares 100,000 preferred, par $100 each 500,000 common, without nominal or par value 1926 Eliminated 100,000 preferred in November. This means there were preferred shares issued in 1919. However, all preferred shares were \"\"eliminated\"\" (not sure what that means) as of 1926. There has been no subsequent reissuance of preferred shares of Coca-Cola since then. I think the company is still authorized to issue them, should they choose to do so in the future.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bfe58a9717b83f52d10011cd66d4b70d",
"text": "They were issued in 1919 and eliminated in 1926. This means that Coca-Cola redeemed them in 1926 and either converted the preferred's to common stock or paid the preferred investor's back their full par value and took them off the books.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "62018e52ddd02eed1e4c34166f6a7ae2",
"text": "\"There are several such \"\"lists.\"\" The one that is maintained by the company is called the shareholder registry. That is a list that the company has given to it by the brokerage firms. It is a start, but not a full list, because many individual shareholders hold their stock with say Merrill Lynch, in \"\"street name\"\" or anonymously. A more useful list is the one of institutional ownership maintained by the SEC. Basically, \"\"large\"\" holders (of more than 5 percent of the stock) have to register their holdings with the SEC. More to the point, large holders of stocks, the Vanguards, Fidelitys, etc. over a certain size, have to file ALL their holdings of stock with the SEC. These are the people you want to contact if you want to start a proxy fight. The most comprehensive list is held by the Depositary Trust Company. People try to get that list only in rare instances.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b08954541826ede87341a0bc377e552b",
"text": "\"Treasury stock is not really represented in the Balance Sheet as a \"\"Treasury stock\"\" line item in the assets. Some companies will break out Treasury Shares as a line item in the \"\"Shareholders Equity\"\" heading of the balance sheet but Apple hides it in the \"\"Shares Issued and Outstanding\"\" counts under the \"\"Shareholders Equity\"\" heading. As of the most recent Q2 2017 quarterly report There are 5,205,815,000 shares issued against 5,336,166,000 shares outstanding. This indicates that Apple is retaining about 130,351,000 shares in treasury. On the Q1 10-Q you can see that Apple had 5,255,423,000 shares issued which indicates roughly 49mm shares were repurchased by the end of Q2. You can roughly verify this by looking at page 18 of the Q2 filing in the summary of the share repurchase program. Repurchased as part of an Accelerated Share Repurchase arrangement bleeds between quarters but from February 2017 through May 2017 there have been 17.5mm shares repurchased. 31mm shares were also repurchased on the open market in Q2. The \"\"shares issued\"\" total is on a downward trend as part of Apple's share repurchase initiative that has been underway for the last couple of years.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3671ac5be290ac862a495e70b2cbd840",
"text": "\"The hardest part seems to be knowing exactly when to sell the stock. Well yes, that's the problem with all stock investing. Reports come out all the time, sometimes even from very smart people with no motivation to lie, about expected earnings for this company, or for that industry. Whether those predictions come true is something you will only find out with time. What you are considering is using financial information available to you (and equally available to the public) to make investment choices. This is called 'fundamental analysis'; that is, the analysis of the fundamentals of a business and what it should be worth. It forms the basis of how many investment firms decide where to put their money. In a perfectly 'efficient' market, all information available to the public is immediately factored into the market price for that company's stock. ie: if a bank report states with absolute certainty (through leaked documents) that Coca-Cola is going to announce 10% revenue growth tomorrow, then everyone will immediately buy Coca-Cola stock today, and then tomorrow there would be no impact. Even if PwC is 100% accurate in its predictions, if the rest of the market agrees with them, then the price at the time of IPO would equal the future value of the cashflows, meaning there would be no gain unless results surpassed expectations. So what you are proposing is to take one sliver of the information available to the public (have you also read all publicly available reports on those businesses and their industries?), and using that to make a high risk investment. Are you going to do better than the investment firms that have teams of researchers and years of experience in the investment world? You can do quite well by picking individual stocks, but you can also lose a lot of money if you do it haphazardly. Be aware that there is risk in doing any type of investing. There is higher than average risk if you invest in equities ('the stock market'). There is higher risk still, if you pick individual stocks. There is yet even higher risk, if you pick small startup companies. There are some specific interesting side-elements with your proposal to purchase stock about to have an IPO - those are better dealt with in a separate question if you want more information; search this site for 'IPO' and you should find a good starting point. In short, the company about to go public will hire a firm of analysts who will try to calculate the best price the public will accept for an offering of shares. Stock often goes up after IPO, but not always. Sometimes the company doesn't even fill its full IPO order, adding a new type of risk to a potential investor, that the stock will drop on day 1. Consider an analogy outside the investing world: Let's say Auto Trader magazine prints an article that says \"\"all 2015 Honda Civics are worth $15,000 if they have less than 50,000 Miles.\"\" Assume you have no particular knowledge about cars. If you read this article, and you see an ad in the paper the next day for a Honda Civic with 40k miles, should you buy it for $14k? The answer is not without more research. And even if you determine enough about cars to find one for $14k that you can reasonably sell for $15k, there's a whole world of mechanics out there who buy and sell cars for a living, and they have an edge both because they can repair the cars themselves to sell for more, and also because they have experience to spot low-offers faster than you. And if you pick a clunker (or a stock that doesn't perform even when everyone expected it would), then you could lose some serious money. As with buying and selling individual stocks, there is money to be made from car trading, but that money gets made by people who really know what they're doing. People who go in without full information are the ones who lose money in the long run.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "76320099a37d8f9f9b4281d18080ef8b",
"text": "Simple: Do a stock split. Each 1 Ordinary share now = 100 Ordinary shares (or 100,000 or whatever you choose). Then sell 20 (or 20,000) of them to your third party. (Stock splits are fairly routine occurrence. Apple for example has done several, most recently in 2014 when 1 share = 7 shares). Alternatively you could go the route of creating a new share class with different rights, preferences etc. But this is more complicated.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "caf4adfd21859c172926d3c5efe935fd",
"text": "\"You're missing a very important thing: YEAR END values in (U.S.) $ millions unless otherwise noted So 7098 is not $7,098. That would be a rather silly amount for Coca Cola to earn in a year don't you think? I mean, some companies might happen upon random small income amounts, but it seems pretty reasonable to assume they'll earn (or lose) millions or billions, not thousands. This is a normal thing to do on reports like this; it's wasteful to calculate to so many significant digits, so they divide everything by 1000 or 1000000 and report at that level. You need to look on the report (usually up top left, but it can vary) to see what factor they're dividing by. Coca Cola's earnings per share are $1.60 for FY 2014, which is 7,098/4450 (use the whole year numbers, not the quarter 4 numbers; and here they're both in millions, so they divide out evenly). You also need to understand that \"\"Dividend on preferred stock\"\" is not the regular dividend; I don't see it explicitly called out on the page you reference. They may not have preferred stock and/or may not pay dividends on it in excess of common stock (or at all).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ebf518848523d7cdbf96cea331263318",
"text": "\"1. Most of the information you want can be found in the annual report of the company. Go to their official website, look for shareholders information and then download the annual report. This will answer: \"\"number of issued stock, voting rights, if there is more than one kind of stock, etc. In summary all the legal and formal details of a given stock. 2. After reading the annual report, check on investors websites to see if you can find analyst reports written on this company. You can sometimes find them in some free newsletters. These reports will complete the information you have found in the annual report like \"\"if the dividends are always paid, etc.\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "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": "83a2cd1d21f6b2b537b411e87e0e262d",
"text": "As part of this acquisition 96% of the shareholders accepted an offer for their shares This means that most of the shareholder agreed for the sale. If this was less than specified percentage, the deal would not have gone through. To make it easier, there were 2 options present to shareholder, full exchange of shares of Infinera or part shares and part cash. I failed to do so as I was unwell at the time So you cannot now choose the option. There will be a default option of getting the equivalent shares in Infinera. What options are available to me now? Contact Infinera investor relations and ask them.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d9b868a06fb178e5790de8cb625cead1",
"text": "\"The answer to your question has to do with the an explanation of \"\"shares authorized, issued and outstanding.\"\" Companies, in their Articles of Incorporation, specify a maximum number of shares they are authorized to issue. For example purposes let's assume Facebook is authorized to issue 100 shares. Let's pretend they have actually issued 75 shares, but only 50 are outstanding (aka Float, i.e. freely trading stock in the market) and stock options total 25 shares. So if someone owns 1 share, what percentage of Facebook do they own? You might think 1/100, or 1%; you might think 1/75, or 1.3%; or you might think 1/50, or 2%. 2% is the answer, but only on a NON-diluted basis. So today someone who owns 1 share owns 2% of Facebook. Tomorrow Facebook announces they just issued 15 shares to Whatsapp to buy the company. Now there are 65 shares outstanding and 90 issued. Now someone who owns 1 share of Facebook own only 1/65, or 1.5% (down from 2%)! P.S. \"\"Valuation\"\" can be thought of as the price of the stock at the time of the purchase announcement.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "33e1168b647035deb672a2797e3a6afe",
"text": "\"Your company actually will most likely use some sort of options pricing model, either a binomial tree or black-scholes to determine the value for their accounting and, subsequently, for their issuance and realization. First, market value of equity will be determined. Given you're private (although \"\"pre-IPO could mean public tomorrow,\"\"), this will likely revolve around a DCF and/or market approaches. Equity value will then be compared to a cap table to create an equity waterfall, where the different classes of stock and the different options will be valued along tranches. Keep in mind there might be liquidation preferences that would make options essentially further out of the money. As such, your formulae above do not quite work. However, as an employee, it might be difficult to determine the necessary inputs to determine value. To estimate it, however, look for three key pieces of information: 1. Current equity value 2. Option strike price 3. Maturity for Options If the strike is close to the current equity value, and the maturity is long enough, and you expect the company to grow, then it would look like the options have more value than not. Equity value can be derived from enterprise value, or by directly determining it via a DCF or guideline multiples. Reliable forecasts should come from looking at the industry, listening to what management is saying, and then your own information as an insider.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9a45963e72902ae54c1c2fc3a481ed44",
"text": "Stocks represent partial ownership of the company. So, if you owned 51% of the stock of the company (and therefore 51% of the company itself), you could decide to liquidate all the assets of the company, and you would be entitled to 51% of the proceeds from that sale. In the example above, it would have to be Common Stock, as preferred stock does not confer ownership. *In a situation where it is not possible to buy 51% or more of the company (for example, it's not for sale), this is not possible, so the value of the stock could be much less.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "1c58473b1a447a9dc8b2268ef190b048",
"text": "He owns the majoirty of berkshire hathaway which owns a lot of big companies outright as well as fractions of other big public companies. For example, his holding company berkshire hathaway which lets say he owns 50% of, owns 10% of coca cola. This means that every can or bottle of coke sold, berkshire hathaway gets 10% of the profit so say .01 per can. Thats a lot given the millions of cans sold. Since he owns 50% of berkshire hathaway that means he is getting half a penny of every can of coke sold. Do this with all of his companies and investment holdings and you get to billions of dollars.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6a90b539c710657db704926895802556",
"text": "Just like Switzerland lost its banking privileges by not being in the EU, huh? The truth is none of us really know what's going to happen so we all need to stop throwing out opinions as fact. London has an already established stable banking climate and the cost and effort of relocating to other places might prove to be too high as opposed to just working something out between the Brits and the Europeans. We just don't know yet.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
f3aceb7406f3fc78d37658f5b72b682a
|
Tax benefits to buying stocks on Dec 31 vs. one day later?
|
[
{
"docid": "623a7cf06315a9a2d497d5ccec710152",
"text": "For a long term gain you must hold the stock a year and a day, so, the long term hold period will fall into 2015 regardless. This is the only tax related issue that occurs to me, did you have something else in mind? Welcome to Money.SE.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "cce4d8af23bd44fdbf5219beb2a22e5b",
"text": "Yes timing does matter. Using a simple Rate of Change indicator over the past 100 days and smoothed out with a 50 day Moving Average, I have plotted the S&P 500 since the start of 2007. The idea is to buy when the ROC indicator crosses above the zero line and sell when the ROC indicator crosses below the zero line. I have compared the results below of timing the markets from the start of 2007 to dollar cost averaging starting from the start of 2007 and investing every 6 months. $80k is invested in both cases. For the timing the market option $80k was invested at the start of 2007, then the total figure was sold out when a sell signal was given, then the total amount reinvested when a new buy signal was given. For the DCA option $5000 was invested every 6 months starting from the start of 2007 until the last investment at the start of July 2014. The results are below: Timing the markets results in more than double the returns (not including dividends and brokerage). Edit It has been brought up that I haven't considered tax in my Timing the Market option. So I have updated my timing the market spread-sheet to take into account both long-term and short-term CGT in the USA for someone on the highest tax bracket. The results are below: The result is still almost a 2x higher returns for the timing the markets option. Also note that even with the DCA option you will have to sell one day and pay CGT on any profits there. However, the real danger with the DCA option is if you need to sell during a market downturn and not make any profits at all.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8b85c5d4437839baccbbc65186d8eb96",
"text": "If you do this, you own a stock worth $1, with a basis of $2. The loss doesn't get realized until the shares are sold. Of course, we hope you see the stock increase above that price, else, why do this?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "47d1bf3a9f7853133fac81955ed45b8c",
"text": "I think what you're asking is, Can I buy 1000 shares of the stock at $1. For $1000. it goes up to $2, then sell 500 shares of the stock with proceeds of $1000, now having my original $1000 out of it, and still owning 500 shares. And that not create a taxable event. Since all I did was take my cost basis back out, and didn't collect any gains. And then I want to repeat that over and over. Nope, not in the USA anyway. Each sale is a separate taxable event. The first sale will have proceeds of $1000 and a cost basis of $500, with $500 of capital gains, and taxes owed at the time of that sale. The remaining stock will have a cost basis of $500 and proceeds of whatever you sell it for in the future. The next batch of stock will have a cost basis of whatever you pay for it. The only thing that works anything like the way you're thinking, is a Roth IRA... You can put your cost basis in, pull it back out, and put it back in again, all tax free. But every time your cost basis cycles in, that counts towed your contribution limits unless you do it fast enough to call it a rollover.",
"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": "9460e49140f1e4ce5b989c861217caf3",
"text": "From the IRS Section 1091. Loss from Wash Sales of Stock or Securities Section 1091(a) provides that 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 3 securities, then no deduction shall be allowed under § 165 The document is not long, 4 pages, and should be read to see the intent. It's tough to choose the one snippet, but the conclusion is this is the definitive response to that question. A purchase within an IRA or other retirement account can create a wash sale if such a purchase would be a wash sale otherwise, i.e. the fact that it's a retirement account doesn't avoid wash rules.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f4f42a26d035479427867cc4eb653fc4",
"text": "Two reasons why I think that's irrelevant: First, if it was on 3/31/2012 (two other sources say it was actually 4/3/2012), why the big jump two trading days later? Second, the stock popped up from $3.10 to $4.11, then over the next several trading days fell right back to $3.12. If this were about the intrinsic value of the company, I'd expect the stock to retain some value.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f3cd3ed069075fd5d61b92de73b50627",
"text": "\"Scenario 1 - When you sell the shares in a margin account, you will see your buying power go up, but your \"\"amount available to withdraw\"\" stays the same until settlement. Yes, you can reallocate the same day, no need to wait until settlement. There is no margin interest for this scenario. Scenario 2 - If that stock is marginable to 50%, and all you have is $10,000 in that stock, you can buy another $10,000. Once done, you are at 50% margin, exactly.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4b7cd157197402aa1a8b2a3dc933137c",
"text": "\"This question and your other one indicate you're a bit unclear on how capital gains taxes work, so here's the deal: you buy an asset (like shares of stock or a mutual fund). You later sell it for more than you bought it for. You pay taxes on your profit: the difference between what you sold it for and what you bought it for. What matters is not the amount of money you \"\"withdraw\"\", but the prices at which assets are bought and sold. In fact, often you will be able to choose which individual shares you sell, which means you have some control over the tax you pay. For a simple example, suppose you buy 10 shares of stock for $100 each in January (an investment of $1000); we'll call these the \"\"early\"\" shares. The stock goes up to $200 in July, and you buy 10 more shares (investing an additional $2000); we'll call these the \"\"late\"\" shares. Then the stock drops to $150. Suppose you want $1500 in cash, so you are going to sell 10 shares. The 10 early shares you bought have increased in value, because you bought then for $100 but can now sell them for $150. The 10 late shares have decreased in value, because you bought them for $200 but can now only sell them for $150. If you choose to sell the early shares, you will have a capital gain of $500 ($1500 sale price minus $1000 purchase price), on which you may owe taxes. If you sell the late shares, you will have a capital loss of $500 ($1500 sale price minus $2000 purchase price is -$500), which you can potentially use to reduce your taxes. Or you could sell 5 of each and have no gain or loss (selling five early shares for $150 gives you a gain of $250, but selling five late shares for $150 gives you a loss of $250, and they cancel out). The point of all this is to say that the tax is not determined by the amount of cash you get, but by the difference between the sale price and the price you purchased for (known as the \"\"cost basis\"\"), and this in turn depends on which specific assets you sell. It is not enough to know the total amount you invested and the total gain. You need to know the specific cost basis (i.e., original purchase price) of the specific shares you're selling. (This is also the answer to your question about long-term versus short-term gains. It doesn't matter how much money you make on the sale. What matters is how long you hold the asset before selling it.) That said, many brokers will automatically sell your shares in a certain order unless you tell them otherwise (and some won't let you tell them otherwise). Often they will use the \"\"first in, first out\"\" rule, which means they will always sell the earliest-purchased shares first. To finally get to your specific question about Betterment, they have a page here that says they use a different method. Essentially, they try to sell your shares in a way that minimizes taxes. They do this by first selling shares that have a loss, and only then selling shares that have a gain. This basically means that if you want to cash out $X, and it is possible to do it in a way that incurs no tax liability, they will do that. What gets me very confused is if I continue to invest random amounts of money each month using Betterment, then I need to withdraw some cash, what are the tax implications. As my long answer above should indicate, there is no simple answer to this. The answer is \"\"it depends\"\". It depends on exactly when you bought the shares, exactly how much you paid for them, exactly when and how much the price rose or fell, and exactly how much you sell them for. Betterment is more or less saying \"\"Don't worry about any of this, trust us, we will handle everything so that your tax is minimized.\"\" A final note: if you really do want to track the details of your cost basis, Betterment may not be for you, because it is an automated platform that may do a lot of individual trades that a human wouldn't do, and that can make tracking the cost basis yourself very difficult. Almost the whole point of something like Betterment is that you are supposed to give them your money and forget about these details.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "01922e347ccbfd39856506f44be23d16",
"text": "With a tax-sheltered account like an IRA, timing is irrelevant with respect to taxes. So enjoy your vacation. When you get back, don't invest in one lump sum -- break up your purchases over a period of weeks if possible. If you are investing in ETFs for your index funds, many brokers have no transaction fee ETF options now.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9a1ad7c42d95f740cc786d3707e3ce4d",
"text": "You might have to pay a premium for the stocks on the dividend tax–free exchanges. For example, HSBC on the NYSE yields 4.71% versus HSBC on the LSE which yields only 4.56%. Assuming the shares are truly identical, the only reason for this (aside from market fluctuations) is if the taxes are more favorable in the UK versus the US, thus increasing demand for HSBC on the LSE, raising the price, and reducing the yield. A difference of 0.15% in yield is pretty insignificant relative to a 30% versus 0% dividend tax. But a key question is, does your country have a foreign tax credit like the US does? If so you (usually) end up getting that 30% back, just delayed until you get your tax return, and the question of which exchange to buy on becomes not so clear cut. If your country doesn't have such a tax credit, then yes, you'll want to buy on an exchange where you won't get hit with the dividend tax. Note that I got this information from a great article I read several months back (site requires free registration to see it all unfortunately). They discuss the case of UN versus UL--both on the NYSE but ADRs for Unilever in the Netherlands and the UK, respectively. The logic is very similar to your situation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7823c76fbd14bd9ef51d2e0e19a14119",
"text": "The Paragraph talks about dividends given by Mutual Funds. Say a fund has NAV of $ 10, as the value of the underlying security grows, the value of the fund would also grow, lets say it becomes $ 12 in 2 months. Now if the Mutual Fund decides to pay out a dividend of $ 1 to all unit holder, then post the distribution of dividend, the value of the Fund would become to $ 11. Thus if you are say investing on 1-April and know that dividends of $1 would be paid on 5-April [the divided distribution date is published typically weeks in advance], if you are hoping to make $1 in 5 days, that is not going to happen. On 6-April you would get $1, but the value of the fund would now be $11 from the earlier $12. This may not be wise as in some countries you would ending up paying tax on $1. Even in shares, the concept is similar, however the price may get corrected immediately and one may not actually see it going down by $1 due to market dynamics.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d3ad5c3e23220983ecf4990d8cae163b",
"text": "\"The wash sale rule only applies when the sale in question is at a loss. So the rule does not apply at all to your cases 3, 4, 7, 8, 11, 12, 15, and 16, which all start with a gain. You get a capital gain at the first sale and then a separately computed gain / loss at the second sale, depending on the case, BUT any gain or loss in the IRA is not a taxable event due to the usual tax-advantaged rules for the IRA. The wash sale does not apply to \"\"first\"\" sales in your IRA because there is no taxable gain or loss in that case. That means that you wouldn't be seeking a deduction anyway, and there is nothing to get rolled into the repurchase. This means that the rule does not apply to 1-8. For 5-8, where the second sale is in your brokerage account, you have a \"\"usual\"\" capital gain / loss as if the sale in the IRA didn't happen. (For 1-4, again, the second sale is in the IRA, so that sale is not taxable.) What's left are 9-10 (Brokerage -> IRA) and 13-14 (Brokerage -> Brokerage). The easier two are 13-14. In this case, you cannot take a capital loss deduction for the first sale at a loss. The loss gets added to the basis of the repurchase instead. When you ultimately close the position with the second sale, then you compute your gain or loss based on the modified basis. Note that this means you need to be careful about what you mean by \"\"gain\"\" or \"\"loss\"\" at the second sale, because you need to be careful about when you account for the basis adjustment due to the wash sale. Example 1: All buys and sells are in your brokerage account. You buy initially at $10 and sell at $8, creating a $2 loss. But you buy again within the wash sale window at $9 and sell that at $12. You get no deduction after the first sale because it's wash. You have a $1 capital gain at the second sale because your basis is $11 = $9 + $2 due to the $2 basis adjustment from wash sale. Example 2: Same as Example 1, except that final sale is at $8 instead of at $12. In this case you appear to have taken a $2 loss on the first buy-sell and another $1 loss on the second buy-sell. For taxes however, you cannot claim the loss at the first sale due to the wash. At the second sale, your basis is still $11 (as in Example 1), so your overall capital loss is the $3 dollars that you might expect, computed as the $8 final sale price minus the $11 (wash-adjusted) basis. Now for 9-10 (Brokerage->IRA), things are a little more complicated. In the IRA, you don't worry about the basis of individual stocks that you hold because of the way that tax advantages of those accounts work. You do need to worry about the basis of the IRA account as a whole, however, in some cases. The most common case would be if you have non-deductable contributions to your traditional IRA. When you eventually withdraw, you don't pay tax on any distributions that are attributable to those nondeductible contributions (because you already paid tax on that part). There are other cases where basis of your account matters, but that's a whole question in itself - It's enough for now to understand 1. Basis in your IRA as a whole is a well-defined concept with tax implications, and 2. Basis in individual holdings within your account don't matter. So with the brokerage-IRA wash sale, there are two questions: 1. Can you take the capital loss on the brokerage side? 2. If no because of the wash sale, does this increase the basis of your IRA account (as a whole)? The answer to both is \"\"no,\"\" although the reason is not obvious. The IRS actually put out a Special Bulletin to answer the question specifically because it was unclear in the law. Bottom line for 9-10 is that you apparently are losing your tax deduction completely in that case. In addition, if you were counting on an increase in the basis of your IRA to avoid early distribution penalties, you don't get that either, which will result in yet more tax if you actually take the early distribution. In addition to the Special Bulletin noted above, Publication 550, which talks about wash sale rules for individuals, may also help some.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fe3a3f0caea8db6ae5875eb22f1bf99d",
"text": "Assuming you bought the stocks with after-tax money, you only pay tax on the difference. Had you bought he shares in a pretax retirement account, such as an IRA or 401(k), the taxation waits until you withdraw, at which point, it's all taxed as ordinary income.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0ab357979737b8b271ff89429bd966c3",
"text": "\"I was told by the lawyers there was no tax consequence because the two numbers were the same. That is correct. However, a tax professional tells me that since the start-up stock was \"\"realized\"\" there invokes a taxable event now. That is correct. I'm now led to believe I owe cap-gains tax on the entire 4 year vest this year That is incorrect. You owe capital gains tax on the sale of your startup stock. Which is accidentally the exact same amount you \"\"paid\"\" for the new unvested stocks. There's no taxable event with regards to the new stocks because the amount you paid for them was the amount you got for the old stocks. But you did sell the old stocks, and that is a taxable event.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e2af9972a68c96a38eb32a69ff0d49fc",
"text": "The stock tends to drop by the amount of the dividend -- or if you prefer to think of it this way, the stock price has been pushed up by the amount of the dividend before it was paid out. Really, all this shift does is factor out the impending dividend's effect on the real purchase cost of the stock. As such it's pretty much irrelevant except that, of course, the dividend is short-term gain that you have to pay taxes on almost immediately. Which also tends to get figured into the price folks are willing to pay for the stock. Conclusion: no, there's no real opportunity here. There's a slight tax reason to avoid buying right before dividends are paid, but that's about it. Basic principle: If it's simple and obvious,the market has already accounted for it.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
b025eda3fe12869552760afde199bb1f
|
Is there any algorithm to calculate highest possible return on stock market?
|
[
{
"docid": "303ca871d3069294114cdd1adf7acef3",
"text": "Highest possible is meaningless. Ex: Use 17x Leverage on E-mini S&P 500 Futures, perfectly long before an uptick and short before a downtick every minute. Goes to the moon in a day of 1,440 minutes. You are supposed to use a Buy-and-Hold SPY, with leverage that makes the Standard Deviation of SPY same as your Portfolio/Algorithm, as benchmark.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5747947a2a6b7f0be2e90cad44cc370a",
"text": "You can statistically estimate the maximal loss/gain over a period of time T by the highest loss/gain during any of the same length time intervals in during the life of the stock. Using logarithmic prices to be more accurate.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "8bd6dba8603aef66808526c01453503b",
"text": "How can you correlate a company stock's performance with overall market performance. No you can't. There is no simple magic formulae that will result in profits. There are quite a few statistical algorithms that specialists have built, that work most of the times. But they are incorrect most of the times as well.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bc7049dedd2b6a9084368e230498afc2",
"text": "\"Simply put, you cannot deterministically beat the market. If by being informed and following all relevant news, you can arrive at the conclusion that company A will likely outperform company B in the future, then having A stocks should be better than having B stocks or any (e.g., index based) mix of them. But as the whole market has access to the very same information and will arrive at the same conclusion (provided it is logically sound), \"\"everybody\"\" will want A stocks, which thus become expensive to the point where the expected return is average again. Your only options of winning this race are to be the very first to have the important information (insider trade), or to arrive at different logical conclusions than the rest of the world (which boils down do making decisions that are not logically sound - good luck with that - or assuming that almost everybody else is not logically sound - go figure).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ac0ce3b2e0c026f80b68a29b373f2481",
"text": "Any time you are optimizing a portfolio, the right horizon to use for computing the statistics you will use for optimization (expected return, covariance, etc.) will be the same as your rebalance/trading frequency. If you expect your trading strategy to trade once a day, you should use daily data for optimization. Ditto for monthly or quarterly. If at all possible you should use statistics across the board that are computed at the same frequency as your trading. Regarding currency pricing, I see no reason you can't take the reported prices and convert them to whatever currency you want using that day's foriegn exchange rate. Foreign exchange rates are available for free at the Fed and elsewhere. Converting prices from one currency to another is not rocket science. Since you are contemplating putting actual money behind this, note that using data to compute statistics is less reliable for lower statistical moments. The mean (expected return) is the first moment, so using historical returns is extremely unreliable at predicting future returns. The variances and covariances are second moments, they are better. Skewness and kurtosis, yet better. The fact that the expected return can't reliably be estimated from past returns is the major downfall of the Markowitz method (resulting portfolios are often very crazy and will depend critically on the data period you use to set them up). There are approaches to fixing this, such as Black-Litterman's (1992) method, but they get complicated fast.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9f241d0bb322fd98b425318cd14c2628",
"text": "Okay, how good is my programmed test going to be if I'm new to trading? I thought the biggest flaw to algorithm trading is the people that write the code? I am still trying to develop my own sense of swing reading with significant structure, price action, and other technicals. I was going to use the click-by-click, ninjatrader method to see what works best. So, between your answer and my question. If I was going to buy data, from what stocks would be the best data to mine. L?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2737555cec11157babb0aff5bd578d75",
"text": "\"the \"\"how\"\" all depends on your level of computer savvy. Are you an Excel spreadsheet user or can you write in programming languages such as python? Either approach have math functions that make the calculation of ROI and Volatility trivial. If you're a python coder, then look up \"\"pandas\"\" (http://pandas.pydata.org/) - it handles a lot of the book-keeping and downloading of end of day equities data. With a dozen lines of code, you can compute ROI and volatility.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "577d32a6386ae00278c2b00cdf53fbc9",
"text": "\"I would change that statement to \"\"very few people can CONSISTENTLY beat the market \"\". Successful strategies will get piled into and reduce returns. Markets will pick up inefficiencies, but at the same time they do exists. Tons of interesting reading especially in regards to value. Is there a risk premium that we don't know for value? Or is it a market behavior thing?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c1492fef953735b5f6997e04a1d5492e",
"text": "\"The professional financial advisors do have tools which will take a general description of a portfolio and run monte-carlo simulations based on the stock market's historical behavior. After about 100 simulation passes they can give a statistical statement about the probable returns, the risk involved in that strategy, and their confidence in these numbers. Note that they do not just use the historical data or individual stocks. There's no way to guarantee that the same historical accidents would have occurred that made one company more successful than another, or that they will again. \"\"Past performance is no guarantee of future results\"\"... but general trends and patterns can be roughly modelled. Which makes that a good fit for those of us buying index funds, less good for those who want to play at a greater level of detail in the hope of doing better. But that's sorta the point; to beat market rate of return with the same kind of statistical confidence takes a lot more work.\"",
"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": "ac0222f92e01b641b4751aaa2e080175",
"text": "\"My master's thesis was on using genetic algorithms and candle stick method. If you are familiar, the AI was used to answer questions like \"\"what is a long day\"\", which is not formally defined in most candle stick texts. So in theory unlimited potential for learning including teaching machines to learn. Wall street pays pretty well for such developers, and if you are young and single man Manhattan is pretty sweet place to be. In practicality your formula for building wealth is the same as everyone else's: get out of debt, build an emergency fund, and invest. Initially invest in growth stock mutual funds through a 401K (assuming US).\"",
"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": "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": "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": ""
},
{
"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": "6f5601bc847b9b759754505aebe97c44",
"text": "Unfortunately I believe there is not a good answer to this because it's not a well posed problem. It sounds like you are looking for a theoretically sound criteria to decide whether to sell or hold. Such a criteria would take the form of calculating the cost of continuing to hold a stock and comparing it to the transactions cost of replacing it in your portfolio. However, your criteria for stock selection doesn't take this form. You appear to have some ad hoc rules defining whether you want the stock in your portfolio that provide no way to calculate a cost of having something in your portfolio you don't want or failing to have something you do want. Criteria for optimally rebalancing a portfolio can't really be more quantitative than the rules that define the portfolio.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ec6a62c3f49a4773caab0a81a1bb78e0",
"text": "\"I interned for about six months at a firm that employed a few technical analysts, so I'll try to provide what little information I can. Since the bulk of the intra-day trading was decided algorithmically, technical analysts had two main functions: This basically boils down to my answer to your question. There are still enough people, trading firms, etc. who believe in candlestick charting and other visually subjective patterns that if you notice a trend, pattern, etc. before the majority of traders observing, you may be able to time the market successfully and profit. This is becoming increasingly dangerous, however, because of the steps I outlined above. Over time, the charting patterns that have been proven effective (often in many firms individually since the algorithms are all proprietary) are incorporated into computer algorithms, so the \"\"traders\"\" you're competing with to see the pattern are increasingly low-latency computer clusters less than a few blocks from the exchange. Summary: Candlestick charting, along with other forms of subjective technical analysis, has its believers, and assuming enough of these believers trade the standard strategies based on the standard patterns, one could conceivably time the market with enough skill to anticipate these traders acting on the pattern and therefore profit. However, the marginal benefits of doing so are decreasing rapidly as computers take over more trading responsibility. Caveats: I know you're in Australia, where the market penetration of HF/algo traders isn't as high as in the US, so it might be a few more years before the marginal benefits cease to be profitable; that being said, if various forms of technical analysis proved wildly profitable in Australia, above and beyond profits available in other markets, rest assured that large American or British trading firms would already have moved in. My experience is limited to one trading firm, so I certainly can't speak for the industry as a whole. I know I didn't address candlestick charts specifically, but since they're only one piece of visual technical analysis, I tried to address the issue as a whole. This somewhat ties into the debate between fundamental or technical analysis, which I won't get into. Investopedia has a short article on the subject. As I said, I won't get into this because while it's a nice debate for small traders, at large trading firms, they don't care; they want to make profit, and any strategy that can be vetted, whether it's fundamental, technical, or astrological, will be vetted. I want to add more information to my answer to clear up some of the misconceptions in the comments, including those talking about biased studies and a lack of evidence for or against technical analysis (and candlestick charts; I'll explore this relationship further down). It's important to keep in mind that charting methods, including candlestick charts, are visually subjective ways of representing data, and that any interpretations drawn from such charts should, ideally, represent objective technical indicators. A charting method is only as good as the indicators it's used to represent. Therefore, an analysis of the underlying indicators provides a suitable analysis for the visual medium in which they're presented. One important study that evaluates several of these indicators is Foundations of Technical Analysis: Computational Algorithms, Statistical Inference, and Empirical Implementation by Lo, Mamaysky, and Wang. Lest anyone accuse its authors of bias, I should point out that not only is it published by the National Bureau of Economic Research (a highly reputable organization within economics and finance), but also that the majority of its authors come from MIT's Sloan school, which holds a reputation second to none. This study finds that several technical indicators, e.g. head-and-shoulder, double-bottom, and various rectangle techniques, do provide marginal value. They also find that although human judgment is still superior to most computational algorithms in the area of visual pattern recognition, ... technical analysis can be improved by using automated algorithms Since this paper was published in 2000, computing power and statistical analysis have gained significant ground against human ability to identify and exploit for visual pattern detection like candlestick charts. Second, I suggest you look into David Aaronson's book, Evidence-Based Technical Analysis: Applying the Scientific Method and Statistical Inference to Trading Signals. He finds similar results to the Lo, et. al. paper, in that some technical indicators do add value to the investment process, but those that do are those that can be represented mathematically and thus programmed directly into trading algorithms (thus bypassing visual tools like candlestick charts). He describes how studies, including Lo, et al., have found that head and shoulders patterns are worse than random, i.e. you would earn higher returns if you simply traded at random. That point is worth than repeating. If a day-trader is using a candlestick chart and using head-and-shoulders patterns as part of their toolkit, he's rolling the dice when he uses that pattern and returns that come from its application come from chance. This reminds me of that old story about a company that sends out pamphlets predicting the results of sports games, complete with \"\"strategies\"\" and \"\"data\"\" to back up the predictions. The company sends out several versions of the pamphlet every game, each predicting a different winner. Given a large enough sample size, by the end of the season, there are a few people who have received a pamphlet that accurately predicted the winner for every game and they're convinced the system is perfect. The others weren't so lucky, however. Relying on candlestick charts and TA patterns that are relics from the pre-computerized era is reassuring to some traders and gives them a sense of control and \"\"beating the market,\"\" but how long will chance remain on your side? This is why I maintain that visual tools like candlestick charts are a slowly dying medium. They certainly still add value to some trading firms, which is why Bloomberg terminals still ship with this functionality built in, but as more and more research shows, automated algorithms and statistical indicators can provide more value. It's also important to think about whether the majority of the value added by visual tools like candlestick charts comes in the form of profit or a sense of security to traders who learned the field using them over the past few decades. Finally, it's extremely important to realize that the actions of retail investors in the equities market cannot begin to represent the behaviors of the market as a whole. In the equities markets alone, trading firms and institutional investors dwarf retail investors, and the difference in scale is even more vastly pronounced in derivatives and currency markets. The fact that some retail investors use candlestick charts and the technical indicators they (hope) underlie them provides nothing but minor anecdotal evidence as to their effectiveness.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
5340d970c024a83f6a806466f8cc5124
|
How expensive is it to keep minimal cash at a brokerage?
|
[
{
"docid": "2f7341b2266571f2063751a1c13c6bb9",
"text": "You're trying to mitigate the risk of having your investments wiped out by fraud committed by your broker by using margin loans to buy stock secured by other, non-cash assets in your account. The solution that you are proposing does not make any sense at all. You mitigate a very low probability/high impact risk by doing something that comes with a high probability/medium impact risk. In addition to interest costs, holding stocks on margin subjects you to the very real risk of being forced to sell assets at inopportune times to meet margin calls. Given the volatility that the markets are experiencing in 2011, there is a high risk that some irrational decision in Greece could wipe you out. If I were worried about this, I would: If you have enough money that SIPC protection limits are an issue, you desperately need a financial adviser. Do not implement any strategy involving margin loans until you talk to a qualified adviser.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b37cd94e068d80b837233720a0b96c11",
"text": "\"Losses at a brokerage firm due to fraud are insured up to $500,000 per account for securities by the SIPC (Securities Investors' Protection Corporation), which is the stock market version of the FDIC (that insures deposits). The protection amount for cash is $250,000. That's small comfort to \"\"big\"\" players in MF Global. But it does protect \"\"small\"\" investors like you.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "fe88f147ee1185df8e18652d0ffef41a",
"text": "You'll have to take cash from your Credit Card account and use that to trade. I doubt any brokerage house will take credit cards as it's trading without any collateral (since credit cards are an unsecured credit)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7f0f94cad109154d5343f3c209527606",
"text": "Many brokerage accounts for trading stocks are covered under SIPC insurance, which is up to $500,000 You can also have multiple checking and savings accounts with the $250,000 balance split up. You can also check your bank's capital ratio on the FDIC website, somewhere. The FDIC won't move on them unless it falls under 3% and even then FDIC will force them into receivership and sell them to a bigger bank before they go bust and experience losses of customer deposits. This is what mostly happened when hundreds of banks failed during the crisis from 2008-2010. There were very isolated events where customers actually lost their cash balances, and that was mostly because those customers had completely uninsured accounts. As that was the most extreme moment in US and global financial history, you should be able to judge risk with the aforementioned information in mind. You can stay in a cash balance easily and be fully insured.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "65d0e65fc15b89d957ea8f4aacf84849",
"text": "Brokerages are supposed to keep your money separate from theirs. So, even if they fail as a company, your money and investments are still there, and can be transferred to another brokerage. It doesn't matter if it's an IRA or taxable account. Of course, as is the case with MF Global, if illegally take their client's money (i.e., steal), it may be a different story. In such cases, SIPC covers up to $500K, of which $250K can be cash, as JoeTaxpayer said. You may be interested in the following news item from the SEC. It's about some proposed changes, but to frame the proposal they lay out the way it is now: http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2011/2011-128.htm The most relevant quote: The Customer Protection Rule (Rule 15c3-3). This SEC rule requires a broker-dealer to segregate customer securities and cash from the firm’s proprietary business activities. If the broker-dealer fails, these customer assets should be readily available to be returned to customers.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "b40e52e0068c9e44ae241e98dd01457a",
"text": "I assume by not-so-good prospects you mean small account clients whose revenue will not justify the time required to close a deal and/or post-sale service. Glad to see you are being realistic about the value of your time vs. what a prospect is paying. A big part of your practice is going to come down to what infrastructure/processes your dealer firm or back office support has. Is yours one with a formal small account policy that assigns servicing to a centralized service center (aka call center)? I've also seen others separate direct at fund vs held in-house (omnibus) based on client assets. Small accounts go direct to at fund and are directed to the mutual fund transfer agent for post-sale servicing needs. The up-front sales charge compensates for the initial consultation and the rest is self-servicing / support by the fund transfer agent.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ddc3cff90f29db861bd333288cc9d0b0",
"text": "\"Did they just only ask \"\"how much money do you have in a savings account?\"\". I followed the links to the gobankingrates.com site and it seems so. I could have $2M in a taxable brokerage account with the cash portion in MM, $1M in IRA savings, own my home outright and have 0 in a savings account. A savings account is stupid, btw.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5b046169ed068a319df90d5012e5a886",
"text": "How come when I sell stocks, the brokerage won't let me cash out for three days, telling me the SEC requires this clearance period for the transaction to clear, but they can swap shit around in under a second? Be interesting to see what would happen if *every* transaction wasn't cleared until the closing bell.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "92f0b60388d535a8b24ec5ee5eac7417",
"text": "\"Take a look at FolioFN - they let you buy small numbers of shares and fractional shares too. There is an annual fee on the order of US$100/year. You can trade with no fees at two \"\"windows\"\" per day, or at any time for a $15 fee. You are better off leaving the stock in broker's name, especially if you live overseas. Otherwise you will receive your dividends in the form of cheques that might be expensive to try to cash. There is also usually a fee charged by the broker to obtain share certificates instead of shares in your account.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b26146f4690f6340fd7e29cdd4f8fd28",
"text": "Here's the purely mathematical answer for which fees hurt more. You say taking the money out has an immediate cost of $60,000. We need to calculate the present value of the future fees and compare it against that number. Let's assume that the investment will grow at the same rate either with or without the broker. That's actually a bit generous to the broker, since they're probably investing it in funds that in turn charge unjustifiable fees. We can calculate the present cost of the fees by calculating the difference between: As it turns out, this number doesn't depend on how much we should expect to get as investment returns. Doing the math, the fees cost: 220000 - 220000 * (1-0.015)^40 = $99809 That is, the cost of the fees is comparable to paying nearly $100,000 right now. Nearly half the investment! If there are no other options, I strongly recommend taking the one-time hit and investing elsewhere, preferably in low-cost index funds. Details of the derivation. For simplicity, assume that both fees and growth compound continuously. (The growth does compound continuously. We don't know about the fees, but in any case the distinction isn't very significant.) Fees occur at a (continuous) rate of rf = ln((1-0.015)^4) (which is negative), and growth occurs at rate rg. The OPs current principal is P, and the present value of the fees over time is F. We therefore have the equation P e^((rg+rf)t) = (P-F) e^(rg t) Solving for F, we notice that the e^rg*t components cancel, and we obtain F = P - P e^(rf t) = P - P e^(ln((1-0.015)^4) t) = P - P (1-0.015)^(4t)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "be541e7f5fb3c8fe472400d71d964114",
"text": "I can make withdrawals immediately, 2x per month. I wasn't told the money would be tied up. And also, although it doesn't count for much, I'd like to trade under a formal prop firm just so I could put it on my resume, people wouldn't put much weight on performance in a retail account. Atleast, I don't believe so, I could be wrong",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "12fd823d45e5e046592c8b8e6b1fc39f",
"text": "\"You need to have 3 things if you are considering short-term trading (which I absolutely do not recommend): The ability to completely disconnect your emotions from your gains and losses (yes, even your gains but especially your losses). The winning/losing on a daily basis will cause you to start taking unnecessary risk in order to win again. If you can't disconnect your emotions, then this isn't the game for you. The lowest possible trading costs to enter and exit a position. People will talk about 1% trading costs; that rule-of-thumb doesn't apply anymore. Personally, my trading costs are a total 13.9 basis points to enter and exit a $10,000 position and I think it's still too high (that's just a hair above one-eighth of 1% for you non-traders). The ability to \"\"gut-check\"\" and exit a losing position FAST. Don't hesitate and don't hope for it to go up. GTFO. If you are serious about short-term trading then you must close all positions on a daily basis. Don't do margin in today's market as many valuations are high and some industries are not trending as they have in the past. The leverage will kill you. It's not a question of \"\"if\"\", it's a when. You're new. Don't trade anything larger than a $5,000 position, no matter what. Don't hold more than 10% of your portfolio in the same industry. Don't be afraid to sit on 50% cash or more for months at a time. Use money market funds to park cash because they are T+1 settlement and most firms will let you trade the stock without cash as long as you effect the money market trade on the same day since stock settlement is T+3.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e7080964ccd66e1d732a3cfb1e34b870",
"text": "\"Price is current price per share, but you can buy fractional shares. Minimal investment is how later the first purchase of shares must be to make it worth their efforts to set up the account for you. How you manage it is up to you. You can buy or sell shares at any time, pretty much, though it may take a few days for the transaction to \"\"settle\"\" and take effect. You can do this via checks, or you can give the broker (or the investment house, if you are dealing directly with them as I do) permission to take money from or put money to your bank account when you tell them you want to buy or sell shares. You may be able to set up direct deposit; talk to your employer about that. Or you may be able to have your bank make a periodic transfer/purchase for you.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "651f98220897b2a34830fade5ce229dc",
"text": "\"Probably the most significant difference is the Damocles Sword hanging over your head, the Margin Call. In a nutshell, the lender (your broker) is going to require you to have a certain amount of assets in your account relative to your outstanding loan balance. The minimum ratio of liquid funds in the account to the loan is regulated in the US at 50% for the initial margin and 25% for maintenance margins. So here's where it gets sticky. If this ratio gets on the wrong side of the limits, the broker will force you to either add more assets/cash to your account t or immediately liquidate some of your holdings to remedy the situation. Assuming you don't have any/enough cash to fix the problem it can effectively force you to sell while your investments are in the tank and lock in a big loss. In fact, most margin agreements give the brokerage the right to sell your investments without your express consent in these situations. In this situation you might not even have the chance to pick which stock they sell. Source: Investopedia article, \"\"The Dreaded Margin Call\"\" Here's an example from the article: Let's say you purchase $20,000 worth of securities by borrowing $10,000 from your brokerage and paying $10,000 yourself. If the market value of the securities drops to $15,000, the equity in your account falls to $5,000 ($15,000 - $10,000 = $5,000). Assuming a maintenance requirement of 25%, you must have $3,750 in equity in your account (25% of $15,000 = $3,750). Thus, you're fine in this situation as the $5,000 worth of equity in your account is greater than the maintenance margin of $3,750. But let's assume the maintenance requirement of your brokerage is 40% instead of 25%. In this case, your equity of $5,000 is less than the maintenance margin of $6,000 (40% of $15,000 = $6,000). As a result, the brokerage may issue you a margin call. Read more: http://www.investopedia.com/university/margin/margin2.asp#ixzz1RUitwcYg\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "971fa0f2e0225a6fc471fc34d6c4f1e7",
"text": "I can't speak for all brokerages but the one I use requires cash accounts to have cash available to purchase the stock in this situation. With the cash available you would be able to purchase the stock if the option was exercised. Hope this helps",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "06e4704418d257227d647692a04fec2e",
"text": "If you are restricting yourself to Scotiabank (Both retail banking and iTrade), your choices are pretty limited. If you are exchanging more than CAD$25,000 to EUR without margin, you can call Scotiabank and ask for a quote with much lower spread than the published snapshots. The closest ETF that you are talking about is RWE.B on TSX, which is First Asset MSCI Europe Low Risk Weighted ETF (Unhedged). You will be exposed to huge equity market risk and you should do it only if you intend to hold it for 3-5 years. Another way of exchanging cash is without opening an account is through a currency exchange broker (search “toronto currency exchange” for relevant companies). First you send an email asking for a quote for the amount you wanted, then you send the CAD to them via cheque, and they would convert to EUR and deposit it to your EUR account at Scotiabank (retail banking). This method costs around 0.7% compared to 2.5% charged by Scotiabank. An example of these brokers is Interchange Currency Exchange in Toronto. If you are hedging more than 125000 EUR, the proper method is to open an account that supports trading Currency Futures on Globex (US CME group). You can long Euro/Canadian Dollar Futures on margin. The last method is to open an account at Interactive Brokers, put CAD in it, then borrow more CAD to buy EUR. This method costs a few dollars upon trading and the spread is negligible. You need to pay 2.25% per year margin interest through.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
fe238a068bb8b70d5f24b1a78367f63c
|
How to file income tax returns for profits from ESPP stock?
|
[
{
"docid": "9374b0f4b0983345d60caa77ae25a50c",
"text": "Consult a professional CA. For shares sold outside the Indian Stock Exchanges, these will be treated as normal Long Term Capital Gains if held more than one year. The rate would be 10% without Indexation and 20% with Indexation. If the stocks are held for less than 1 years, it will be short term gains and taxed according you to tax bracket.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9c11adb5071b17afcac09a15263f2afe",
"text": "I did this for the last tax year so hopefully I can help you. You should get a 1099-B (around the same time you're getting your W-2(s)) from the trustee (whichever company facilitates the ESPP) that has all the information you need to file. You'll fill out a Schedule D and (probably) a Form 8949 to describe the capital gains and/or losses from your sale(s). It's no different than if you had bought and sold stock with any brokerage.",
"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": "43bdaa58a8294a11126f9f82315e045b",
"text": "It really depends. If it is offered as compensation (ie in leiu of, or in addition to salary or cash bonus) then it would be reportable income, and if sold later for a profit then that would be taxable as gains. If this share is purchased as an investment at current value then it would be treated like other securities most likely gains realized at sale. Any discount could be considered income but there are some goofy rules surrounding this enacted to prevent tax evasion and some to spur growth. That is the answer in a nut shell. It is far more complicated in reality as there are somewhere around 2000 pages of regulations deal with different exceptions and scenerios.",
"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": "c2e776fb7b74820146fb41350cfb275e",
"text": "Adding to webdevduck's answer: Before you calculate your profits, you can pay money tax-free into a pension fund for the company director (that is you). Then if you pay yourself dividends, if you made lots of profit you don't have to pay it all as dividends. You can take some where the taxes are low, and then pay more money in later years. What you must NOT do is just take the money. The company may be yours, but the money isn't. It has to be paid as salary or dividend. (You can give the company director a loan, but that loan has to be repaid. Especially if a limited company goes bankrupt, the creditors would insist that loans from the company are repaid). After a bit more checking, here's the optimal approach, perfectly legal, expected and ethical: You pay yourself a salary of £676 per month. That's the point where you get all the advantages of national insurance without having to pay; above that you would have to pay 13.8% employers NI contributions and 12% employee's NI contributions, so for £100 salary the company has to pay £113.80 and you receive £88.00. Below £676 you pay nothing. You deduct the salary from your revenue, then you deduct all the deductible business costs (be wise in what you try to deduct), then you pay whatever you want into a pension fund. Well, up to I think £25,000 per year. The rest is profit. The company pays 19% corporation tax on profits. Then you pay yourself dividends. Any dividends until your income is £11,500 per year are tax free. Then the next £5,000 per year are tax free. Then any dividends until income + dividends = £45,000 per year is taxed at 7.5%. It's illegal to pay so much in dividends that the company can't pay its bills. Above £45,000 you decide if you want your money now and pay more tax, or wait and get it tax free. Every pound of dividend above £45,000 a year you pay 32.5% tax, but there is nobody forcing you to take the money. You can wait until business is bad, or you want a loooong holiday, or you retire. So at that time you will stay below £45,000 per year and pay only 7.5% tax.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "15a1feb3fc0c0c041bde517e1f7565d0",
"text": "\"I dug up an old article on Motley Fool and one approach they mention is to get the stock certificates and then sell them to a friend: If the company was liquidated, you should receive a 1099-DIV form at year's end showing a liquidating distribution. Treat this as if you sold the stock for the amount of the distribution. The date of \"\"sale\"\" is the date that the distribution took place. Using your original cost basis in the shares, you can now compute your loss. If the company hasn't actually been liquidated, you'll need to make sure it's totally worthless before you claim a loss. If you have worthless stock that's not worth the hassle of selling through your broker, you can sell it to a friend (or cousin, aunt, or uncle) for pennies. (However, you can't sell the stock to a spouse, siblings, parents, grandparents, or lineal descendants.) Here's one way to do it: Send the certificate to your stock-transfer agent. Explain that the shares have been sold, and ask to cancel the old shares and issue a new certificate to the new owner. Some brokerages will offer you a quicker alternative, by buying all of your shares of the stock for a penny. They do it to help out their customers; in addition, over time, some of the shares may actually become worth more than the penny the brokers paid for them. By selling the shares, you have a closed transaction with the stock and can declare a tax loss. Meanwhile, your friend, relative, or broker, for a pittance, has just bought a placemat or birdcage liner.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bbf48adc1557e2e46c2031c34e371115",
"text": "SXL is a Master Limited Partnership so all of the income is pass-through. Your equity purchase entitles you to a fraction of the 66% of the company that is not owned by Energy Transfer Partners. You should have been receiving the K-1s from SXL from the time that you bought the shares. Without knowing your specific situation, you will likely have to amend your returns for at most 6 years (if the omitted amount of gross income exceeds 25% of your gross income originally stated as littleadv has graciously pointed out in the comments) and include Schedule E to report the additional income (you'll also be able to deduct any depreciation, losses etc. that are passed through the entity on that form, so that will offset some of the gains). As littleadv has recommended, speak with a tax professional (CPA/EA or attorney) before you take any further steps, as everyone's situation is a bit different. This Forbes article has a nice overview of the MLP. There's a click-through to get to it, but it's not paywalled.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a673fcb56b419b6a87c7643e71729396",
"text": "You need to report the income from any work as income, regardless of if you invest it, spend it, or put it in your mattress (ignoring tax advantaged accounts like 401ks). You then also need to report any realized gains or losses from non-tax advantaged accounts, as well as any dividends received. Gains and losses are realized when you actually sell, and is the difference between the price you bought for, and the price you sold for. Gains are taxed at the capital gains rate, either short-term or long-term depending on how long you owned the stock. The tax system is complex, and these are just the general rules. There are lots of complications and special situations, some things are different depending on how much you make, etc. The IRS has all of the forms and rules online. You might also consider having a professional do you taxes the first time, just to ensure that they are done correctly. You can then use that as an example in future years.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b0fe4f46c95a1af4c1c188eddc55166d",
"text": "For tax purposes you will need to file as an employee (T4 slips and tax withheld automatically), but also as an entrepreneur. I had the same situation myself last year. Employee and self-employed is a publication from Revenue Canada that will help you. You need to fill out the statement of business activity form and keep detailed records of all your deductible expenses. Make photocopies and keep them 7 years. May I suggest you take an accountant to file your income tax form. More expensive but makes you less susceptible to receive Revenue Canada inspectors for a check-in. If you can read french, you can use this simple spreadsheet for your expenses. Your accountant will be happy.",
"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": "5113b7444d0fc0998ef14da59956b5ec",
"text": "I agree with the other comments that you should not buy/hold your company stock even if given at a discount. If equity is provided as part of the compensation package (Options/Restrictive Stock Units RSU)then this rule does not apply. As a matter of diversification, you should not have majority equity stake of other companies in the same sector (e.g. technology) as your employer. Asset allocation and diversification if done in the right way, takes care of the returns. Buying and selling on the same day is generally not allowed for ESPP. Taxation headaches. This is from personal experience (Cisco Systems). I had options issued in Sept 2008 at 18$ which vested regularly. I exited at various points - 19$,20$,21$,23$ My friend held on to all of it hoping for 30$ is stuck. Options expire if you leave your employment. ESPP shares though remain.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "e50d808161d68b403fd9c24ec47bb822",
"text": "The HMRC website says: Stock dividends are treated as income by virtue of CTA10/S1049, and taxable as savings income under Chapter 5 of Part 4 of ITTOIA05 (sections 409 to 414). ITTOIA05 is the Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Act 2005, and says: 409 Charge to tax on stock dividend income (1) Income tax is charged on stock dividend income. (2) In this Chapter “stock dividend income” means the income that is treated as arising under section 410. 411 Income charged (1) Tax is charged under this Chapter on the amount of stock dividend income treated for income tax purposes as arising in the tax year. (2) That amount is the cash equivalent of the share capital on the issue of which the stock dividend income arises (see section 412), grossed up by reference to the dividend ordinary rate for the tax year.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b1e31c0a10ca632844786eb12a4497e3",
"text": "The company will have to pay 20% tax on its profits. Doesn't matter how these profits are earned. Profits = Income minus all money you spend to get the income. However, you can't just take the profits out of the company. The company can pay you a salary, on which income tax, national insurance, and employer's national insurance have to be paid at the usual rate. The company can pay you a dividend, on which tax has to be paid. And the company can pay money into the director's pension fund, which is tax free. Since the amount of company revenue can be of interest, I'd be curious myself what the revenue of such a company would be. And if the company makes losses, I'm sure HMRC won't allow you to get any tax advantages from such losses.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f2bee9d464e259fa7b7b4558c1080986",
"text": "I'm assuming this was a cashless exercise because you had income show up on your w-2. When I had a similar situation, I did the following: If you made $50,000 in salary and $10,000 in stock options then your W-2 now says $60,000. You'll record that on your taxes just like it was regular income. You'll also get a form that talks about your stock sale. But remember, you bought and sold the stock within seconds. Your forms will probably look like this: Bought stock: $10,000 Sold stock: $10,000 + $50 commission Total profit (loss): ($50) From the Turbotax/IRS view point, you lost $50 on the sale of the stock because you paid the commission, but the buy and sell prices were identical or nearly identical.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
7939f28d2ed3321c0fba0adcd3f8b1f0
|
Why do non-electronic stock exchanges (with floor traders) still exist?
|
[
{
"docid": "22f3b8f8f550fc4633da9b77326adde3",
"text": "For the second part, no most NYSE trades are done electronically.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "81e3c658b4c1ad494a06e67bc0a6de25",
"text": "Non-electronic stock exchanges still exist because they used to exist. There are a lot of people in trading firms who grew up with floor trading and don't want to give it up, either because they feel more comfortable with it or because they might lose their job if they went away from it.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "c2818bdbcd005e911a4f2012b17a4d0a",
"text": "The answer is to your question is somewhat complicated. You will be unable to compete with the firms traditionally associated with High Frequency Trading in any of their strategies. Most of these strategies which involve marketing making, latency arbitrage, and rebate collection. The amount of engineering required to build the infrastructure required to run this at scale makes it something which can only be undertaken by a team of highly skilled engineers. Indeed, the advantage of firms competing in this space such as TradeBot, TradeWorx, and Getco comes from this infrastructure as most of the strategies that are developed are necessarily simple due to the latency requirements. Now if you expand the definition of HFT to include all computerized automated trading you most certainly can build strategies that are profitable. It is not something that you probably want to tackle on your own but I know of a couple of people that did go it alone successfully for a couple of years before joining an established firm to run a book for them. In order to be successful you will most likely need to develop a unique strategies. The good news is because that you are trying to deploy a very tiny amount of capital you can engage in trades that larger firms would not because the strategies cannot hold enough capital relative to the firms capital base. I am the co-founder of a small trading firm that successfully trades the US Equities and Equity Derivatives markets. A couple of things to note is that if you want to do this you should consider building a real business. Having some more smart brains around you will help. You don't need exchange colocation for all strategies. Many firms, including ours, colocate in a data center that simply has proximity to the exchanges data centers. You will need to keep things simple to be effective. Don't except all the group think that this is impossible. It is possible although as a single individual it will be more difficult. It will require long, long hours as you climb the algorithmic trading learning curve. Good luck.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "03bc7edadda951c2a1ee39f827de7419",
"text": "I dont think you understand teh main problem with HFT, they locate the machines next to the exchanges, and make money based on the latency between exchanges. This is not something anyone but them can do. And it is basically cheating the market. You ever see the scam.. it was in mash, where [Frank Burns](http://www.funtrivia.com/en/subtopics/M*A*S*H----Out-of-Sight-Out-of-Mind-181978.html) got the radio signals early for the games, and would place bets on the games already knowing the outcome for when they were broadcast on official armed forces radio. That is what HFC is. They get the score of the game before you do, and then bet on the game. and yes they place a lot of orders and cancel them, that isnt to slow other traders but to force more latency on the system, so they can know the scores even earlier.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f3ca94d4bc0bef19aabce03c94cbe1f3",
"text": "There are still human brokers on the floor primarily due to tradition. Their numbers have certainly dwindled, however, and it's reasonable to expect the number of floor traders to decrease even more as electronic trading continues to grow. A key reason for human brokers, however, is due to privacy. Certain private exchanges such as dark pools maintain privacy for high profile clients and institutional investors, and human brokers are needed to execute anonymous deals in these venues. Even in this region, however, technology is supplanting the need for brokers. I don't believe there is any human-broker-free stock exchange, but Nasdaq and other traditionally OTC (over the counter) exchanges are as close as it gets since they never even had trading floors.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "94d834e964f6c5946049a37c89b31d7f",
"text": "\"Joke warning: These days, it seems that rogue trading programs are the big market makers (this concludes the joke) Historically, exchange members were market makers. One or more members guaranteed a market in a particular stock, and would buy whatever you wanted to sell (or vice-versa). In a balanced market -- one where there were an equal number of buyers and sellers -- the spread was indeed profit for them. To make this work, market makers need an enormous amount of liquidity (ability to hold an inventory of stocks) to deal with temporary imbalances. And a day like October 29, 1929, can make that liquidity evaporate. I say \"\"historically,\"\" because I don't think that any stock market works this way today (I was discussing this very topic with a colleague last week, went to Wikipedia to look at the structure of the NYSE, and saw no mention of exchange members as market makers -- in fact, it appears that the NYSE is no longer a member-based exchange). Instead, today most (all?) trading happens on \"\"electronic crossing networks,\"\" where the spread is simply the difference between the highest bid and lowest ask. In a liquid stock, there will be hundreds if not thousands of orders clustered around the \"\"current\"\" price, usually diverging by fractions of a cent. In an illiquid stock, there may be a spread, but eventually one bid will move up or one ask will move down (or new bids will come in). You could claim that an entity with a large block of stock to move takes the role of market maker, but it doesn't have the same meaning as an exchange market maker. Since there's no entity between the bidder and asker, there's no profit in the spread, just a fee taken by the ECN. Edit: I think you have a misconception of what the \"\"spread\"\" is. It's simply the difference between the highest bid and the lowest offer. At the instant a trade takes place, the spread is 0: the highest bid equals the lowest offer, and the bidder and seller exchange shares for money. As soon as that trade is completed, the spread re-appears. The only way that a trade happens is if buyer and seller agree on price. The traditional market maker is simply an entity that has the ability to buy or sell an effectively unlimited number of shares. However, if the market maker sets a price and there are no buyers, then no trade takes place. And if there's another entity willing to sell shares below the market maker's price, then the buyers will go to that entity unless the market's rules forbid it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "20064feafb979b8e5119dc642d0de4de",
"text": "I don't quite understand the NYSE argument that the credit system helps NASDAQ undercut NYSE on pricing and force brokers to trade on NASDAQ. I thought if you were trading a stock listed on NASDAQ, you traded through them and if you were trading a stock listed on NYSE, you'd trade over there. The choice of exchange coming down to the stocks you want to trade more than anything. Are the exchanges also acting as endpoints on trades for securities listed on the other exchange?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "952a2b83d521ba6a281e006c50308c6e",
"text": "\"I agree that retail looks for orderly markets, but orderly markets have really never existed. Really study market history, and you'll see that markets are more orderly today than they ever have been. The stuff that used to take place was just insane and happened before computers--let alone HFT. Let me state that, while it may seem like I'm defending HFT, my algos are actually much longer-term and wouldn't be hurt by any of your proposals. I think many of the HFT guys are no better than those three-card monte sharks who used to fill Times Square. But they're just playing the game. They're not good, but they're also not bad; they're just another segment of players. In orderly markets (up and down), they really do add liquidity. When things go awry as they tend to do in the markets, the HFTs step aside. But don't fool yourself--market makers have always done the exact same thing. And also remember that many markets don't even have market makers; traders provide all liquidity. Here's the thing. Retail investors swarm to the markets when everything is going up and up. They believe they can do no wrong and that prices will go up forever. Then the market gets a bit tougher, retail investors (and most \"\"pros,\"\" by the way) start to lose, and then retail investors cry foul. Markets were never intended to be a nice, safe playground for the masses. They were designed for those who dedicate their lives to understanding them. I don't pretend that I can litigate a legal case, operate on someone's brain, or build a bridge. Experts have studied those areas for decades and are quite good at those things. But retail investors have always thought of Wall Street as some sort of \"\"safe Las Vegas.\"\" In reality, it's survival of the fiercest. I'll say to you what I say to every one of my friend's who wants me to \"\"show them a few things about trading\"\": If you aren't going to really commit thousands of hours to understanding the markets, then stay out. Invest money that you don't need for some time in a few good mutual funds. Keep your debt to a minimum. Don't chase quick profits if you don't understand the game.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a7cbe1bbb9e075d990eef790f0b6b098",
"text": "Humans also coped fine before the advent of computers. Does that mean we should revert back to how things were before they came about? Anyway you haven't said why HFT is inherently bad. Well, you did make one point at the start but I think it's a weak one. You said that HFT screws those without access to HFT? HFT system aren't free you know. I could say that me having instant access to stock markets through a computer screws over those who still rely in calling their broker to place an order. Does that mean that trading through computers should be banned? I know you'll probably argue the difference in the magnitude of the capital requirements and that almost everybody has access to a computer but not an HFT system, but where do you draw the line? Should bloomberg terminals be banned? They're out of reach for a lot of investors due to the cost.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e518dc8abac3f5ab685656cd8efff5b7",
"text": "\"Largely, because stock markets are efficient markets, at least mostly if not entirely; while the efficient market hypothesis is not necessarily 100% correct, for the majority of traders it's unlikely that you could (on the long term) find significant market inefficiencies with the tools available to an individual of normal wealth (say, < $500k). That's what frequent trading intends to do: find market inefficiencies. If the market is efficient, then a stock is priced exactly at what it should be worth, based on risk and future returns. If it is inefficient, then you can make more money trading on that inefficiency versus simply holding it long. But in stating that a stock is inefficient, you are stating that you know something the rest of the market doesn't - or some condition is different for you than the other million or so people in the market. That's including a lot of folks who do this for a living, and have very expensive modelling software (and hardware to run it on). I like to think that I'm smarter than the far majority of people, but I'm probably not the smartest guy in the room, and I certainly don't have that kind of equipment - especially with high frequency trading nowadays. As such, it's certainly possible to make a bit of money as a trader versus as a long-term investor, but on the whole it's similar to playing poker for a living. If you're smarter than most of the people in the room, you might be able to make a bit of money, but the overhead - in the case of poker, the money the house charges for the game, in the case of stocks, the exchange fees and broker commissions - means that it's a losing game for the group as a whole, and not very many people can actually make money. Add to that the computer-based trading - so imagine a poker game where four of the eight players are computer models that are really good (and actively maintained by very smart traders) and you can see where it gets to be very difficult to trade at a profit (versus long term investments, which take advantage of the growth in value in the company). Finally, the risk because of leverage and option trading (which is necessary to really take advantage of inefficiencies) makes it not only hard to make a profit, but easy to lose everything. Again to the poker analogy, the guys I've known playing poker for a living do it by playing 10-20 games at once - because one game isn't efficient enough, you wouldn't make enough money. In poker, you can do that fairly safely, especially in limit games; but in the market, if you're leveraging your money you risk losing a lot. Every action you take to make it \"\"safer\"\" removes some of your profit.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d915e25925a1a57e88b048951204801f",
"text": "Also, from personal experience, most banks' internal IT systems are bare minimum to keep working. Outside of trading systems the back office are often on Lotus Notes 99 or similar just because back office is seen as a cost and it's easy to justify not upgrading IT systems. For sure, if the ROI is right it might get approved but it's hard to overstate how much time of your average back office employee is already spent fighting shitty systems that could be improved with today's tech.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "096893f66144d372513ee827938fe573",
"text": "It's not primarily more people investing. In the 1980s stock exchanges went from open outcry trading floors where all trades involved actually exchanging pieces of paper to electronic trading. Once that happened, it wasn't long before most trades were executed by computer programs rather than human beings, turning stocks over rapidly for very short-term profits rather than long-term investment, greatly increasing the number of trades (and also increasing liquidity for the actual investors; it's by no means all bad).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "84f19c18230b41f5cf0f9931dfe1fdd9",
"text": "Off the top of my head, a broker: While there are stock exchanges that offer direct market access (DMA), they (nearly) always want a broker as well to back the first two points I made. In that case the broker merely routes your orders directly to the exchange and acts as a custodian, but of course the details heavily depend on the exchange you're talking about. This might give you some insight: Direct Market Access - London Stock Exchange",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "175e9c264dbfa41d9cdaf22b7ba50535",
"text": "\"I guess there are accepted channels for this sort of thing, but I don't really understand why. Couldn't anyone sell them to anyone else at any time in any kind of market? I mean, if I had a friend who was talking the the IPO up, couldn't I have just said, \"\"Hey Fred, I'll sell you a Facebook share in two weeks time for thirty five bucks\"\" and be done with it? Do exchanges provide legal services? Is there a law that says you have to go through them? And even if you *did* have to go through them, why wouldn't multiple exchanges list them instead of just one, and why wouldn't an exchange start listing them from the minute the gun fired (or before)?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "14117e82a174430358141e8f5bc52d22",
"text": "You must understand that: So, if you -- the prospective buyer -- are in Waukegan, do you take the train all the way to New York City just to buy 100 shares of stock? No. That would be absurdly expensive. So, you hire an agent in NYC who will broker a deal for you in the exchange. Fast forward 100 years, to the time when instant communications is available. Why do we now still need brokerages, when the Exchanges could set up web sites and let you do the trading? The answer is that the Exchanges don't want to have to develop the accounting systems to manage the transactions of hundreds of thousands of small traders, when existing brokerage firms already have those computerized processes in place and are opening their own web sites. Thus, in 2017 we have brokerage firms because of history.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "35b71b8af2271d48d916b263296b0d80",
"text": "\"You're not making any sort of a persuasive argument why predatory HFT should be allowed to levy a tax on the system. Yes, computer trading is heck of a lot better than paper trading. You're citing an article from 2010 that states things I'm not even arguing against as somehow supporting this \"\"tax\"\", the mechanisms of which the author was not even aware of at the time. There is no valid argument for why this tax is necessary or good for anyone but the firms profiting from it. I'm all for lower spreads and near instant order processing, but that doesn't excuse some greedy prick from scalping my 401k a point or two of compounding interest every year.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "08731cc1aa3d6b5299b0f83c6ebf6b87",
"text": "I was looking at NAT and NAO, NAT owns 20% of NAO. They trade opposite each other on the price of oil, low is good for NAT, bad for NAO. In bad times the other company's stock would probably rise, so they could trim excess shares to keep a stable monetary holding. This would create cash in bad times, in good times they could buy more, creating a floor as well for the other.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
ca06359b1b1d169699e4bfdcf1eeb251
|
Where Can The Fully Diluted Outstanding Shares Of A Company Be Found?
|
[
{
"docid": "0c827880aa2aea2a90fadbf4dd07ad8b",
"text": "You can calculate the fully diluted shares by comparing EPS vs diluted (adjusted) EPS as reported in 10K. I don't believe they report the number directly, but it is a trivial math exercise to reach it. The do report outstanding common stock (basis for EPS).",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "60e096d50149b10d70b6d360eeb8e2f8",
"text": "This is in the balance sheet, but the info is not usually that detailed. It is safe to assume that at least some portion of the cash/cash equivalents will be in liquid bonds. You may find more specific details in the company SEC filings (annual reports etc).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e7586dc4b0b2e7053a50e9deabdc4059",
"text": "I think you're looking for the public float: Public float or the unqualified term may also refer to the number of outstanding shares in the hands of public investors as opposed to company officers, directors, or controlling-interest investors. Assuming the insider held shares are not traded, these shares are the publicly traded ones. The float is calculated by subtracting restricted shares from outstanding shares. As mentioned, Treasury stock is probably the most narrow definition of restricted stock (not publicly traded), but shares held by corporate officers or majority investors are often included in the definition as well. In any case, the balance sheet is indeed a good place to start.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "46107768afe2203cb02edd2da483f598",
"text": "When Hewlett Packard split they changed their name to HP Inc. and spun off Hewlett Packard Enterprise as a new corporation. This means HP Inc. has the same stock history and ticker (HPQ) as Hewlett Packard did so that's the one you want to search for. As you noticed this also means it's impossible to search for old Hewlett Packard's stock performance alone. One free service that seems to show the unadjusted historical stock price of HPQ is Google finance: https://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE%3AHPQ",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f3fc9d28d9777475580836ac0f283f3f",
"text": "I already know of this method. I was creating a peer group and found 4-5 very similar companies, however one of them is a foreign public company with a subsidiary competing directly with a company I am trying to find the beta for. I guess I have to omit this company because it's strictly foreign? Also, what do I do if I can't find any public companies that are similar to the company I am trying to value?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b5efb66c4232a0cacd9b4a78d531db39",
"text": "A lot will depend on wether you have in your possession the physical share documents or just numbers in your brokerage portfolio. Electronic shares are not traceable as they do not exist as individual entities. ETrade certainly knows who bought how much, but no concept of which ones. Lets say ET buys 1000 shares of Acme, their database looks like this: Now they sell 400 shares to Bob: Bob sells 200, Alice buys 100: ( skipped one transaction for brevity ) Did Alice get 100 shares out of ET's original 1000, or did she get 100 shares that were previously owned by Bob? Or 27 from ET and 73 from ET? Another, less exact way to picture the process is one share is 1ml of liquid. If you return 50ml to the pot it becomes indistinguishable from the rest.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b0450d67e8cbf88413d3c97a3f56ac2f",
"text": "You need a source of delisted historical data. Such data is typically only available from paid sources. According to my records 20 Feb 2006 was not a trading day - it was Preisdent's Day and the US exchanges were closed. The prior trading date to this was 17 Feb 2006 where the stock had the following data: Open: 14.40 High 14.46 Low 14.16 Close 14.32 Volume 1339800 (consolidated volume) Source: Symbol NVE-201312 within Premium Data US delisted stocks historical data set available from http://www.premiumdata.net/products/premiumdata/ushistorical.php Disclosure: I am a co-owner of Norgate / Premium Data.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c86c54bd1492322b09e5ca4a7d6c2b9e",
"text": "\"You can see all the (millions) of trades per day for a US stock only if you purchase that data from the individual exchanges (NYSE, NASDAQ, ARCA, ...), from a commercial market data aggregator (Bloomberg, Axioma, ...), or from the Consolidated Tape Association. In none of that data will you ever find identifying information for the traders. What you are recalling regarding the names of \"\"people from the company\"\" trading company stock is related to SEC regulations stating that people with significant ownership of company stock and/or controlling positions on the company board of directors must publicize (most of) their trades in that stock. That information can usually be found on the company's investor relations website, or through the SEC website.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "079146be252b00916828b6842bbca0da",
"text": "A public company should have a link for investor relations, which should help provide a trail of basis if this is a matter of company buyout, takeover, etc. This gets you close, but if you don't have an exact date, it will just be close, not exact. One clean way out of this, assuming the goal is to get rid of the stock and move on, is to donate the shares to charity. You will take the present value as a deduction, and be done. You can use a charitable gift fund such as those offered by Schwab or Fidelity, so if say, the shares are worth $20K, and you typically donate $5K per year, the fund lets you do this transaction at once, then send to the charities you wish over the next few years.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "165309d87f0fbec38ebe148c7e47f5ad",
"text": "\"The main thing is the percentage of the company represented by the shares. Number of shares is meaningless without total shares. If you compute percentage and total company value you can estimate the value of the grant. Or perhaps more useful for a startup is to multiple the percentage by some plausible \"\"exit\"\" value, such as how much the company might sell for or IPO for. Many grants expire when or soon after you leave the company if you don't \"\"cash out\"\" vested shares when you leave, this is standard, but do remember it when you leave. The other major thing is vesting. In the tech industry, vesting 1/4 after a year and then the rest quarterly over 3 more years is most common.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "924ec97e56ea4c56464f722c7914e103",
"text": "Need help with a finance problem I'm currently facing in my business. My company might be going through an acquisition and I need to understand how the dilution works out for shareholders. They currently have large shareholder loans (debt), and will be converting to equity pre-transaction. For this case, if the original company value = $1 MM and the SHL value = $1 MM, I'm assuming that'd dilute equity by 50% for all shareholders if converted to equity at original company value. Correct? However, what if the $1 MM in shareholder loans were converted at the market value of the company, say $4 MM? I might be confusing myself, but just want to confirm.. thanks!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "49d5553f15ad88c88339a581ea59efa4",
"text": "The short answer, probably not much. Unless you have a controlling interest in the company. If at least 50%+1 of the shareholder votes are in favor of the dilution then it can be done. There are some SEC rules that should protect against corporate looting and theft like what the Severin side is trying to make it appear as happened. However it would appear that Severin did something stupid. He signed away all of his voting right to someone who would use them to make his rights basically worthless. Had he kept his head in the game he could probably have saved himself. But he didn't. If your average startup started issuing lots of stock and devaluing existing shares significantly then I would expect it would be harder to find investors willing to watch as their investment dwindled. But if you are issuing a limited amount stock to get leverage to grow bigger then it is worth it. In the .com bubble there were quite a few companies that just issued stock to buy other companies. Eventually most of these companies got delisted because they diluted them selves to much when they were overvalued. Any company not just a startup can dilute its shares. Many if not most major companies issue stock to raise capital. This capital is then generally used to build the business further and increase the value of all shares. Most of the time this dilution is very minor (<.1%) and has little if any impact on the stock. There are rules that have to be followed as listed companies are regulated by the SEC. There are less regulations with private corporations. It looks like the dilution was combined with the buyout of the Florida company which probably contributed to the legality of the dilution. With options they are generally issued at a set price. This may be higher or lower than the reported sell price of the stock when the option is issued. The idea is over time the stock will increase in value so that those people who hold on to their options can buy the stock for the price listed on the option. I worked at an ISP start up in the 90's that made it pretty well. I left before the options were issued but I had friends still there that were issued an option at $16 a share the value of the stock at the time of the issue of the option was about 12. Well the company diluted the shares and used them to acquire more ISP's unfortunately this was about the time that DSL And cable internet took off so the dial up market tanked. The value eventually fell to .10 they did a reverse split and when they did the called in all options. The options did not have a positive cash value at any time. Had RMI ever made it big then the options could have been worth millions. There are some people from MS and Yahoo that were in early that made millions off of their options. This became a popular way for startups to attract great talent paying peanuts. They invested their time in the business hoping to strike gold. A lot of IT people got burned so this is less popular among top talent as the primary compensation anymore.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3e1635a637bbb1a5c4363476bdfa51e1",
"text": "\"For US equities, Edgar Online is where companies post their government filings to the SEC. On Google Finance, you would look at the \"\"SEC filings\"\" link on the page, and then find their 10K and 10Q documents, where that information is listed and already calculated. Many companies also have these same documents posted on their Investor Relations web pages.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "16b3af99339f2f92b430b82684535adb",
"text": "\"Such data is typically only available from paid sources due to the amount of research involved in determining the identity of delisted securities, surviving entities in merger scenarios, company name changes, symbol changes, listing venue changes, research of all capital events such as splits, and to ensure that the data coverage is complete. Many stocks that are delisted from a major exchange due to financial difficulties are still publicly tradeable companies with their continuing to trade as \"\"OTC\"\" shares. Some large companies even have periods where they traded for a period of their history as OTC. This happened to NYSE:NAV (Navistar) from Feb 2007 to July 2008, where they were delisted due to accounting statement inaccuracies and auditor difficulties. In the case of Macromedia, it was listed on NASDAQ 13 Dec 1993 and had its final day of trading on 2 Dec 2005. It had one stock split (2:1) with ex-date of 16 Oct 1995 and no dividends were ever paid. Other companies are harder to find. For example, the bankrupt General Motors (was NYSE:GM) became Motoros Liquidation Corp (OTC:MTLQQ) and traded that way for almost 21 months before finally delisting. In mergers, there are in two (or more) entities - one surviving entity and one (or more) delisted entity. In demergers/spinoffs there are two (or more) entities - one that continues the capital structure of the original company and the other newly formed spun-off entity. Just using the names of the companies is no indication of its history. For example, due to monopoly considerations, AT&T were forced to spinoff multiple companies in 1984 and effectively became 75% smaller. One of the companies they spunoff was Southwestern Bell Corporation, which became SBC Communications in 1995. In 2005 SBC took over its former parent company and immediately changed its name to AT&T. So now we have two AT&Ts - one that was delisted in 2005 and another that exists to this day. Disclosure: I am a co-owner of Norgate Data (Premium Data), a data vendor in this area.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bc2327bc80a91ae5adcc222141720c7a",
"text": "Stock dilution is legal because, in theory, the issuance of new shares shouldn't affect actual shareholder value. The other answers have explained fairly well why this is so. In practice, however, the issuance of new shares can destroy shareholder value. This normally happens when the issuing company: In these cases, the issuance of more shares merely reduces each shareholder's stake in the company without building proportional shareholder value.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b6a62a2fce4ea7b69f9998722e5496b0",
"text": "\"I think for this a picture is worth a thousand words. This is a \"\"depth chart\"\" that I pulled from google images, specifically because it doesn't name any security. On the left you have all of the \"\"bids\"\" to buy this security, on the right you have the \"\"asks\"\" to sell the security. In the middle you have the bid/ask spread, this is the space between the highest bid and the lowest ask. As you can see you are free to place you order to the market to buy for 232, and someone else is free to place their order to the market to sell for 234. When the bid and the ask match there's a transaction for the maximum number of available shares. Alternatively, someone can place a market order to buy or sell and they'll just take the current market price. Retail investors don't really get access to this kind of chart from their brokers because for the most part the information isn't terribly relevant at the retail level.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
869f03a7cdfaa03d10102f2fe6fcf75a
|
Is there a “standard deduction” for Line 5 on Schedule A of Federal taxes?
|
[
{
"docid": "e1aa72fb12ef5c071644f31f2a2894ae",
"text": "\"The $10,400 is in the question, in two pieces. His employer withheld $8000, and her employer withheld $2400. Thus they paid together $10,400 in income taxes, which are deductible if you itemize deductions and choose income taxes over sales taxes (you can deduct one or the other). There's nothing \"\"standard\"\" about the amount, though it is standard to take the income tax deduction (almost always higher than sales tax).\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "1445b89ab44471005c83df5b57ed7abe",
"text": "If your deductions are higher than the standard deduction, you will be able to subtract property taxes from your income. In your example, that means that taxes are computed based on $95,000. In 2011, the standard deduction varies between $5,800 (single filer) and $11,600 (married filing jointly). Tax credits are subtracted from your tax obligation. The most common tax credit for most people is student loan interest. If you pay $500 in student loan interest, that sum is subtracted from your tax bill.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f7613eabc169fad3fafc9d947392f98d",
"text": "The IRS' primary reference Pub 519 Tax Guide for Aliens -- current year online (current and previous years downloadable in PDF from the Forms&Pubs section of the website) says NO: Students and business apprentices from India. A special rule applies .... You can claim the standard deduction .... Use Worksheet 5-1 to figure your standard deduction. If you are married and your spouse files a return and itemizes deductions, you cannot take the standard deduction. Note the last sentence, which is clearly an exception to the 'India rule', which is already an exception to the general rule that nonresident filers never get the standard deduction. Of course this is the IRS' interpretation of the law (which is defined to include ratified treaties); if you think they are wrong, you could claim the deduction anyway and when they assess the additional tax (and demand payment) take it to US Tax Court -- but I suspect the legal fees will cost you more than the marginal tax on $6300, even under Tax Court's simplified procedures for small cases.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3045b1ad7e9c1c05dfbe5e0f484b250c",
"text": "According to the Form W-8BEN instructions for Part II, Line 10: Line 10. Line 10 must be used only if you are claiming treaty benefits that require that you meet conditions not covered by the representations you make on line 9 and Part III. For example, persons claiming treaty benefits on royalties must complete this line if the treaty contains different withholding rates for different types of royalties. In tax treaties, some of the benefits apply to every resident of a foreign country. Other benefits only apply to certain groups of people. Line 10 is where you affirm that you meet whatever special conditions are necessary in the treaty to obtain the benefit. If you are claiming that Article 15 of the U.S.-India Tax Treaty, you could use Line 10 to do this. It is important to remember that this form goes to the company paying you; it does not actually get sent to the IRS. Therefore, you can ask the company themselves if filling out Line 9 only will result in them withholding nothing, or if they would need you to fill out Line 10.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "86ca0abf6aafa8af607fcb744d027344",
"text": "The regulations you're talking about (TR 1.263) are going into effect starting tax year 2016, so for purchases you made last year they're (kindof...) irrelevant. Kindof, because the IRS promises to not audit those that qualify under the regulations even if they use it before it goes into effect, but it doesn't legally have to. Since the regulations are new, I suggest you talk to a licensed professional who'd explain them to you and interpret them with regards to your specific situation. From my brief read, you can expense under these rules things that you would otherwise capitalize, with the $500 limit to the invoice. Meaning, if you bought a computer paying $500, which you use 50% for your business - you can expense $250. The benefit, comparing to the Sec. 179, is that you're not limited to new items, nor are you limited to business revenue. Otherwise, it looks like the applicability is similar. As I said - talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State), since these rules are new and untested, and you should probably have a professional provide guidance. I'm not such a professional.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "43d8d5aeef6f0b30ac31ccb5f3b6bdd2",
"text": "When you take the self employed health care deduction on on Line 29 of form 1040 for 2010 it also will lower your self employment tax. See line 3 of Schedule SE. You report your net earnings from self employment less line 29 from 1040.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dddc066c97185591206de8eeb5c95863",
"text": "\"I have done several days of additional research on this and found out that it appears I can deduct the cost of the books against a single year's royalty income by claiming a Section 179 deduction. The steps are as follows: (1) Write the maximum amount of property you can claim under section 179 on line 1 of Form 4562. (2) Add up the total cost of section 179 property you began using during the tax year, including books, and record the amount on line 2. (3) Write the limit of your deductions on line 3. (4) Subtract the amount on line 2 from the amount on line 3 and record it on line 4. If line 3 is larger than line 2, simply write \"\"0\"\" on line 4, then subtract the amount on line 4 from the amount on line 1 and record on line 5. Step 5 (5) Describe the property and books on line 6 and record the cost of each in section b. Write the amount of the expense you are claiming for each item in section c of line 6. You can claim the entire cost of the books. (6) Add the amount in line 6 c to any amounts on line 7 and write the total on line 8. Write either the amount on line 8 or the amount on 5 on line 9, depending on which is smaller. (7) Write the amount of your Schedule C income on line 11, unless it is greater than $500,000. On line 12, write the amount of your deduction, which is the total of line 9 plus any carry-over you may have had from the previous year. (8) Record the amount of your deduction for section 179 books and property on line 13 of your Schedule C, not line 22. Include form 4562 when you hand in your tax return. source: \"\"How to Deduct Books for Self-Employed\"\" by Emily Weller\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5fb1034e13a97b1e3a37becc28ec0b0b",
"text": "No, it's not possible. Even if you had no deduction or credits, your federal tax on $16,604 would be: $9075 @ 10% = $907.50 + $7529 @ 15% = $1129.35 = $2036.85 That assumes you are filing as single. There must be more to the story. Typo in your income numbers? Also, what do you mean by a self-employment tax deduction? Maybe update your question to include a breakdown of everything you entered? Edit: As noted in Loren's answer, it seems that it is indeed possible in at least one case (self-employment taxes).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6fb392db66de88a0af8f251d21c68b04",
"text": "\"IRA distributions are reported on line 15b on the standard form 1040. That is in the same Income section as most of your other income (including that 1099 income and W2 income, etc.). Its income is included in the Line 22 \"\"Total Income\"\", from which the Personal Exemption (calculated on 6d, subtracted from the total in line 42) and the Standard Deduction (line 40 - also Itemized Deduction total would be here) are later reduced to arrive at Line 43, \"\"Taxable Income\"\". As such, yes, he might owe only the 10% penalty (which is reported on line 59, and you do not reduce this by the deductions, as you surmised).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "71bd8b7bb71148feb7f19174d08ae7fa",
"text": "\"When I have a question about my income taxes, the first place I look is generally the Giant Book of Income Tax Information, Publication 17 (officially called \"\"Your Federal Income Tax\"\"). This looks to be covered in Chapter 26 on \"\"Car Expenses and Other Employee Business Expenses\"\". It's possible that there's something in there that applies to you if you need to temporarily commute to a place that isn't your normal workplace for a legitimate business reason or other business-related travel. But for your normal commute from your home to your normal workplace it has this to say: Commuting expenses. You cannot deduct the costs of taking a bus, trolley, subway, or taxi, or of driving a car between your home and your main or regular place of work. These costs are personal commuting expenses. You cannot deduct commuting expenses no matter how far your home is from your regular place of work. You cannot deduct commuting expenses even if you work during the commuting trip.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "15718d45c58e87edb9c4696bed4f7991",
"text": "\"Rob - I'm sorry your first visit here has been unpleasant. What you are asking for is beyond the capability of most software. If you look at Fairmark.com, you find the standard deduction for married filing joint is $12,200 in 2012, and $12,400 in 2013. I offer this anecdote to share a 'deduction' story - The first year I did my MIL's taxes, I had to explain that she didn't have enough deductions to itemize. Every year since, she hands me a file full of paper substantiating medical deductions that don't exceed 7.5% of her income. In turn, I give her two folders back, one with the 5 or so documents I needed, and the rest labeled \"\"trash\"\". Fewer than 30% of filers itemize. And a good portion of those that do, have no question that's the right thing to do. e.g. my property tax is more than the $12K, so anything else I have that's a deduction adds right to the number. It's really just those people who are at the edge that are likely frustrated. I wrote an article regarding Standard Deduction vs Itemizing, in which I describe a method of pulling in one's deductible expenses into Odd years, reducing the number in Even years, to allow a bi-annual itemization. If this is your situation, you'll find the concept interesting. You also ask about filing status. Think on this for a minute. After pulling in our W2s (TurboTax imports the data right from ADP), I do the same for our stock info. The stock info, and all Schedule A deductions aren't assigned a name. So any effort to split them in search of savings by using Married Filing Separate, would first require splitting these up. TurboTax has a 'what-if' worksheet for this function, but when the 'marriage penalty' was lifted years ago, the change in status had no value. Items that phaseout over certain income levels are often lost to the separate filer anyway. When I got married, I found my real estate losses each year could not be taken, they accumulated until I either sold, or until our income dropped when the Mrs retired. So, while is respect your desire for these magic dials within the software, I think it's fair to say they would provide little value to most people. If this thread stays open, I'd be curious if anyone can cite an example where filing separately actually benefits the couple.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "785d81e7e261c8f73ca537ce8b2c9d75",
"text": "\"There are a couple of things that are missing from your estimate. In addition to your standard deduction, you also have a personal exemption of $4050. So \"\"D\"\" in your calculation should be $6300 + $4050 = $10,350. As a self-employed individual, you need to pay both the employee and employer side of the Social Security and Medicare taxes. Instead of 6.2% + 1.45%, you need to pay (6.2% + 1.45%) * 2 = 15.3% self-employment tax. In addition, there are some problems with your calculation. Q1i (Quarter 1 estimated income) should be your adjusted annual income divided by 4, not 3 (A/4). Likewise, you should estimate your quarterly tax by estimating your income for the whole year, then dividing by 4. So Aft (Annual estimated federal tax) should be: Quarterly estimated federal tax would be: Qft = Aft / 4 Annual estimated self-employment tax is: Ase = 15.3% * A with the quarterly self-employment tax being one-fourth of that: Qse = Ase / 4 Self employment tax gets added on to your federal income tax. So when you send in your quarterly payment using Form 1040-ES, you should send in Qft + Qse. The Form 1040-ES instructions (PDF) comes with the \"\"2016 Estimated Tax Worksheet\"\" that walks you through these calculations.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8b8d28b5cc468191072149c2e1c9c59f",
"text": "Here is a quote from the IRS website on this topic: You may be able to deduct premiums paid for medical and dental insurance and qualified long-term care insurance for yourself, your spouse, and your dependents. The insurance can also cover your child who was under age 27 at the end of 2011, even if the child was not your dependent. A child includes your son, daughter, stepchild, adopted child, or foster child. A foster child is any child placed with you by an authorized placement agency or by judgment, decree, or other order of any court of competent jurisdiction. One of the following statements must be true. You were self-employed and had a net profit for the year reported on Schedule C (Form 1040), Profit or Loss From Business; Schedule C-EZ (Form 1040), Net Profit From Business; or Schedule F (Form 1040), Profit or Loss From Farming. You were a partner with net earnings from self-employment for the year reported on Schedule K-1 (Form 1065), Partner's Share of Income, Deductions, Credits, etc., box 14, code A. You used one of the optional methods to figure your net earnings from self-employment on Schedule SE. You received wages in 2011 from an S corporation in which you were a more-than-2% shareholder. Health insurance premiums paid or reimbursed by the S corporation are shown as wages on Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement. The insurance plan must be established, or considered to be established as discussed in the following bullets, under your business. For self-employed individuals filing a Schedule C, C-EZ, or F, a policy can be either in the name of the business or in the name of the individual. For partners, a policy can be either in the name of the partnership or in the name of the partner. You can either pay the premiums yourself or your partnership can pay them and report the premium amounts on Schedule K-1 (Form 1065) as guaranteed payments to be included in your gross income. However, if the policy is in your name and you pay the premiums yourself, the partnership must reimburse you and report the premium amounts on Schedule K-1 (Form 1065) as guaranteed payments to be included in your gross income. Otherwise, the insurance plan will not be considered to be established under your business. For more-than-2% shareholders, a policy can be either in the name of the S corporation or in the name of the shareholder. You can either pay the premiums yourself or your S corporation can pay them and report the premium amounts on Form W-2 as wages to be included in your gross income. However, if the policy is in your name and you pay the premiums yourself, the S corporation must reimburse you and report the premium amounts on Form W-2 as wages to be included in your gross income. Otherwise, the insurance plan will not be considered to be established under your business. Medicare premiums you voluntarily pay to obtain insurance in your name that is similar to qualifying private health insurance can be used to figure the deduction. If you previously filed returns without using Medicare premiums to figure the deduction, you can file timely amended returns to refigure the deduction. For more information, see Form 1040X, Amended U.S. Individual Income Tax Return. Amounts paid for health insurance coverage from retirement plan distributions that were nontaxable because you are a retired public safety officer cannot be used to figure the deduction. Take the deduction on Form 1040, line 29.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6ba7e9cc2946fa22d42e2c0a8d0ac1c4",
"text": "I would just take $2000 and multiply by your marginal tax rate, weight that between the 5 other people according to their share of the prize money and ask them to give you that. From your question it seems like you all have a good working relationship, I'm sure the other partners would agree to that. I think it's the simplest solution that is also fair and equitable. Basically, you pay the tax on 2000 and they pay you back for their share of the tax. Much easier than trying to pass it through your tax return for 5 separate people for a minimal amount of $'s. In hindsight, the best way to do it would have been to 1099 the person with the lowest marginal tax rate for the year to minimize the total tax paid on the 2000. Probably only would've been a few dollars difference but still the most efficient way to do it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9379f5ad0e097a21cb007559a3207893",
"text": "It looks like you can. Take a look at these articles: http://www.googobits.com/articles/1747-taking-an-itemized-deduction-for-job-expenses.html http://www.bankrate.com/finance/money-guides/business-expenses-that-benefit-you.aspx http://www.hrblock.com/taxes/tax_tips/tax_planning/employment.html But of course, go to the source: http://www.irs.gov/publications/p529/ar02.html#en_US_publink100026912 From publication 529: You can deduct certain expenses as miscellaneous itemized deductions on Schedule A (Form 1040 or Form 1040NR). You can claim the amount of expenses that is more than 2% of your adjusted gross income. You figure your deduction on Schedule A by subtracting 2% of your adjusted gross income from the total amount of these expenses. Your adjusted gross income is the amount on Form 1040, line 38, or Form 1040NR, line 36. I hope that helps. Happy deducting!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b53a96763ca7c8a044099cc57e193c1e",
"text": "\"I did a little research and found this article from 2006 by a Villanova law professor, titled \"\"No Thanks, Uncle Sam, You Can Keep Your Tax Break\"\". The final paragraph of the article says: Under these circumstances, it is reasonable to conclude that a taxpayer is not required to claim a allowable deduction unless a statutory provision so requires, or a binding judicial precedent so specifies. It would be unwise, of course, to forego a deduction that the IRS considers mandatory such as those claimed by self-employed individuals with respect to their self-employment, whether for purposes of the self-employment tax or the earned income tax credit. Until the statute is changed or some other binding authority is issued, there is no reason taxpayers who wish to forego deductions, such as the dependency exemption deduction, should hesitate in doing so. (The self-employment tax issues in the quote cited by CQM are explicitly discussed in the article as one of a few special kinds of deduction which are mandatory.) This is not a binding statement: it's not law or even official IRS policy. You could never use it as a defense in the event that this professor turned out to be wrong and the IRS decided to go after you anyway. However, it is a clear statement from a credible, qualified source.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
f5fadb8cea7090f9b58bfefc20ef2036
|
Multiple mortgage pre-approvals and effects on credit score
|
[
{
"docid": "7c50f3896e93bfa17c02c4466b75a096",
"text": "\"The problem is not the credit score; it is the \"\"competing\"\" inquiries. Multiple inquiries will be considered as one if done withing a short time period (2 month, IIRC) and for the same kind of credit, because people do shop for rates, you're not the first one to do that. So don't worry about that. What you should be worrying about is banks asking questions about these inquiries, which is an annoying (at least for me) technicality. You'll have to explain to each of the banks that you want a pre-approval from that you're going to take the mortgage from them, and not from anyone else. In writing, with your signature notarized. Which is OK because it's done (the signature and notarizing) at closing, but you'll have to \"\"convince\"\" them that they're the chosen ones to get approved. Other than that it's pretty simple. I've done that (including the declaration that I'm not going to take any loans based on the other \"\"competing\"\" inquiries), and it worked fine when I took the original mortgage, and when I refinanced it later in a similar \"\"shopping\"\" fashion. Do it closer to the actual bidding, because closing does take at least 3-4 weeks, and the rate lock is usually for 30-60 days, so not much time to shop if you take that road.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8aa1956100046afa1ddbd28e63077008",
"text": "\"Johnny. I recently bought my first home as well, and I have worked in the credit business (not mortgage), so I think I can answer some of your questions. Disclaimer first that I'm in NY, and home buying does vary from state to state. In my experience, pre-qual is not too different from pre-approval. Neither represents any real committment on the part of the bank (i.e. they can still deny approval at any point), and both are based on pulling your credit bureau and calculating ratios based on your stated (probably not documented) financial information. It's theoretically possible that a seller would choose a pre-approved buyer over a pre-qualified buyer, all other things being equal, but all other things are seldom equal. Remember also that you don't need to ultimately get a mortgage from the same bank that you use for the pre-qual. The pre-qual just shows that you are probably credit-worthy and serves to give you some credibility with sellers. Once you have an accepted offer and need to find a real mortgage, you can shop around for the best rate and best loan structure. Banks don't need to have pulled your credit to quote rates, but they will need to have a general idea of your FICO range. Once you find the bank you like with the best rate and actually apply for the loan, they will pull a hard bureau, and if your scores are different from what you said before, the rate may change, but within the same range, you'll generally be ok. Also, banks do not necessarily pull all 3 bureaus; they may only pull 1, as it costs them for each pull. 2 potential downsides to this approach: Also, make sure you have a mortgage/funding clause in your contract, as banks are unpredictable, and make sure you have a great real estate lawyer, not a legal \"\"factory\"\" - the extra few hundred $ are worth it. Don't overthink this credit stuff too much. Find a good house for a good price, and get a no-nonsense mortgage that you fully understand - no exotic stuff. Good luck!\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "e8a2434e4e41ba2a70e1dd06ac106b53",
"text": "The one big drawback I know is when you take the mortgage credit, your credit ability is calculated, and from that sum all of your credits are subtracted, and credit limit on credit card counts as credit... I don't know if it is worldwide praxis, but at least it is the case in Poland.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f0f4b1d614b494aa311c450e1e302f2d",
"text": "It's not unusual/undesirable. If everyone prepaid their mortgage, banks would not like this, but we're in no danger of that :). Also, the amount you are pre-paying is not so significant as to make them pay special attention. In many cases when a borrower pre-pays, they will not continue to do so over the life of the loan since it's so easy to stop at any time, and the extra payments are voluntary. Depending on who originated the mortgate, it might be sold even more often than in your case. It's no longer commonplace for a bank to hold a mortgage to maturity, now that banks and other institutions have separated the origination of the loan from its servicing. It's likely that your mortgage was bundled with others through a process called securitization, and will be bought/sold based on the bank's need for liquitity or to balance out the maturity of its assets and liabilities (whether they need more cash now versus later), or based on the types of ways your bank has decided that it wants to make money versus farming out other types of business to others. What would substantially change the value of your mortgage to a bank is if it were performing (ie you are paying on time) but then became non-performing (ie you fall behind in your payments). It's also possible that if you have a very small mortgage or principal balance, that there is very little risk to the bank, and little difference between the present and future values of your loan, but banks don't typically make these types of transactions based on the characteristics of an individual loan.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "12a04e692cf52bb2ccac66cf5818a655",
"text": "If your primary concern is a drop in your credit score, go to a mortgage broker instead of multiple banks and finance companies. Each time you ask a bank or financial institution for a loan, they do a hard pull on your credit rating which costs you a couple of points. Visit a dozen lenders and you'll lose 24 points. You will also be signalling to lenders that you're shopping for money. If you visit a mortgage broker he does a single hard pull on your credit score and offers your loan query to a dozen or more lenders, some of which you may not have even heard of. This costs you 2 points instead of 24. If you are only going to visit one financial institution or another specific one, the drop in credit score is the same couple of points. The above answer only applies if you make loan inquiries at multiple institutions.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6f1053ceda7ea5537d3cd9d4d5efc044",
"text": "First of all, think of anyone you know in your circle locally who may have gotten a mortgage recently. Ask him, her, or them for a recommendation on what brokers they found helpful and most of all priced competitively. Second of all, you may consider asking a real estate agent. Note that this is generally discouraged because agents sometimes (and sometimes justifiably) get a bad reputation for doing anything to get themselves the highest commission possible, and so folks want to keep the lender from knowing the agent. Yet if you have a reputable, trustworthy agent, he or she can point you to a reputable, trustworthy broker who has been quoting your agent's other clients great rates. Third of all, make sure to check out the rates at places you might not expect - for example, any credit unions you or your spouse might have access to. Credit unions often offer very competitive rates and fees. After you have 2-3 brokers lined up, visit them all within a short amount of time (edit courtesy of the below comments, which show that 2 weeks has been quoted but that it may be less). The reason to visit them close together is that in the pre-approval process you will be getting your credit hard pulled, which means that your score will be dinged a bit. Visiting them all close together tells the bureaus to count all the hits as one new potential credit line instead of a couple or several, and so your score gets dinged less. Ask about rates, fees (they are required by law to give you what is called a Good Faith Estimate of their final fees), if pre-payment of the loan is allowed (required to re-finance or for paying off early), alternative schedules (such as bi-weekly or what a 20 year mortgage rate might be), the amortization schedule for your preferred loan, and ask for references from past clients. Pick a broker not only who has the best rates but also who appears able to be responsive if you need something quickly in order to close on a great deal.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2685452838e1d128cad349012ca35d57",
"text": "\"As mentioned before - you're over-thinking the hard-pull issue. But do try to make the preapproval as close to the actual bidding as possible - because it costs money. At least from my experience, you'll get charged the application fee for preapproval, while \"\"pre-qualification\"\" is usually free. If you're seriously shopping, I find it hard to believe that you can't find a house within 3 months. If you're already in the process and your offer has been accepted and you opened the escrow - I believe the preapproval will be extended if it expires before closing. I've just had a similar case from the other side, as a buyer, and the seller had a short-sale approval that expired before closing. It was extended to make the deal happen, and that's when the bank is actually loosing money. So don't worry about that. If you haven't even started the process and the preapproval expired, you might have to start it all over again from scratch, including all the fees. The credit score is a minor issue (unless you do it every 2-3 months).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d0dcaa4b799cd1892c0ae2860245e32e",
"text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://qz.com/1064061/house-flippers-triggered-the-us-housing-market-crash-not-poor-subprime-borrowers-a-new-study-shows/) reduced by 83%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Analyzing a huge dataset of anonymous credit scores from Equifax, a credit reporting bureau, the economists-Stefania Albanesi of the University of Pittsburgh, the University of Geneva&#039;s Giacomo De Giorgi, and Jaromir Nosal of Boston College-found that the biggest growth of mortgage debt during the housing boom came from those with credit scores in the middle and top of the credit score distribution-and that these borrowers accounted for a disproportionate share of defaults. > The mortgages these prime borrowers were able to secure were much bigger than those taken out by poor homebuyers. > Shoar&#039;s work reveals that borrowing and defaults had risen proportionally across income levels and credit score, but that those with sounder credit ratings drove the rise in delinquencies. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6xfbx2/house_flippers_triggered_the_us_housing_market/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~202565 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*: **credit**^#1 **borrowed**^#2 **mortgage**^#3 **score**^#4 **crisis**^#5\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "323b38fed41115e09a03ec6940c82db9",
"text": "While one credit provider (or credit reference agency) might score you in one way, others may score you differently including treating different things that contribute to your score differently. Different credit providers may also not see all of your credit score as potentially some data may not be available to all credit suppliers. Further too many searches may trigger systems that recognise behavior that is a sign of possible fraudulent activity (such as applying for many items of credit in a short space of time). Whether this would directly affect a score or trigger manual checks is also likely to vary. In situations like this a person could have applied for (say) a dozen credit cards, with all the credit checks being performed before there is any credit history for any of those dozen cards.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "40bf7a851f7bd21f9d2e7a3d28c953dc",
"text": "\"Great explanation. I want to add 2 thing: 1) Credit rating agencies played there role in messing up the economy, by giving subprime (higher risk) mortgage backed securities AAA rating. 2) \"\"Other banks saw this happening and were forced to lower their requirements for issuing mortgages.\"\" Well not banks, but mortgage brokers lowered there requirement from issuing mortgages. They even started to issue NINA (no income verification, no assets verification) loans!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1a495a945460a40e2af146c24b9cb52f",
"text": "Credit scoring has changed since the time of this question (July 2017) and it is now possible that having a high available credit balance can negatively affect your credit score. ... VantageScore will now mark a borrower negatively for having excessively large credit card limits, on the theory that the person could run up a high credit card debt quickly. Those who have prime credit scores may be hurt the most, since they are most likely to have multiple cards open. But those who like to play the credit card rewards program points game could be affected as well. source",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8f92ce53db50ec532e8395af9da6f0bb",
"text": "I think you are running into multiple problems here: All these together look like a high risk to a bank, especially right now with companies being reluctant to hire full-time employees. Looking at it from their perspective, the last thing they need right now is another potential foreclosure on their books. BTW, if it is a consolation, I had to prove 2 years of continuous employment (used to be a freelancer) before the local credit union would consider giving me a mortgage. We missed out on a couple of good deals because of that, too.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bce104a3950b808c1fd2966dfbe848ea",
"text": "The answer depends on how much you spend every month. The DTI is calculated using the minimum payment on the balance owed on your card. Credit card minimum payments are ridiculous, often being only $50 for balances of a couple thousand dollars. In any case, when you get preapproved, the lender will tell you (based on your DTI) the maximum amount they will approve you for. If your minimum payment is $50, that's another $50 that could go towards your mortgage, which could mean an additional $10,000 financed. It's up to you to decide if $10,000 will make enough of a difference in the houses you look at.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "85d342a691ec4fdfe6c86ed442267d0c",
"text": "Say the rate is 6%, and the payment is $500/mo. If the bank credits on the day received, the .5% per month is $2.50 for the whole month. In other words, pulling in the payment by the full 30 days will save you about $2.50. The whole loan may be costing $3.50/day, but you can only impact the amount one payment at a time. To be clear, you need to find out exactly how they credit you. Some loans do not accept partial payments separate from the normal payment. If a $500 payment is due, that's the time to prepay principal, but they might not accept, say, $200 each week. As a side note, mortgages typically don't credit the way you'd hope. I have a standard 30 year mortgage and whether I send the payment a full 15 days early or 14 days late, the next month shows a balance that I can pull from an amortization table assuming all payments are on the 1st of the month. If I were you, I'd make a full payment 2 weeks early, then check your balance and see what the impact was, just to be sure.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f4ae02894dbadb96f5c5342a4b2b27a0",
"text": "8 hard inquiries spread over two years is not a negative factor, with a score of 750. Real question #1: How much of your credit limits are you currently using? Less than 30% of your credit limits is good. Less than 15% is even better, 10% is great You don't need to wait X amount of days after applying for a mortgage or a card to increase your chances of getting approved for something else. You do need to be conscious of how many hard pulls you have done in a reporting period though, but again as I said, 8 spread over two years is not a whole lot. Real question #2: What negative things do you have in your credit history? Young age, income, delinquent payments, bankruptcies, low limits? Some of these negative factors are catch-22's (low limits, young age = low limits because of age and young credit history) but these contribute to how much institutions would be willing to lend you",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1527d960ca0ae909169234ac934632c1",
"text": "The credit scale is deceptive, it goes: AAA, AA, A, BBB, BBB-, BB+, BB, B, CCC, CC, C, D. In reality it should be A,B,C,D,E, F, G,H, I, etc. The current scale does not reflect with clarity the ranking of risks and ratings. AA is much worse than AAA, but the uncertainty involved can be scary. Check out these corporate and sovereign debt credit ratings.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "96e522fb519872fcc3fe3b02aeb5bc18",
"text": "\"I am a bit confused here as to how a 4K loan will negatively effect your credit score if payments are made on time. FICO scores are based upon how well you borrow. If you borrow, pay back on time, your score will not go down. Perhaps a bit in the short run when you first secure the loan, but that should come back quickly. In the long run it will help improve your score which seems like it would be more important to you. Having the provider finance your loan will probably not show up on your credit unless you fail to pay and they send to collections. If the score is so important to you, which I think is somewhat unwise, then use a credit card. With a 750 you should be able to get a pretty good rate, but assume it is 18%. In less then 9 months you will have it paid off, paying about $293 in interest. You could consider that a part of the cost of doing business for maintaining a high credit score. Again not what I would advise, but it might meet your needs. One alternative is go with lending club. With that kind of score, you are looking at 7% or so. At $500 a month, you are still looking at just over 8 months and paying about $100 in interest. Much less money for improving your credit score. Edit based upon the comment: \"\"My understanding is that using a significant portion of your available credit balance is bad for your credit, even if you pay your bills on time.\"\" Define bad. As I said it might go down slightly in the short term. In three months you will have almost 33% of the loan paid off, which is significantly lower then the original balance. If you go the credit card route, you may be approved for quite a bit more then the 4000, which may not move the needle at all. Are you planning on buying a home in the next 90 days? If not, why does a small short term dip matter? Will your life really be effected if your score goes down to 720 for three months? Keep in mind this is exactly the kind of behavior that the banks want you to engage in. If you worship your FICO score, which gives no indication of wealth then you should do exactly what I am suggesting.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
42775213facccac0b55dbc0865b70579
|
Changes in Capital Gains Tax in the US - Going to 20% in 2011?
|
[
{
"docid": "9dabce99288cdc12648af5ffe804b5c2",
"text": "The top long-term capital gains tax rate will rise to 20% effective 1 Jan, 2011, unless Congress decides to do something about it before then. (Will they? Who knows!! There's been talk about it, but, well, it's Congress. They don't even know what they're going to do.) Anyway. The rules about when you can sell stock are mostly concerned with when you can realize a capital loss: if you sell a stock at a loss and then re-buy it for tax purposes within 30 days, it's a wash sale and not eligible for a deduction. However, I don't believe this applies to any stocks once you realize a gain - once you've realized the gain and paid your tax for it, it's all yours, locked in at whatever rate. Your replacement stock will be subject to short-term capital gains for the next year afterwards, and you might need to be careful with identifying the holding period on different lots of your stock, but I don't believe there will be any particular trouble. Please do not rely entirely on my advice and consult also with your tax preparer or lawyer. :) And the IRS documentation: Special Addendum for Nov/Dec 2012! Spoiler alert! Congress did indeed act: they extended the rates, but only temporarily, so now we're looking at tax hikes starting in 2013 instead, only the new top rate++ will be something like 23.8% on account of an extra 3.8% medicare tax on passive earnings (brought to you via Obamacare legislation). But the year and the rates' specifics aside, same thing still applies. And the Republican house and Democratic senate/President are still duking it out. Have fun. ++ 3.8% surtax applies to the lesser of (a) net investment income (b) income over $200,000 ($250k if married). 20% tax rate applies to people in the 15% income tax bracket for ordinary income or higher. Additional tax discounts for property held over 5 years may be available. Consult tax law and your favorite tax professional and prepare to be confused.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "992c4a800619acd532506d590e88bf8b",
"text": "For the record, now that 2011 is here we know that the capital gains tax rate didn't change. Congress extended it for two more years. This shows the uncertainty in trying to maximize earnings based on future changes to the tax code.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fa739afbc4551069fa2801b47f4d3037",
"text": "Consider doing things that will allow for tax deductions, such as short selling. The IRS has regulations on this as well. And consider that Futures are taxed more favorably than other kinds of investments. (60% taxed as long term, 40% taxed as short term)",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "548cff07f2e6cb4c4aeca79ed85b08b3",
"text": "I think a lot of people do not understand corporations. People talk about the 99% and the 1%, but expanding that out it comes down to investors. I'm an investor personally, the job of the company is to make as much money as possible to make my investment as valuable as possible. Also, as stated in the article, this move could be sparked by the desire to not pay double tax, both American and Canadian. Regardless of what moving their tax money does long term, the company is acting with the investors's interests, pure and simple.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "271b245c66784da2295c00234b95afee",
"text": "Not knowing the US laws at all, you should worry more about having the best stock portfolio and less about taxes. My 0,02€",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2a03e11b09578cfefddc3909b61c1c49",
"text": "\"Federal taxes are generally lower in Canada. Canada's top federal income tax rate is 29%; the US rate is 35% and will go to 39.6% when Bush tax cuts expire. The healthcare surcharge will kick in in a few years, pushing the top bracket by a few more points and over 40%. State/provincial taxes are lower in the US. You may end up in the 12% bracket in New York City or around 10% in California or other \"\"bad\"\" income-tax states. But Alberta is considered a tax haven in Canada and has a 10% flat tax. Ontario's top rate is about 11%, but there are surtaxes that can push the effective rate to about 17%. Investment income taxes: Canada wins, narrowly. Income from capital gains counts as half, so if you're very rich and live in Ontario, your rate is about 23% and less than that in Alberta. The only way to match or beat this deal in the US in the long term is to live in a no-income-tax state. Dividends are taxed at rates somewhere between capital gains and ordinary income - not as good a deal as Bush's 15% rate on preferred dividends, but that 15% rate will probably expire soon. Sales taxes: US wins, but the gap is closing. Canada has a national VAT-like tax, called GST and its rate came down from 7% to 5% when Harper became the Prime Minister. Provinces have sales taxes on top of that, in the range of 7-8% (but Alberta has no sales tax). Some provinces \"\"harmonized\"\" their sales taxes with the GST and charge a single rate, e.g. Ontario has a harmonized sales tax (HST) of 13% (5+8). 13% is of course a worse rate than the 6-8% charged by most states, but then some states and counties already charge 10% and the rates have been going up in each recession. Payroll taxes: much lower in Canada. Canadian employees' CPP and EI deductions have a low threshold and top out at about $3,000. Americans' 7.65% FICA rate applies to even $100K, resulting in a tax of $7,650. Property taxes: too dependent on the location, hard to tell. Tax benefits for retirement savings: Canada. If you work in the US and don't have a 401(k), you get a really bad deal: your retirement is underfunded and you're stuck with a higher tax bill, because you can't get the deduction. In Canada, if you don't have an RRSP at work, you take the money to the financial company of your choice, invest it there, and take the deduction on your taxes. If you don't like the investment options in your 401(k), you're stuck with them. If you don't like them in your RRSP, contribute the minimum to get the match and put the rest of the money into your individual RRSP; you still get the same deduction. Annual 401(k) contribution limits are use-it-or-lose-it, while unused RRSP limits and deductions can be carried forward and used when you need to jump tax brackets. Canada used to lack an answer to Roth IRAs, but the introduction of TFSAs took care of that. Mortgage interest deduction: US wins here as mortgage interest is not deductible in Canada. Marriage penalty: US wins. Canadian tax returns are of single or married-filing-separately type. So if you have one working spouse in the family or a big disparity between spouses' incomes, you can save money by filing a joint return. But such option is not available in Canada (there are ways to transfer some income between spouses and fund spousal retirement accounts, but if the income disparity is big, that won't be enough). Higher education: cheaper in Canada. This is not a tax item, but it's a big expense for many families and something the government can do about with your tax dollars. To sum it up, you may face higher or lower or about the same taxes after moving from US to Canada, depending on your circumstances. Another message here is that the high-tax, socialist, investment-unfriendly Canada is mostly a convenient myth.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "72f42bcf08ff3f5ef942bf06a8ac8b97",
"text": "\"As I recall from the documentation presented to me, any gain over the strike price from an ISO stock option counts as a long term capital gain (for tax purposes) if it's held from 2 years from the date of grant and 1 year from the date of exercise. If you're planning to take advantage of that tax treatment, exercising your options now will start that 1-year countdown clock now as well, and grant you a little more flexibility with regards to when you can sell in the future. Of course, no one's renewed the \"\"Bush tax cuts\"\" yet, so the long-term capital gains rate is going up, and eventually it seems they'll want to charge you Medicare on those gains as well (because they can... ), soo, the benefit of this tax treatment is being reduced... lovely time to be investing, innnit?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "68e53d9a0079ca173fdcebb3df94e18e",
"text": "Here are three key factors that you do not explicitly state: So while I cannot say exactly why the tax law is the way it is, I can infer that it encourages long-term investments rather than short-term, which would seem to be a good thing for society overall. The fast that capital gains are taxed at all somewhat discourages cashing out investments (although I suspect it's more of a nuisance factor - the cash received is likely more on an incentive that the tax is a disincentive).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "00d92ce163cbaa2219366d5a87720ef9",
"text": "You increase the capital account by the additional contributions and retained earnings and decrease the capital account by the distributions of return of capital and/or losses. Distributing gains doesn't change the capital account. So in your case it would be: 1st year we lost money Assuming you lost 20K, and the interests are even, it will look like this: 1st year we break even Nothing changes - you break even, means the balance sheet doesn't change (in this example). 1st year we made money Assume you gained 20K and kept it: If you didn't retain the earnings, it would look the same as case 2 - no change. Note that this is only the financial accounting, tax accounting might look differently. For example, in the US Partnerships (or LLCs taxed as) are pass-through entities, on in case 3 while you retained the earnings, the partners will still be taxed. I'm of course neither CPA nor a licensed tax adviser. I suggest you get a consultation with one. Only a CPA can provide a reliable accounting advice or sign official financial statements, reviews and audits. Only a EA, CPA or an Attorney specializing in tax law can provide a tax advice.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "79b0cbfa470f13945501e3b64c531035",
"text": "\"Has anyone ever proposed significantly lowering the US corporate tax while simultaneously raising dividend taxes for high income earners? Hell, many economists believe that corporate income should be taxed at 0%. If you do this but are worried about \"\"teh evil corporations\"\" becoming too big and powerful, that's what a high tax on dividend income is for. You can't personally become rich from a corporation without earning dividend or salary income from a corporation's coffers.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7618c70a305fa420efa860972f332467",
"text": "Very interesting article, thanks for posting. It's going to get really interesting really fast if investors force governments to raise taxes to pay investors, regardless of who's 'right' in the situation. On a related note, I read awhile back that many US cities have sold the rights to various public areas to foreigners. For example, I believe Chicago sold the rights to collect parking fees along certain streets for 75 years to a company in the Middle East. Some cities then found that if they wanted to have a parade down that street, they had to compensate the company that owned the parking rights because they wouldn't collect any revenue the day of the parade. I can't see how this ends well for the US economy.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1d6dce7e75babce4387d2c27b5804c2d",
"text": "\"No, not really. This depends on the situation and the taxing jurisdiction. Different countries have different laws, and some countries have different laws for different situations. For example, in the US, some investments will be taxed as you described, others will be taxed as \"\"mark to market\"\", i.e.: based on the FMV difference between the end of the year and the beginning of the year, and without you actually making any transactions. Depends on the situation.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "083ef4253a27da2b2ec337155bfde26f",
"text": "\"I have a degree in econ, but that hardly makes me an expert. Here is what I understand well enough to feel comfortable stating: As you increase corporate taxes you decrease incentive for people to invest in corporations. Corporations are really a means of removing risk beyond initial investment to individuals who want to invest. If you were to set the corporate tax rate at 90% (as they do in the link) you would see more alternative investments locally and an incentive to invest where taxation isn't as high. Think of it this way, I could buy stock in apple but the corporate tax rate is 99%, then I would be better off buying a piece of property to rent, or a piece of stock in a country that has a normal corporate tax rate. An exorbitant corporate tax rate would encourage me to take on more personal risk and start my own sole proprietorship... even if I would be less qualified to do so than those in the corporation. If you want an alternative school of economics to study [Austrian Economics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School) has a lot to offer. In my opinion the NYT article makes quality points and is economically sound. The \"\"naturalfinance.net\"\" article is trash.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a214c331ff7440fc9641c87f57629a13",
"text": "\"OK, since you aren't a \"\"hoarder of wealth\"\" you wont have a problem with a progressive capital gains tax would you? Say 15% on the first $50,000 of gains, 30% up to $200,000 50% up to $500,000 and 90% on $1,000,000 and up. Keep in mind this is only on the gains from your capital. There are a lot of programs we could fund and people we could help with that tax money.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9bd5fe1445b8fa578e4d1e1b8e887ada",
"text": "How much Federal Capital Gains, NYS Income tax and local tax should I expect to pay? You're going to net about 2.4 millions of dollars. Federal long term capital gains tax is 20% (plus 3.8% medicare), NYS is 8.82%. Does it make sense to investigate the tax benefits of financing the sale for the buyer? Yes. Have your tax adviser check the options for you (financing, instalment, etc), especially if you have no other US-sourced income. Tax treaties are also something your tax adviser should be looking at. Be sure your tax adviser is properly licensed in New York as either EA, CPA or Attorney. Don't do anything without a proper tax advice.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d1e92a6e17ba78551b7fd1703fae444c",
"text": "\"Are these all of the taxes or is there any additional taxes over these? Turn-over tax is not for retail investors. Other taxes are paid by the broker as part of transaction and one need not worry too much about it. Is there any \"\"Income tax\"\" to be paid for shares bought/holding shares? No for just buying and holding. However if you buy and sell; there would be a capital gain or loss. In stocks, if you hold a security for less than 1 year and sell it; it is classified as short term capital gain and taxes at special rate of 15%. The loss can be adjusted against any other short term gain. If held for more than year it is long term capital gain. For stock market, the tax is zero, you can't adjust long term losses in stock markets. Will the money received from selling shares fall under \"\"Taxable money for FY Income tax\"\"? Only the gain [or loss] will be tread as income not the complete sale value. To calculate gain, one need to arrive a purchase price which is price of stock + Brokerage + STT + all other taxes. Similar the sale price will be Sales of stock - Brokerage - STT - all other taxes. The difference is the gain. Will the \"\"Dividend/Bonus/Buy-back\"\" money fall under taxable category? Dividend is tax free to individual as the company has already paid dividend distribution tax. Bonus is tax free event as it does not create any additional value. Buy-Back is treated as sale of shares if you have participated. Will the share-holder pay \"\"Dividend Distribution Tax\"\"? Paid by the company. What is \"\"Capital Gains\"\"? Profit or loss of buying and selling a particular security.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b42ee6e46886c591136e33e60d59008b",
"text": "That's only a portion of the money raised. This is the theoretical UK version. [Also known as a Financial Transaction Tax (FTT), a Robin Hood Tax is a tiny tax of about 0.05% on transactions like stocks, bonds, foreign currency and derivatives, which could raise £250 billion a year globally. FTTs are well-tested, cheap to implement and hard to avoid.](http://robinhoodtax.org.uk/how-it-works/everything-you-need-to-know)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "17c82c8934c11cba29787c4df49b7d52",
"text": "In a comment on this answer you asked It's not clear to me why the ability to defer the gains would matter (since you never materially benefit until you actually sell) but the estate step up in basis is a great point! Could you describe a hypothetical exploitive scenario (utilizing a wash sale) in a little more detail? This sounds like you still have the same question as originally, so I'll take a stab at answering with an example. I sell some security for a $10,000 profit. I then sell another security at a $10,000 loss and immediately rebuy. So pay no taxes (without the rule). Assuming a 15% rate, that's $1500 in savings which I realize immediately. Next year, I sell that same security for a $20,000 profit over the $10,000 loss basis (so a $10,000 profit over my original purchase). I sell and buy another security to pay no taxes. In fact, I pay no taxes like this for fifty years as I live off my investments (and a pension or social security that uses up my tax deductions). Then I die. All my securities step up in basis to their current market value. So I completely evade taxes on $500,000 in profits. That's $75,000 in tax savings to make my heirs richer. And they're already getting at least $500,000 worth of securities. Especially consider the case where I sell a privately held security to a private buyer who then sells me back the same shares at the same price. Don't think that $10,000 is enough? Remember that you also get the original value. But this also scales. It could be $100,000 in gains as well, for $750,000 in tax savings over the fifty years. That's at least $5 million of securities. The effective result of this would be to make a 0% tax on capital gains for many rich people. Worse, a poorer person can't do the same thing. You need to have many investments to take advantage of this. If a relatively poor person with two $500 investments tried this, that person would lose all the benefit in trading fees. And of course such a person would run out of investments quickly. Really poor people have $0 in investments, so this is totally impractical.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
c1282da54aed49f7a7e229aad880f274
|
Mutual Funds Definition and Role
|
[
{
"docid": "a32f54bdd61a5215210518695d1f65e1",
"text": "\"I think you are asking about actively managed funds vs. indexes and possibly also vs. diversified funds like target date funds. This is also related to the question of mutual fund vs. ETF. First, a fund can be either actively managed or it can attempt to track an index. An actively managed fund has a fund manager who tries to find the best stocks to invest in within some constraints, like \"\"this fund invests in large cap US companies\"\". An index fund tries to match as closely as possible the performance of an index like the S&P 500. A fund may also try to offer a portfolio that is suitable for someone to put their entire account into. For example, a target date fund is a fund that may invest in a mix of stocks, bonds and foreign stock in a proportion that would be appropriate to someone expecting to retire in a certain year. These are not what people tend to think of as the canonical examples of mutual funds, even though they share the same legal structure and investment mechanisms. Secondly, a fund can either be a traditional mutual fund or it can be an exchange traded fund (ETF). To invest in a traditional mutual fund, you send money to the fund, and they give you a number of shares equal to what that money would have bought of the net asset value (NAV) of the fund at the end of trading on the day they receive your deposit, possibly minus a sales charge. To invest in an ETF, you buy shares of the ETF on the stock market like any other stock. Under the covers, an ETF does have something similar to the mechanism of depositing money to get shares, but only big traders can use that, and it's not used for investing, but only for people who are making a market in the stock (if lots of people are buying VTI, Big Dealer Co will get 100,000 shares from Vanguard so that they can sell them on the market the next day). Historically and traditionally, ETFs are associated with an indexing strategy, while if not specifically mentioned, people assume that traditional mutual funds are actively managed. Many ETFs, notably all the Vanguard ETFs, are actually just a different way to hold the same underlying fund. The best way to understand this is to read the prospectus for a mutual fund and an ETF. It's all there in reasonably plain English.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c67b26d48377b74b8f3413e9368ceb5b",
"text": "Mutual funds buy (and sell) shares in companies in accordance with the policies set forth in their prospectus, not according to the individual needs of an investor, that is, when you invest money in (or withdraw money from) a mutual fund, the manager buys or sells whatever shares that, in the manager's judgement, will be the most appropriate ones (consistent with the investment policies). Thus, a large-cap mutual fund manager will not buy the latest hot small-cap stock that will likely be hugely profitable; he/she must choose only between various large capitalization companies. Some exchange-traded funds are fixed baskets of stocks. Suppose you will not invest in a company X as a matter of principle. Unless a mutual fund prospectus says that it will not invest in X, you may well end up having an investment in X at some time because the fund manager bought shares in X. With such an ETF, you know what is in the basket, and if the basket does not include stock in X now, it will not own stock in X at a later date. Some exchange-traded funds are constructed based on some index and track the index as a matter of policy. Thus, you will not be investing in X unless X becomes part of the index because Standard or Poor or Russell or somebody changed their minds, and the ETF buys X in order to track the index. Finally, some ETFs are exactly like general mutual funds except that you can buy or sell ETF shares at any time at the price at the instant that your order is executed whereas with mutual funds, the price of the mutual fund shares that you have bought or sold is the NAV of the mutual fund shares for that day, which is established based on the closing prices at the end of the trading day of the stocks, bonds etc that the fund owns. So, you might end up owning stock in X at any time based on what the fund manager thinks about X.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "3749bd9223d2080c026d8c67c9ac9201",
"text": "\"Translation : Funds managers that use traditionnal methods to select stocks will have less success than those who use artificial intelligence and computer programs to select stocks. Meaning : The use of computer programs and artificial intelligence is THE way to go for hedge fund managers in the future because they give better results. \"\"No man is better than a machine, but no machine is better than a man with a machine.\"\" Alternative article : Hedge-fund firms, Wall Street Journal. A little humour : \"\"Whatever is well conceived is clearly said, And the words to say it flow with ease.\"\" wrote Nicolas Boileau in 1674.\"",
"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": "29b2b167a755e40ce7a9c0ad501f6b0d",
"text": "SMID CAP FUND is Fidelity's way of saying SMALL to MID CAP FUND. Small to Medium is self explanatory. Cap is capitalization, and it basically means how much the sum of all the existing shares of the company are worth. Fidelity names the funds inside their 401k plans according to who provides the fund. They also provide management resources for funds chosen by your employer. There should be more available about the fund you're interested in on your Fidelity 401(k) site.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "78324133f5ee24f7ae0dc6de65f65c25",
"text": "I strongly suggest you go to www.investor.gov as it has excellent information regarding these types of questions. A mutual fund is a company that pools money from many investors and invests the money in securities such as stocks, bonds, and short-term debt. The combined holdings of the mutual fund are known as its portfolio. Investors buy shares in mutual funds. Each share represents an investor’s part ownership in the fund and the income it generates. When you buy shares of a mutual fund you're buying it at NAV, or net asset value. The NAV is the value of the fund’s assets minus its liabilities. SEC rules require funds to calculate the NAV at least once daily. Different funds may own thousands of different stocks. In order to calculate the NAV, the fund company must value every security it owns. Since each security's valuation is changing throughout the day it's difficult to determine the valuation of the mutual fund except for when the market is closed. Once the market has closed (4pm eastern) and securities are no longer trading, the company must get accurate valuations for every security and perform the valuation calculations and distribute the results to the pricing vendors. This has to be done by 6pm eastern. This is a difficult and, more importantly, a time consuming process to get it done right once per day. Having worked for several fund companies I can tell you there are many days where companies are getting this done at the very last minute. When you place a buy or sell order for a mutual fund it doesn't matter what time you placed it as long as you entered it before 4pm ET. Cutoff times may be earlier depending on who you're placing the order with. If companies had to price their funds more frequently, they would undoubtedly raise their fees.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1af8f838d7041ba6c1066ea564d306ff",
"text": "\"In the case of mutual funds, Net Asset Value (NAV) is the price used to buy and sell shares. NAV is just the value of the underlying assets (which are in turn valued by their underlying holdings and future earnings). So if a fund hands out a billion dollars, it stands to reason their NAV*shares (market cap?) is a billion dollars less. Shareholder's net worth is equal in either scenario, but after the dividend is paid they are more liquid. For people who need investment income to live on, dividends are a cheap way to hold stocks and get regular payments, versus having to sell part of your portfolio every month. But for people who want to hold their investment in the market for a long long time, dividends only increase the rate at which you have to buy. For mutual funds this isn't a problem: you buy the funds and tell them to reinvest for free. So because of that, it's a prohibited practice to \"\"sell\"\" dividends to clients.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bfc24837add38637dbfd3d31ad3af4d8",
"text": "\"Your \"\"money market\"\" is cash or a \"\"sweep account\"\" that your broker is holding for you and on which the broker is paying you interest. The mutual fund is paying you dividends, not interest, even if it is a money-market mutual fund (often bearing a name such as Prime Reserve Fund) or bond mutual fund that is collecting interest on its investments and passing them on to you.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3aeb17bf4b73d0f13117216075ec7f99",
"text": "\"What you are describing is a very specific case of the more general principle of how dividend payments work. Broadly speaking, if you own common shares in a corporation, you are a part owner of that corporation; you have the right to a % of all of that corporation's assets. The value in having that right is ultimately because the corporation will pay you dividends while it operates, and perhaps a final dividend when it liquidates at the end of its life. This is why your shares have value - because they give you ownership of the business itself. Now, assume you own 1k shares in a company with 100M shares, worth a total of $5B. You own 0.001% of the company, and each of your shares is worth $50; the total value of all your shares is $50k. Assume further that the value of the company includes $1B in cash. If the company pays out a dividend of $1B, it will now be only worth $4B. Your shares have just gone down in value by 20%! But, you have a right to 0.001% of the dividend, which equals a $10k cash payment to you. Your personal holdings are now $40k worth of shares, plus $10k in cash. Except for taxes, financial theory states that whether a corporation pays a dividend or not should not impact the value to the individual shareholder. The difference between a regular corporation and a mutual fund, is that the mutual fund is actually a pool of various investments, and it reports a breakdown of that pool to you in a different way. If you own shares directly in a corporation, the dividends you receive are called 'dividends', even if you bought them 1 minute before the ex-dividend date. But a payment from a mutual fund can be divided between, for example, a flow through of dividends, interest, or a return of capital. If you 'looked inside' your mutual fund you when you bought it, you would see that 40% of its value comes from stock A, 20% comes from stock B, etc etc., including maybe 1% of the value coming from a pile of cash the fund owns at the time you bought your units. In theory the mutual fund could set aside the cash it holds for current owners only, but then it would need to track everyone's cash-ownership on an individual basis, and there would be thousands of different 'unit classes' based on timing. For simplicity, the mutual fund just says \"\"yes, when you bought $50k in units, we were 1/3 of the year towards paying out a $10k dividend. So of that $10k dividend, $3,333k of it is assumed to have been cash at the time you bought your shares. Instead of being an actual 'dividend', it is simply a return of capital.\"\" By doing this, the mutual fund is able to pay you your owed dividend [otherwise you would still have the same number of units but no cash, meaning you would lose overall value], without forcing you to be taxed on that payment. If the mutual fund didn't do this separate reporting, you would have paid $50k to buy $46,667k of shares and $3,333k of cash, and then you would have paid tax on that cash when it was returned to you. Note that this does not \"\"falsely exaggerate the investment return\"\", because a return of capital is not earnings; that's why it is reported separately. Note that a 'close-ended fund' is not a mutual fund, it is actually a single corporation. You own units in a mutual fund, giving you the rights to a proportion of all the fund's various investments. You own shares in a close-ended fund, just as you would own shares in any other corporation. The mutual fund passes along the interest, dividends, etc. from its investments on to you; the close-ended fund may pay dividends directly to its shareholders, based on its own internal dividend policy.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6fe83ddf6d27545bcef60021d1489080",
"text": "\"A \"\"Fund\"\" is generally speaking a collection of similar financial products, which are bundled into a single investment, so that you as an individual can buy a portion of the Fund rather than buying 50 portions of various products. e.g. a \"\"Bond Fund\"\" may be a collection of various corporate bonds that are bundled together. The performance of the Fund would be the aggregate of each individual item. Generally speaking Funds are like pre-packaged \"\"diversification\"\". Rather than take time (and fees) to buy 50 different stocks on the same stock index, you could buy an \"\"Index Fund\"\" which represents the values of all of those stocks. A \"\"Portfolio\"\" is your individual package of investments. ie: the 20k you have in bonds + the 5k you have in shares, + the 50k you have in \"\"Funds\"\" + the 100k rental property you own. You might split the definition further buy saying \"\"My 401(k) portfolio & my taxable portfolio & my real estate portfolio\"\"(etc.), to denote how those items are invested. The implication of \"\"Portfolio\"\" is that you have considered how all of your investments work together; ie: your 5k in stocks is not so risky, because it is only 5k out of your entire 185k portfolio, which includes some low risk bonds and funds. Another way of looking at it, is that a Fund is a special type of Portfolio. That is, a Fund is a portfolio, that someone will sell to someone else (see Daniel's answer below). For example: Imagine you had $5,000 invested in IBM shares, and also had $5,000 invested in Apple shares. Call this your portfolio. But you also want to sell your portfolio, so let's also call it a 'fund'. Then you sell half of your 'fund' to a friend. So your friend (let's call him Maurice) pays you $4,000, to invest in your 'Fund'. Maurice gives you $4k, and in return, you given him a note that says \"\"Maurice owns 40% of atp9's Fund\"\". The following month, IBM pays you $100 in dividends. But, Maurice owns 40% of those dividends. So you give him a cheque for $40 (some funds automatically reinvest dividends for their clients instead of paying them out immediately). Then you sell your Apple shares for $6,000 (a gain of $1,000 since you bought them). But Maurice owns 40% of that 6k, so you give him $2,400 (or perhaps, instead of giving him the money immediately, you reinvest it within the fund, and buy $6k of Microsoft shares). Why would you set up this Fund? Because Maurice will pay you a fee equal to, let's say, 1% of his total investment. Your job is now to invest the money in the Fund, in a way that aligns with what you told Maurice when he signed the contract. ie: maybe it's a tech fund, and you can only invest in big Tech companies. Maybe it's an Index fund, and your investment needs to exactly match a specific portion of the New York Stock Exchange. Maybe it's a bond fund, and you can only invest in corporate bonds. So to reiterate, a portfolio is a collection of investments (think of an artist's portfolio, being a collection of their work). Usually, people refer to their own 'portfolio', of personal investments. A fund is someone's portfolio, that other people can invest in. This allows an individual investor to give some of their decision making over to a Fund manager. In addition to relying on expertise of others, this allows the investor to save on transaction costs, because they can have a well-diversified portfolio (see what I did there?) while only buying into one or a few funds.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eec00fac4023bd89d4a52ab034993c41",
"text": "If you want to go far upstream, you can get mutual fund NAV and dividend data from the Nasdaq Mutual Fund Quotation Service (MFQS). This isn't for end-users but rather is offered as a part of the regulatory framework. Not surprisingly, there is a fee for data access. From Nasdaq's MFQS specifications page: To promote market transparency, Nasdaq operates the Mutual Fund Quotation Service (MFQS). MFQS is designed to facilitate the collection and dissemination of daily price, dividends and capital distributions data for mutual funds, money market funds, unit investment trusts (UITs), annuities and structured products.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bbefe50d05a17ab5e03bbdd33a74cb84",
"text": "\"**Modern portfolio theory** Modern portfolio theory (MPT), or mean-variance analysis, is a mathematical framework for assembling a portfolio of assets such that the expected return is maximized for a given level of risk, defined as variance. Its key insight is that an asset's risk and return should not be assessed by itself, but by how it contributes to a portfolio's overall risk and return. Economist Harry Markowitz introduced MPT in a 1952 essay, for which he was later awarded a Nobel Prize in economics. *** **Option (finance)** In finance, an option is a contract which gives the buyer (the owner or holder of the option) the right, but not the obligation, to buy or sell an underlying asset or instrument at a specific strike price on a specified date, depending on the form of the option. The strike price may be set by reference to the spot price (market price) of the underlying security or commodity on the day an option is taken out, or it may be fixed at a discount in a premium. The seller has the corresponding obligation to fulfill the transaction—to sell or buy—if the buyer (owner) \"\"exercises\"\" the option. An option that conveys to the owner the right to buy at a specific price is referred to as a call; an option that conveys the right of the owner to sell at a specific price is referred to as a put. *** ^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&message=Excludeme&subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/finance/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot) ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.27\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c164f3698cace48ad15cbebf89a3c733",
"text": "Nowhere. To back up a bit, mutual funds are the stock market (and the bond market). That is, when you invest in a mutual fund, your money is ultimately buying stocks on the open market. Some of it might be buying bonds. The exact mix of stocks and bonds depends on the mutual fund. But a mutual fund is just a basket of stocks and/or bonds (and/or other, more exotic investments). At 25, you probably should just be investing your Roth IRA in index stock mutual funds and index bond mutual funds. You probably shouldn't even be doing peer-to-peer lending (unless you're willing to think of any losses as the cost of a hobby); the higher interest rate you're getting is a reflection of the risk that your borrowers will default. I'm not even sure if peer-to-peer lending is allowed in Roth IRA's. Investing in just stocks, bonds, and cast is boring, but these are easy investments to understand. The harder the investment is to understand, the easier it is for it to be a scam (or just a bad investment). There's not necessarily anything wrong with boring.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ef9d348bbe5f1714fae78ad0a3deefa4",
"text": "Given that a mutual fund manager knows, at the end of the day, precisely how many shares/units/whatever of each investment (stock, equity, etc.) they own, plus their bank balance, It is calculating this given. There are multiple orders that a fund manager requests for execution, some get settled [i.e. get converted into trade], the shares itself don't get into account immediately, but next day or 2 days later depending on the exchange. Similarly he would have sold quite a few shares and that would still show shares in his account. The bank balance itself will not show the funds to pay as the fund manager has purchased something ... or the funds received as the fund manager has sold something. So in general they roughly know the value ... but they don't exactly know the value and would have to factor the above variables. That's not a simple task when you are talking about multiple trades across multiple shares.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b18dfb2f980c7c6e0d47ae978440fba3",
"text": "\"The definition you cite is correct, but obscure. I prefer a forward looking definition. Consider the real investment. You make an original investment at some point in time. You make a series of further deposits and withdrawals at specified times. At some point after the last deposit/withdrawal, (the \"\"end\"\") the cash value of the investment is determined. Now, find a bank account that pays interest compounded daily. Possibly it should allow overdrafts where it charges the same interest rate. Make deposits and withdrawals to/from this account that match the investment payments in amount and date. At the \"\"end\"\" the value in this bank account is the same as the investment. The bank interest rate that makes this happen is the IRR for the investment...\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d423ee78b68467721af9eb9d16c3d672",
"text": "This is really an extended comment on the last paragraph of @BenMiller's answer. When (the manager of) a mutual fund sells securities that the fund holds for a profit, or receives dividends (stock dividends, bond interest, etc.), the fund has the option of paying taxes on that money (at corporate rates) and distributing the rest to shareholders in the fund, or passing on the entire amount (categorized as dividends, qualified dividends, net short-term capital gains, and net long-term capital gains) to the shareholders who then pay taxes on the money that they receive at their own respective tax rates. (If the net gains are negative, i.e. losses, they are not passed on to the shareholders. See the last paragraph below). A shareholder doesn't have to reinvest the distribution amount into the mutual fund: the option of receiving the money as cash always exists, as does the option of investing the distribution into a different mutual fund in the same family, e.g. invest the distributions from Vanguard's S&P 500 Index Fund into Vanguard's Total Bond Index Fund (and/or vice versa). This last can be done without needing a brokerage account, but doing it across fund families will require the money to transit through a brokerage account or a personal account. Such cross-transfers can be helpful in reducing the amounts of money being transferred in re-balancing asset allocations as is recommended be done once or twice a year. Those investing in load funds instead of no-load funds should keep in mind that several load funds waive the load for re-investment of distributions but some funds don't: the sales charge for the reinvestment is pure profit for the fund if the fund was purchased directly or passed on to the brokerage if the fund was purchased through a brokerage account. As Ben points out, a shareholder in a mutual fund must pay taxes (in the appropriate categories) on the distributions from the fund even though no actual cash has been received because the entire distribution has been reinvested. It is worth keeping in mind that when the mutual fund declares a distribution (say $1.22 a share), the Net Asset Value per share drops by the same amount (assuming no change in the prices of the securities that the fund holds) and the new shares issued are at this lower price. That is, there is no change in the value of the investment: if you had $10,000 in the fund the day before the distribution was declared, you still have $10,000 after the distribution is declared but you own more shares in the fund than you had previously. (In actuality, the new shares appear in your account a couple of days later, not immediately when the distribution is declared). In short, a distribution from a mutual fund that is re-invested leads to no change in your net assets, but does increase your tax liability. Ditto for a distribution that is taken as cash or re-invested elsewhere. As a final remark, net capital losses inside a mutual fund are not distributed to shareholders but are retained within the fund to be written off against future capital gains. See also this previous answer or this one.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
8c0c5f34ea4bc3f3de9f1be179232ab5
|
Why do people buy stocks at higher price in merger?
|
[
{
"docid": "bd1a333f0d4845d3bfc8aa0017e0da31",
"text": "\"Without any highly credible anticipation of a company being a target of a pending takeover, its common stock will normally trade at what can be considered non-control or \"\"passive market\"\" prices, i.e. prices that passive securities investors pay or receive for each share of stock. When there is talk or suggestion of a publicly traded company's being an acquisition target, it begins to trade at \"\"control market\"\" prices, i.e. prices that an investor or group of them is expected to pay in order to control the company. In most cases control requires a would-be control shareholder to own half a company's total votes (not necessarily stock) plus one additional vote and to pay a greater price than passive market prices to non-control investors (and sometimes to other control investors). The difference between these two market prices is termed a \"\"control premium.\"\" The appropriateness and value of this premium has been upheld in case law, with some conflicting opinions, in Delaware Chancery Court (see the reference below; LinkedIn Corp. is incorporated in the state), most other US states' courts and those of many countries with active stock markets. The amount of premium is largely determined by investment bankers who, in addition to applying other valuation approaches, review most recently available similar transactions for premiums paid and advise (formally in an \"\"opinion letter\"\") their clients what range of prices to pay or accept. In addition to increasing the likelihood of being outbid by a third-party, failure to pay an adequate premium is often grounds for class action lawsuits that may take years to resolve with great uncertainty for most parties involved. For a recent example and more details see this media opinion and overview about Dell Inc. being taken private in 2013, the lawsuits that transaction prompted and the court's ruling in 2016 in favor of passive shareholder plaintiffs. Though it has more to do with determining fair valuation than specifically premiums, the case illustrates instruments and means used by some courts to protect non-control, passive shareholders. ========== REFERENCE As a reference, in a 2005 note written by a major US-based international corporate law firm, it noted with respect to Delaware courts, which adjudicate most major shareholder conflicts as the state has a disproportionate share of large companies in its domicile, that control premiums may not necessarily be paid to minority shareholders if the acquirer gains control of a company that continues to have minority shareholders, i.e. not a full acquisition: Delaware case law is clear that the value of a dissenting [target company's] stockholder’s shares is not to be reduced to impose a minority discount reflecting the lack of the stockholders’ control over the corporation. Indeed, this appears to be the rationale for valuing the target corporation as a whole and allocating a proportionate share of that value to the shares of [a] dissenting stockholder [exercising his appraisal rights in seeking to challenge the value the target company's board of directors placed on his shares]. At the same time, Delaware courts have suggested, without explanation, that the value of the corporation as a whole, and as a going concern, should not include a control premium of the type that might be realized in a sale of the corporation.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dbab73634832d7aac0ac778943625e59",
"text": "There are kind of two answers here: the practical reason an acquirer has to pay more for shares than their current trading price and the economic justification for the increase in price. Why must the acquirer must pay a premium as a practical matter? Everyone has a different valuation of a company. The current trading price is the lowest price that any holder of the stock is willing to sell a little bit of stock for and the highest that anyone is willing to buy a little bit for. However, Microsoft needs to buy a controlling share. To do this on the open market they would need to buy all the shares from people who's personal valuation is low, and then a bunch from people whose valuation is higher and so on. The act of buying that much stock would push the price up by buying all the shares from people who are really willing to sell. Moreover, as they buy more and more, the remaining people increase their personal valuation so the price would really shoot up. Acquirers avoid this situation by offering to buy a ton of stock at a substantially higher, single price. Why is Linkedin suddenly worth more than it was yesterday? Microsoft is expecting to be able to use its own infrastructure and tools to make more money with Linkedin than Linkedin would have before. In other words, they believe that the Linkedin division of Microsoft after the merger will be worth more than Linkedin alone was before the merger. This synergistic idea is the theoretical foundation for mergers in general and the main reason people use to argue for a higher price. You could also argue that by expressing an interest in Linkedin, Microsoft may be telling us something it knows about Linkedin's value that maybe we didn't realize before because we aren't as smart and informed as the people on Microsoft's board. But since it's Microsoft that's doing the buying in this case, I'm going to go out on a limb and say this is not the main effect. Given Microsoft's history, the idea that they buy expensive things because they have money to burn is more compelling than the idea that they have an insight into a company's value that we don't.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bbd64c5d149c47a4026c6066062e4842",
"text": "Microsoft wants to buy a majority in the stock. To accomplish that, they have to offer a good price, so the current share owners are willing to sell. Just because the CEO of LinkedIN agreed to the deal doesn't really mean much, only that he is willing to sell his shares at that price. If he does not own 50%, he basically cannot complete the deal; other willing sellers are needed. If Microsoft could buy 50+% of the shares for the current market price, they would have just done that, without any negotiations. That is called a hostile take-over.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "45702570cf4f8c92340508182947fbb4",
"text": "Options pricing is based on the gap between strike and the current market, and volatility. That's why the VIX, a commonly accepted volatility index, is actually just a weighted blend of S&P 500 future options prices. A general rise in the price of options indicates people don't know whether it will go up or down next, and are therefore less willing to take that risk. But your question is why everything underwater in the puts chain went higher, and that's simple: now that Apple's down, the probability of falling a few more points is higher. Especially since Apple has gone through some recent rough times, and stocks in general are seen as risky these days.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9692b2413db6b0adda9a83275dc5c41d",
"text": "\"First, keep in mind that there are generally 2 ways to buy a corporation's shares: You can buy a share directly from the corporation. This does not happen often; it usually happens at the Initial Public Offering [the first time the company becomes \"\"public\"\" where anyone with access to the stock exchange can become a part-owner], plus maybe a few more times during the corporations existence. In this case, the corporation is offering new ownership in exchange for a price set the corporation (or a broker hired by the corporation). The price used for a public offering is the highest amount that the company believes it can get - this is a very complicated field, and involves many different methods of evaluating what the company should be worth. If the company sets the price too low, then they have missed out on possible value which would be earned by the previous, private shareholders (they would have gotten the same share % of a corporation which would now have more cash to spend, because of increased money paid by new shareholders). If the company sets the price too high, then the share subscription might only be partially filled, so there might not be enough cash to do what the company wanted. You can buy a share from another shareholder. This is more common - when you see the company's share price on the stock exchange, it is this type of transaction - buying out other current shareholders. The price here is simply set based on what current owners are willing to sell at. The \"\"Bid Price\"\" listed by an exchange is the current highest bid that a purchaser is offering for a single share. The \"\"Ask Price\"\" is the current lowest offer that a seller is offering to sell a single share they currently own. When the bid price = the ask price, a share transaction happens, and the most recent stock price changes.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7885461d2f4f9593513df4f245d4d883",
"text": "\"I understand you make money by buying low and selling high. You can also make money by buying high and selling higher, short selling high and buying back low, short selling low and buying back even lower. An important technique followed by many technical traders and investors is to alway trade with the trend - so if the shares are trending up you go long (buy to open and sell to close); if the shares are trending down you go short (sell to open and buy to close). \"\"But even if the stock price goes up, why are we guaranteed that there is some demand for it?\"\" There is never any guarantees in investing or trading. The only guarantee in life is death, but that's a different subject. There is always some demand for a share or else the share price would be zero or it would never sell, i.e zero liquidity. There are many reasons why there could be demand for a rising share price - fundamental analysis could indicated that the shares are valued much higher than the current price; technical analysis could indicate that the trend will continue; greed could get the better of peoples' emotion where they think all my freinds are making money from this stock so I should buy it too (just to name a few). \"\"After all, it's more expensive now.\"\" What determines if a stock is expensive? As Joe mentioned, was Apple expensive at $100? People who bought it at $50 might think so, but people who bought at $600+ would think $100 is very cheap. On the other hand a penny stock may be expensive at $0.20. \"\"It would make sense if we can sell the stock back into the company for our share of the earnings, but why would other investors want it when the price has gone up?\"\" You don't sell your stocks back to the company for a share of the earnings (unless the company has a share-buy-back arrangement in place), you get a share of the earnings by getting the dividends the company distributes to shareholders. Other investor would want to buy the stock when the price has gone up because they think it will go up further and they can make some money out of it. Some of the reasons for this are explained above.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3935b99b72731729fc7d8b53d7836adb",
"text": "Remember that shares represent votes at the shareholders' meeting. If share price drops too far below the value of that percentage of the company, the company gets bought out and taken over. This tends to set a minimum share price derived from the company's current value. The share price may rise above that baseline if people expect it to be worth more in the future, or drop s bit below if people expect awful news. That's why investment is called speculation. If the price asked is too high to be justified by current guesses, nobody buys. That sets the upper limit at any given time. Since some of this is guesswork, the market is not completely rational. Prices can drop after good news if they'd been inflated by the expectation of better news, for example. In general, businesses which don't crash tend to grow. Hence the market as a whole generally trends upward if viewed on a long timescale. But there's a lot of noise on that curve; short term or single stocks are much harder to predict.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0bc934b26cd5698a318b31ef671dd898",
"text": "\"Simple answer is because the stocks don't split. Most stocks would have a similar high price per share if they didn't split occasionally. Why don't they split? A better way to ask this is probably, why DO most stocks split? The standard answer is that it gives the appearance that stocks are \"\"cheap\"\" again and encourages investors to buy them. Some people, Warren Buffett (of Berkshire Hathaway) don't want any part of these shenanigans and refuse to split their stocks. Buffett also has commented that he thinks splitting a stock also adds unnecessary volatility.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "084b6a7c6c93bb138202603fa9676eff",
"text": "You are misunderstanding what makes the price of a stock go up and down. Every time you sell a share of a stock, there is someone else that buys the stock. So it is not accurate to say that stock prices go down when large amounts of the stock are sold, and up when large amounts of the stock are bought. Every day, the amount of shares of a stock that are bought and sold are equal to each other, because in order to sell a share of stock, someone has to buy it. Let me try to explain what actually happens to the price of a stock when you want to sell it. Let's say that a particular stock is listed on the ticker at $100 a share currently. All this means is that the last transaction that took place was for $100; someone sold their share to a buyer for $100. Now let's say that you have a share of the stock you'd like to sell. You are hoping to get $100 for your share. There are 2 other people that also have a share that they want to sell. However, there is only 1 person that wants to buy a share of stock, and he only wants to pay $99 for a share. If none of you wants to sell lower than $100, then no shares get sold. But if one of you agrees to sell at $99, then the sale takes place. The ticker value of the stock is now $99 instead of $100. Now let's say that there are 3 new people that have decided they want to buy a share of the stock. They'd like to buy at $99, but you and the other person left with a share want to sell at $100. Either one of the sellers will come down to $99 or one of the buyers will go up to $100. This process will continue until everyone that wants to sell a share has sold, and everyone who wants to buy a share has bought. In general, though, when there are more people that want to sell than buy, the price goes down, and when there are more people that want to buy than sell, the price goes up. To answer your question, if your selling of the stock had caused the price to go down, it means that you would have gotten less money for your stock than if it had not gone down. Likewise, if your buying the stock had caused it to go up, it just means that it would have cost you more to buy the stock. It is just as likely that you would lose money doing this, rather than gain money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "555be60b1c7c421fc2d3104626e6fa19",
"text": "\"Most likely because they don't know what they're talking about. They all have a belief without evidence that information set X is internalised into the price but information set Y is not. If there is some stock characteristic, call it y, that belongs to set Y, then that moves the gauge towards a \"\"buy\"\" recommendation. However, the issue is that no evidence has been used to determine the constituents of X and Y, or even whether Y exists in any non-trivial sense.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1a7515e182c34fc75e2d7913c6f5511b",
"text": "The people who cause this sort of sell-off immediately are mostly speculators, short-term day-traders and the like. They realize that, because of the lowered potential for earnings in the future, the companies in question won't be worth as much in the future. They will sell shares at the elevated price, including sometimes shares that they borrow for the explicit purpose of selling (short selling), until the share price is more reasonable. Now, the other question is why the companies in question won't sell for as much in the future: Even if every other company in the world looks less attractive all at once (global economic catastrophe etc) people have other options. They could just put the money in the bank, or in corporate bonds, or in mortgage bonds, or Treasury bonds, or some other low-risk instrument, or something crazy like gold. If the expected return on a stock doesn't justify the price, you're unlikely to find someone paying that price. So you don't actually need to have a huge sell-off to lower the price. You just need a sell-off that's big enough that you run out of people willing to pay elevated prices.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "508cfcdc1b55a353fca9742ac43463c3",
"text": "I'm confused. Are you asking why or telling us that you're bullish? Yes the stock will go up for a merger at a premium, but buying in now only gives you ~0.5% gain if it closes at $21.50. They won't trade over 21.50 unless a competing bid comes in or the bid is increased.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e40085d2a0da4b760a5a1930c4a79386",
"text": "If the price has gone up from what it was when the person bought, he may sell to collect his profit and spend the money. If someone intends to keep his money in the market, the trick is that you don't know when the price of a given stock will peak. If you could tell the future, sure, you'd buy when the stock was at its lowest point, just before it started up, and then sell at the highest point, just before it started down. But no one knows for sure what those points are. If a stockholder really KNOWS that demand is increasing and the price WILL go up, sure, it would be foolish to sell. But you can never KNOW that. (Or if you have some way that you do know that, please call me and share your knowledge.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "879c0735767dce73815b86de9e6871b6",
"text": "\"This is a classic correlation does not imply causation situation. There are (at least) three issues at play in this question: If you are swing- or day-trading then the first and second issues can definitely affect your trading. A higher-price, higher-volume stock will have smaller (percentage) volatility fluctuations within a very small period of time. However, in general, and especially when holding any position for any period of time during which unknowns can become known (such as Netflix's customer-loss announcement) it is a mistake to feel \"\"safe\"\" based on price alone. When considering longer-term investments (even weeks or months), and if you were to compare penny stocks with blue chip stocks, you still might find more \"\"stability\"\" in the higher value stocks. This is a correlation alone — in other words, a stable, reliable stock probably has a (relatively) high price but a high price does not mean it's reliable. As Joe said, the stock of any company that is exposed to significant risks can drop (or rise) by large amounts suddenly, and it is common for blue-chip stocks to move significantly in a period of months as changes in the market or the company itself manifest themselves. The last thing to remember when you are looking at raw dollar amounts is to remember to look at shares outstanding. Netflix has a price of $79 to Ford's $12; yet Ford has a larger market cap because there are nearly 4 billion shares compared to Netflix's 52m.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e3b96e44e018d120c089366b8fc93b7b",
"text": "People buy stocks with the intention of making money. They either expect the price to continue to rise or that they will get dividends and the price will not drop (enough) to wipe out their dividend earnings.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e51cf7afa6aabe63143fd7875be00205",
"text": "The main thing you're missing is that while you bear all the costs of manipulating the market, you have no special ability to capture the profits yourself. You make money by buying low and selling high. But if you want to push the price up, you have to keep buying even though the price is getting high. So you are buying high. This gives everyone, including you, the opportunity to sell high and make money. But you will have no special ability to capture that -- others will see the price going up and will start selling within a tiny fraction of a second. You will have to keep buying all the shares they keep selling at the artificially inflated price. So as you keep trying to buy more and more to push the price up enough to make money, everyone else is selling their shares to you. You have to buy more and more shares at an inflated price as everyone else is selling while you are still buying. When you switch to selling, the price will drop instantly, since there's nobody to buy from you at the inflated price. The opportunity you created has already been taken -- by the very people you were trading with. Billions have been lost by people who thought this strategy would work.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c3a98c4cdebde920a4f48f427c33fca1",
"text": "Because people bought their shares under the premise that they would make more money and if the company completely lied about that they will be subject to several civil and criminal violations. If people didn't believe the company was going to make more money, they would have valued their shares lower during the IPO by not forming much of a market at all.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "13d5c8d1757f4113f3d00149c7023f95",
"text": "Companies do both quite often. They have opposite effects on the share price, but not on the total value to the shareholders. Doing both causes value to shareholders to rise (ie, any un-bought back shares now own a larger percentage of the company and are worth more) and drops the per-share price (so it is easier to buy a share of the stock). To some that's irrelevant, but some might want a share of an otherwise-expensive stock without paying $700 for it. As a specific example of this, Apple (APPL) split its stock in 2014 and also continued a significant buyback program: Apple announces $17B repurchase program, Oct 2014 Apple stock splits 7-to-1 in June 2014. This led to their stock in total being worth more, but costing substantially less per share.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
57716c5079e5c0cd118f6981ac83ad8b
|
Whether to prepay mortgage or invest in stocks
|
[
{
"docid": "3188ba3af58c8955a687b494fcb5883d",
"text": "\"I strongly doubt your numbers, but lets switch the question around anyway. Would you borrow 10k on your house to buy stocks on leverage? That's putting your house at risk to have the chance of a gain in the stock market (and nothing in the market is sure, especially in the short term), and I would really advise against it. The decision you're considering making resolves down to this one. Note: It is always better to make any additional checks out as \"\"for principal only\"\", unless you will be missing a future payment.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5f1818e595b153a093011afb8863d5c1",
"text": "what other pieces of info should I consider If you don't have liquid case available for unexpected repairs, then you probably don't want to use this money for either option. The 7% return on the stocks is absolutely not guaranteed. There is a good amount of risk involved with any stock investment. Paying down the mortgage, by contrast, has a much lower risk. In the case of the mortgage, you know you'll get a 2.1% annual return until it adjusts, and then you can put some constraints on the return you'll get after it adjusts. In the case of stocks, it's reasonable to guess that it will return more than 2.1% annually if you hold it long enough. But there will be huge swings from month to month and from year to year. The sooner you need it, the more guaranteed you will want the return to be. If you have few or no stock (or bond)-like assets, then (nearly) all of your wealth is in your house, and that is independent of the remaining balance on your mortgage. If you are going to sell the house soon, then you will want to diversify your assets to protect you against a drop in home value. If you are going to stay in the house forever, then you will eventually need non-house assets to consume. Ultimately, neither option is inherently better; it really depends on what you need.",
"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": "71c708de13ef582723f885f5c59d32d3",
"text": "The short answer is to invest it since the rate of return is higher than your mortgage. (Assuming that you can withstand interest rate hikes, meet short term liquidity needs and don't need your $10K in the short or near term). The long answer is if you're comfortable leveraging your house and can put that $10K away for the long term you can reduce your taxes via the Smith Manoeuvre: Alternatively, if you have kids or grandkids and will help them through school, take the government's money by putting it away in an RESP.",
"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": "9e6a9e8163630b92f5d1d506c5e99bda",
"text": "\"Congratulations on a solid start. Here are my thoughts, based on your situation: Asset Classes I would recommend against a long-term savings account as an investment vehicle. While very safe, the yields will almost always be well below inflation. Since you have a long time horizon (most likely at least 30 years to retirement), you have enough time to take on more risk, as long as it's not more than you can live with. If you are looking for safer alternatives to stocks for part of your investments, you can also consider investment-grade bonds/bond funds, or even a stable value fund. Later, when you are much closer to retirement, you may also want to consider an annuity. Depending on the interest rate on your loan, you may also be able to get a better return from paying down your loan than from putting more in a savings account. I would recommend that you only keep in a savings account what you expect to need in the next few years (cushion for regular expenses, emergency fund, etc.). On Stocks Stocks are riskier but have the best chance to outperform versus inflation over the long term. I tend to favor funds over individual stocks, mostly for a few practical reasons. First, one of the goals of investing is to diversify your risk, which produces a more efficient risk/reward ratio than a group of stocks that are highly correlated. Diversification is easier to achieve via an index fund, but it is possible for a well-educated investor to stay diversified via individual stocks. Also, since most investors don't actually want to take physical possession of their shares, funds will manage the shares for you, as well as offering additional services, such as the automatic reinvestments of dividends and tax management. Asset Allocation It's very important that you are comfortable with the amount of risk you take on. Investment salespeople will prefer to sell you stocks, as they make more commission on stocks than bonds or other investments, but unless you're able to stay in the market for the long term, it's unlikely you'll be able to get the market return over the long term. Make sure to take one or more risk tolerance assessments to understand how often you're willing to accept significant losses, as well as what the optimal asset allocation is for you given the level of risk you can live with. Generally speaking, for someone with a long investment horizon and a medium risk tolerance, even the most conservative allocations will have at least 60% in stocks (total of US and international) with the rest in bonds/other, and up to 80% or even 100% for a more aggressive investor. Owning more bonds will result in a lower expected return, but will also dramatically reduce your portfolio's risk and volatility. Pension With so many companies deciding that they don't feel like keeping the promises they made to yesterday's workers or simply can't afford to, the pension is nice but like Social Security, I wouldn't bank on all of this money being there for you in the future. This is where a fee-only financial planner can really be helpful - they can run a bunch of scenarios in planning software that will show you different retirement scenarios based on a variety of assumptions (ie what if you only get 60% of the promised pension, etc). This is probably not as much of an issue if you are an equity partner, or if the company fully funds the pension in a segregated account, or if the pension is defined-contribution, but most corporate pensions are just a general promise to pay you later in the future with no real money actually set aside for that purpose, so I'd discount this in my planning somewhat. Fund/Stock Selection Generally speaking, most investment literature agrees that you're most likely to get the best risk-adjusted returns over the long term by owning the entire market rather than betting on individual winners and losers, since no one can predict the future (including professional money managers). As such, I'd recommend owning a low-cost index fund over holding specific sectors or specific companies only. Remember that even if one sector is more profitable than another, the stock prices already tend to reflect this. Concentration in IT Consultancy I am concerned that one third of your investable assets are currently in one company (the IT consultancy). It's very possible that you are right that it will continue to do well, that is not my concern. My concern is the risk you're carrying that things will not go well. Again, you are taking on risks not just over the next few years, but over the next 30 or so years until you retire, and even if it seems unlikely that this company will experience a downturn in the next few years, it's very possible that could change over a longer period of time. Please just be aware that there is a risk. One way to mitigate that risk would be to work with an advisor or a fund to structure and investment plan where you invest in a variety of sector funds, except for technology. That way, your overall portfolio, including the single company, will be closer to the market as a whole rather than over-weighted in IT/Tech. However, if this IT Consultancy happens to be the company that you work for, I would strongly recommend divesting yourself of those shares as soon as reasonably possible. In my opinion, the risk of having your salary, pension, and much of your investments tied up in the fortunes of one company would simply be a much larger risk than I'd be comfortable with. Last, make sure to keep learning so that you are making decisions that you're comfortable with. With the amount of savings you have, most investment firms will consider you a \"\"high net worth\"\" client, so make sure you are making decisions that are in your best financial interests, not theirs. Again, this is where a fee-only financial advisor may be helpful (you can find a local advisor at napfa.org). Best of luck with your decisions!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "86ac34f065489f922ab0656b9e9700ab",
"text": "If your house was paid off, would you be comfortable borrowing from the equity to invest? This is essentially the same question. Also, why not ask the opposite? How much more should you be borrowing (at a similar rate) for investments? Your answer to both questions will be clues to how you view the risk/reward of borrowing against your house in order to invest. My personal preference is not to invest with borrowed money. There may be a few percent of potential returns I am missing out on. That percent return has to be analyzed in the context of a full financial plan and future goals.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e52cab25c8a4b58dd01b6ff3d0d8a071",
"text": "\"Can is fine, and other answered that. I'd suggest that you consider the \"\"should.\"\" Does your employer offer a matched retirement account, typically a 401(k)? Are you depositing up to the match? Do you have any higher interest short term debt, credit cards, car loan, student loan, etc? Do you have 6 months worth of living expenses in liquid funds? One point I like to beat a dead horse over is this - for most normal mortgages, the extra you pay goes to principal, but regardless of how much extra you pay, the next payment is still due next month. So it's possible that you are feeling pretty good that for 5 years you pay so much that you have just 10 left on the 30 year loan, but if you lose your job, you still risk losing the house to foreclosure. It's not like you can ask the bank for that money back. If you are as disciplined as you sound, put the extra money aside, and only when you have well over the recommended 6 months, then make those prepayments if you choose. To pull my comment to @MikeKale into my answer - I avoided this aspect of the discussion. But here I'll suggest that a 4% mortgage costs 3% after tax (in 25% bracket), and I'd bet cap gain rates will stay 15% for non-1%ers. So, with the break-even return of 3.5% (to return 3 after tax) and DVY yielding 3.33%, the questions becomes - do you think the DVY top yielders will be flat over the next 15 years? Any return over .17%/yr is profit. That said, the truly risk averse should heed the advise in original answer, then pre-pay. Update - when asked,in April 2012, the DVY I suggested as an example of an investment that beats the mortgage cost, traded at $56. It's now $83 and still yields 3.84%. To put numbers to this, a lump sum $100K would be worth $148K (this doesn't include dividends), and giving off $5700/yr in dividends for an after-tax $4800/yr. We happened to have a good 4 years, overall. The time horizon (15 years) makes the strategy low risk if one sticks to it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "91e30ca1f672da78828bd723f5f8fba2",
"text": "\"You have 1998-2011 income-contingent student loans, where the interest rate is the lower of (1% + base rate) or RPI (retail price inflation). For the next few years the it's likely to be (1% + base rate) as interest rates stay low and inflation shoots up. These loans only need to be repaid in proportion to your salary, and if they aren't repaid for long enough (e.g. the holder takes a career break for children) they are written off. So all-in-all, they are pretty good debt to have: low interest rate, and you might not have to repay them ever. It's likely that your mortgage will have a significantly higher rate than the student loan, so you'd be better off reducing your mortgage. Also, the higher deposit might mean you can get a lower interest rate on the whole mortgage because the lender will see you as a lower risk, so the return from \"\"investing\"\" it in your mortgage would be even greater than the raw interest rate. Having the student loan outstanding might make some difference to the \"\"affordability\"\" check for your mortgage payments, but lenders will be very familiar with how they work. Reducing your mortgage payments with the higher deposit should easily counterbalance that. Your own suggestion is to invest the £30K in a \"\"reasonably safe portfolio\"\" making 5%. There'll inevitably be some risk in that - 5% is a relatively high return in today's climate - but if you're willing to take that risk, you can investigate the effect on your mortgage to see if it's worth it or not.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6ff686a1b505bc0321186daa6657e650",
"text": "\"From a purely financial standpoint (psychology aside) the choice between paying off debt and investing on risky investments boils down to a comparison of risk and reward. Yes, on average the stock market has risen an average of 10% (give or take) per year, but the yearly returns on the S&P 500 have ranged from a high of 37.6% in 1995 to a low of -37% in 2008. So there's a good chance that your investment in index funds will get a better return than the guaranteed return of paying off the loan, but it's not certain, and you might end up much worse. You could even calculate a rough probability of coming out better with some reasonable assumptions (e.g. if you assume that returns are normally distributed, which historically they're not), but your chances are probably around 30% that you'll end up worse off in one year (your odds are better the longer your investment horizon is). If you can tolerate (meaning you have both the desire and the ability to take) that risk, then you might come out ahead. The non-financial factors, however - the psychology of debt, the drain on discretionary cash flow, etc. cannot be dismissed as \"\"irrational\"\". Paying off debt feels good. Yes, finance purists disagree with Dave Ramsey and his approaches, but you cannot deny the problems that debt causes millions of households (both consumer debt and student loan debt as well). If that makes them mindless \"\"minions\"\" because they follow a plan that worked for them then so be it. (disclosure - I am a listener and a fan but don't agree 100% with him)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b67ca26d9154ba129f82b54cdb8410ad",
"text": "\"Welcome to Money.SE. I will say upfront, Personal Finance is just that, personal, and you are likely to get multiple, perhaps conflicting, answers. Are you sure the PMI will drop off after 2 years? The rules are specific, and for PMI, when prepayments put you at that 78/80% LTV, your bank can require an appraisal, not automatically drop it. Talk to the banks, get confirmation, and depending what they say, keep hacking away at the mortgage. After this, I suggest jumping on Roth IRAs. You are in the 15% bracket, and the Roth will let you deposit $5500 for each you and your wife. A great way to kickstart a higher level of retirement savings. After this, I'm not comfortable with the emergency savings level. If you lose your job tomorrow (Funny story, my wife and I lost our's on the same day 3 years ago) and don't have enough savings (Our retirement accounts were good to just retire that day) you can easily run out of money and be late on the mortgage. It's great to prepay the mortgage to get rid of that PMI, but once there, I'd do the Roth and then focus on savings. 6 months expenses minimum. We have a great Q&A here titled Oversimplify it for me: the correct order of investing in which I go in to more detail, as do 4 other members. I am not getting on the \"\"investments will return more than your mortgage cost\"\" soapbox. A well-funded emergency fund is a very conservative bit of advice. With no matched 401(k), I suggest a balance of the Roth savings and prepayments. From another great post, Ideal net worth by age X? Need comparison references you should have nearly 1 year's salary (90K) saved toward retirement. Any question on my advice, add a comment and I will edit in more details.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fb7a292295904dc21c1ecab57d765cad",
"text": "From a pure monetary point of view, paying 5% to earn 1% doesn't make sense... Though there is also the question of retaining enough immediately available emergency funds, which may make the loan worth considering anyway. On the other hand, if you consider putting the funds into the stock market rather than a bank account, you have quite decent odds of earning more than 5%. In that case, this becomes an opportunity for leveraged investment. I'm doing exactly that with my mortgage.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b18ab02656032dbe1788e37e2b9f2301",
"text": "\"Respectfully, I am of the opinion that you are mixing issues. Paying a mortgage off early vs investing is a question that's been well discussed at Money.SE. If you project a higher tax adjusted return on the investments than your current mortgage rate, invest. Else, pay the mortgage down. If the rent covers the mortgage, you can maintain the investing. It doesn't matter for this discussion if the rent produces a profit, so long as all expenses are covered. Renting aside, in the US, now, my mortgage is 3.5%. 2.6% after taxes. So long as I expect a return well above this level long term, I'll stay investing, and let the mortgage die its slow death. Another decade or so. I'm sorry I can offer a formula, it's \"\"less\"\" \"\"about the same\"\" or \"\"more.\"\" The mortgage is fixed, right? But the market return is unknown.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "60e6c9952bb18a7bdfa152fb8d6d72f5",
"text": "The RRSP is like our 401(k), right? money goes in pre-tax? I'd go with that. Over time, you stand a near certain chance to get a better return than your mortgage rate.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8e7897544cb8fc070a60b150c020a40e",
"text": "Simply put, the interest you're paying on your loans is eating into any gains you have in the stock market. So, figure out how much you're paying in interest and consider the feasibility of paying off some of the loan. Also figure in if you would be selling the stock at a profit or a loss. Generally speaking, a home loan is typically long-term, with a high principal. I believe the consensus is that it is typically not worth paying down extra on it. A car loan, though, is much shorter term, with a lower principal. It may be worth it to pay that down. I would certainly consider paying down the loan with 10% interest, even without running any numbers. What about doing this without selling stock? The reason I suggest that is that you should not sell the stock unless you truly need the money or for some material reason(s) related to the company, the market, etc. (Of course, one other reason would be to cut losses.) Unless I was looking to sell some stock anyway, I would try other ways to come up with the money to pay down the highest interest loan, at least. If you are thinking of selling stock to pay down debt, definitely run the numbers.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1e6372bb007a7316716de34aa3fe6a50",
"text": "Your mortgage represents a negative cash flow of $X for N months. The typical mortgage prepayment doesn't reduce your next payment, but does reduce the length of the mortgage. If you look at the amortization table of a 30 year loan, you might see a payment of $1000 but only $50 going to principal. So if on day one you send an extra $51 or so to the bank, you find that in 30 years you just saved that $1000 payment. In effect, it was a long term bond or CD, yielding the post tax rate of the mortgage. Say your loan were 7%. At 7%, money doubles every 10 years or so. 30 years is 3 doubles or 8X. If I were to offer you $1000 and ask for $7500 in 30 years, you might accept it, with an agreement to buy me out if you refinanced. For me, that would be an investment. Just like buying a bond. In fact, there is a real return, as you see the cash flow at the end. The payments 'not made' are your payback. Those who insist it's not an investment are correct in the strict sense of the word's definition, but pedantic for the fact in practice, the prepayment is a choice to be considered alongside other investment choices. When I have a mortgage, I am the mortgagor, the bank, the mortgagee. Same as a company issuing a bond, the Bank holds my bond and I'm making payments to them. They hold my bond as an investment. There is no question of that. In fact, they package these and sell them as CMOs, groups of mortgages. A pre-payment is me buying back the last coupon on my mortgage. I fail to see the distinction between me 'buying back' $10K in future coupons on my own loan or me investing $10K in someone else's loans. The real question for me is whether this makes sense when rates are so low. At 4%, I'd say it's a matter of prioritizing any high rate debt and any other investments that might yield more. But even so, it's an investment yielding 4%. Over the years, I've developed the priorities of where to put new money - The priorities are debatable. I have my opinion, and my reasons to back them up. In general, it's a balance between risk and return. In my opinion, there's something wrong with ignoring a dollar for dollar match on the 401(k) in most circumstances. Others seem to prefer being 100% debt free before saving at all. There's a balance that might be different for each individual. As I started, the mortgage is a fixed return, with no chance to just get it back if needed. If your cash savings is pretty high, and the choice is a .001% CD or prepay a 4% mortgage, I'd use some funds to pay it down. But not to the point you have no liquid reserves.",
"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": "281a6aa501eea636fd6056c3cad32420",
"text": "take a look at this graph here: http://mortgagevista.com/#m=1&a=40000&b=4&c=30y&B&oa&ob&oc&od It shows how much it costs to borrow $40k for 30 years. You did not post your mortgage rate or loan term, so I used 4% over 30 years (you can easily update this with your actual details). While this does not show the costs of your total mortgage, it does help you get an idea of just how much the 40k$ in question is costing you in interest. If you hover over the month one year from now you will see that you will have paid around $1587 in interest over the course of the year. If you were to put the full 40k$ toward your mortgage right now, you would avoid having to pay this interest over the next year. The next question I think you would have to ask yourself is if there is anything else you could do with that money that is worth more than the $1587 to you. Is it worth $1587 to keep those funds liquid/available in case you need to use them for something else? Could you find other investments you feel comfortable with that could earn you more than $1587? Is it worth the hassle/risk of investing the funds somewhere else with a better return? If you can't come up with anything better to do with the money then yes, you should probably use the funds (or at least part of them) towards the mortgage.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c9b973d796d5ecad6f9f3d29421ce941",
"text": "There is empirical evidence of a correlation between independence of central banks and lower unemployment, lower inflation, and more stable prices. The argument as to why this is comes from when govts control central banking more stongly, then politicians get involved, and they vote for more/easier money, which looks good in the short run, thereby getting them votes, but causes inflation/unemployment/price volatility in the long run. When governments control banking you sometimes end up with Zimbabwe stlye inflation (well, not as bad as Zimbabwe often, but without the govt able to add money at will it is much harder). A significant feature of most successful modern central banks is to remove the control from the hands of ametuers, i.e., politicians, and put control into the hands of skilled economists. Ever notice the Fed chairman (and many of the board) are actually very well trained economists? Full transparency is also bad since some areas of monetary policy need knowledge to be kept from the markets in order to be effective, otherwise the Fed loses some of the tools they need to try and target inflation. Finally, there are quite a lot of regulations that the Fed does follow, including regular outside audits, that keep them in check.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
30679b46a7ee6bd148f0eeaa75e6c2da
|
How should I think about stock dividends?
|
[
{
"docid": "48616931c6365a9c59fde937b47b4dca",
"text": "At 19 years old you can and should be investing to see your money grow over the years. Reinvesting the dividends does get to be pretty significant because they compound over many years. Historically this dividend compounding accounts for about half of the total gains from stocks. At 70 years old I am not investing to see my money grow, although that's nice. I am investing to eat. I live on the dividends, and they tend to come in fairly reliably even as the market bounces up and down. For stocks selected with this in mind I get about 4% per year from the dividends.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aa89096b34cb48b4c6033c8c5a319377",
"text": "DRiPs come to mind as something that may be worth examining. If you take the Microsoft example, consider what would happen if you bought additional shares each year by re-investing the dividends and the stock also went up over the years. A combination of capital appreciation in the share price plus the additional shares purchased over time can produce a good income stream over time. The key is to consider how long are you contributing, how much are you contributing and what end result are you expecting as some companies can have larger dividends if you look at REITs for example.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f62a9c3ee1993096a454a0ac9195c842",
"text": "\"Different stocks balance dividend versus growth differently. Some have relatively flat value but pay a strong dividend -- utility stocks used to be examples of that model, and bonds are in some sense an extreme version of this. Some, especially startups, pay virtually no dividends and aim for growth in the value of the stock. And you can probably find a stock that hits any point between these. This is the \"\"growth versus income\"\" spectrum you may have heard mentioned. In the past, investors took more of their return on investment as dividends -- conceptually, a share of the company's net profits for the year reflecting the share's status as partial ownership. If you wanted to do so, you could use the dividend to purchase more shares (via a dividend reinvestment plan or not), but that was up to you. These days, with growth having been strongly hyped, many companies have shifted much more to the growth model and dividends are often relatively wimpy. Essentially, this assumes that everyone wants the money reinvested and will take their profit by having that increase the value of their shares. Of course that's partly because some percentage of stockholders have been demanding growth at all costs, not always realistically. To address your specific case: No, you probably aren't buying Microsoft because you like its dividend rate; you're buying it in the hope it continues to grow in stock value. But the dividend is a bit of additional return on your investment. And with other companies the tradeoff will be different. That's one of the things, along with how much you believe in the company, that would affect your decision when buying shares in specific companies. (Personally I mostly ignore the whole issue, since I'm in index funds rather than individual stocks. Picking the fund sets my overall preference in terms of growth versus income; after that it's their problem to maintain that balance.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e699a0816100fcf20f7554246ab75094",
"text": "Dividends are actually a very stable portion of equity returns, the Great recession and Great Depression notwithstanding: However, dividends, with lower variance have lower returns. Most of the return is due to the more variant price: So while dividends fell by 25% during the worst drop since the Great Depression, prices fell almost by 2/3. If one can accumulate enough wealth to live only off of dividend income, the price risk becomes much more manageable. This is the ideal circumstance for retirement.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "684ffa8fa0acf0bc94ef340c7b1a78f2",
"text": "I would say the most important thing to consider is the quality of the company relative to the price you pay for it. No dividend also means that you will not pay taxes on dividends.",
"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": "d08470519a094d8fb3320d5fb846ca67",
"text": "A stock dividend isn't exactly a split. Example: You have 100 shares of stock worth $5 a share (total value $500). The company wants to distribute a dividend worth 1%. You could expect a check for $5. But If they wanted to do a stock dividend they could send you 0.01 shares for every share you own, in your case you will be given a single share worth $5. Now you own 101 shares. Why a share dividend? It doesn't take cash to give the dividend. It keeps the money invested in the company. Some investors re-invest a cash dividend, some don't. A cash dividend is generally taxable income for the investor; a stock dividend isn't. Some investors prefer one over the other, but it depends on their specific financial picture. Neither a stock dividend, a cash dividend or split changes anything. The split changes the price to meet a goal. The cash dividend lowers the price by sending excess cash to the investors. The stock dividend lowers the price by creating new shares and retaining cash. It company picks the message and the method. depending on their goals and situation. Remember that a company may want to give a dividend because they have a history of doing so, but not have the cash to do so. It is like a split because the number of shares you own will go up, and the price per share will go down. But a split is generally done to bring the price of a share to within a specific range. The company sees a benefit to having a stock mid priced, instead of very high or very low.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7da8771edbf816b4663db5e5ab68588d",
"text": "Stock basically implies your ownership in the company. If you own 1% ownership in a company, the value of your stake becomes equal to 1% of the valuation of the entire company. Dividends are basically disbursal of company's profits to its shareholders. By holding stocks of a company, you become eligible to receiving dividends proportional to your ownership in the company. Dividends though are not guaranteed, as the company may incur losses or the management may decide to use the cash for future growth instead of disbursing it to the shareholders. For example, let's say a company called ABC Inc, is listed on NYSE and has a total of 1 million shares issued. Let's say if you purchase 100 stocks of ABC, your ownership in ABC will become Let's say that the share price at the time of purchase was $10 each. Total Investment = Stock Price * Number of Stocks Purchased = $10 * 100 = $1,000 Now, let's say that the company declares a dividend of $1 per share. Then, Dividend Yield = Dividend/Stock Price = $1/$10 = 10% If one has to draw analogy with other banking products, one can think of stock and dividend as Fixed Deposits (analogous to stock) and the interest earned on the Fixed Deposit (analogous to dividend).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "78ea91d0cc3ee5abf7671deaba281f57",
"text": "Used in our day to day activities is going out the house and get something more important that our family desires. But since the economy is not achieving a lot today, thinking about the top dividend stocks is essential. One component that ought to be looked at is the charge. If you're accustomed with buying what you see without even going through the package price, you must modify the way you live your life. Persistence is very necessary for you to be able to find the top dividend stocks. When possible, you should get a less costly alternative on the costly items you utilized to purchase. Be persistent and also save money!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5cf0c6ed1f95bedb09ad7b7b301a971d",
"text": "However, you have to remember that not all dividends are paid quarterly. For example one stock I recently purchased has a price of $8.03 and the Div/yield = 0.08/11.9 . $.08 * 4 = $0.32 which is only 3.9% (But this stock pays monthly dividends). $.08 * 12 = $0.96 which is 11.9 %. So over the course of a year assuming the stock price and the dividends didn't change you would make 11.9%",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c82725f2c339667dd6c65fc2bae50c3e",
"text": "I'm trying to think it out, but I feel like it would be hard to justify using potential profit sources as material for dividends. Especially your example of wine. Wouldn't it be counterintuitive to take a hit to sales, while still having the cost of production?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0ccdc6551bab3d553a85e58f297e935e",
"text": "A share is more than something that yields dividends, it is part ownership of the company and all of its assets. If the company were to be liquidated immediately the shareholders would get (a proportion of) the net value (assets - liabilities) of the company because they own it. If a firm is doing well then its assets are increasing (i.e. more cash assets from profits) therefore the value of the underlying company has risen and the intrinsic value of the shares has also increased. The price will not reflect the current value of the firms assets and liabilities because it will also include the net present value of expected future flows. Working out the expected future flows is a science on par with palmistry and reading chicken entrails so don't expect to work out why a company is trading at a price so much higher than current assets - liabilities (or so much lower in companies that are expected to fail). This speculation is in addition to price speculation that you mention in the question.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "429428efce592003925cbc4c5fe3f4cb",
"text": "You buy stocks for dividends over the long term. If a share of stock pays $1.00 in dividends every quarter, that's four dollars a year. If you bought it for $40, it pays out $4 in a year, and it's still worth roughly $40 at the end of the year, you're $4 richer. People will often invest large amounts of money in stable stocks not planning to sell it, but only collect the dividends which are either re-invested or pulled out as income.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "67bc3979d4e8d6e5a329e82b5f8ab282",
"text": "Join me for a look at the Quote for SPY. A yield of 1.82%. So over a year's time, your $100K investment will give you $1820 in dividends. The Top 10 holdings show that Apple is now 3% of the S&P. With a current dividend of 2.3%. Every stock in the S&P has its own different dividend. (Although the zeros are all the same. Not every stock has a dividend.) The aggregate gets you to the 1.82% current dividend. Dividends are accumulated and paid out quarterly, regardless of which months the individual stocks pay.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "835aea544af9ee19eb114bf793e8f425",
"text": "\"I keep spreadsheets that verify each $ distribution versus the rate times number of shares owned. For mutual funds, I would use Yahoo's historical data, but sometimes shows up late (a few days, a week?) and it isn't always quite accurate enough. A while back I discovered that MSN had excellent data when using their market price chart with dividends \"\"turned on,\"\" HOWEVER very recently they have revamped their site and the trusty URLs I have previously used no longer work AND after considerable browsing, I can no longer find this level of detail anywhere on their site !=( Happily, the note above led me to the Google business site, and it looks like I am \"\"back in business\"\"... THANKS!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0ae7681cfe1d319898337f727b749fc4",
"text": "Imagine you have a bank account with $100 in it. You are thinking about selling this bank account, so ask for some bids on what it's worth. You get quotes of around $100. You decide to sell it, but before you do, you take $50 out of it to have in cash. Would you expect the market to still pay $100 for the account? The dividend is effectively the cash being withdrawn. The stock had on account a large amount of cash (which was factored into it's share price), it moved that cash out of it's account (to its shareholders), and as a result the stock instantly becomes priced lower as this cash is no longer part of it, just as it is in the bank account example.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "51a19c3ec2b20ff8db1f6607bf091252",
"text": "I would say that the answer is yes. Investors may move on purchasing a stock as a result of news that a stock is set to pay out their dividend. It would be interesting to analyze the trend based on a company's dividend payouts over 10 or so years to see what/how this impacts the market value of a given company.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "88bad5cf03d3a2c8d04785fcf5589fec",
"text": "\"One way to value companies is to use a Dividend discount model. In substance, it consists in estimating future dividends and calculating their present value. So it is a methodology which considers that an equity is similar to a bond and estimates its current value based on future cash flows. A company may not be paying dividends now, but because its future earnings prospects are good may pay some in the future. In that case the DDM model will give a non-zero value to that stock. If on the other hand you think a company won't ever make any profits and therefore never pay any dividends, then it's probably worth 0! Take Microsoft as an example - it currently pays ~3% dividend per annum. The stock has been listed since 1986 and yet it did not pay any dividends until 2003. But the stock has been rising regularly since the beginning because people had \"\"priced in\"\" the fact that there was a high chance that the company would become very profitable - which proved true in the long term (+60,000% including dividends since the IPO!).\"",
"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": "ff50e7e67484be10ab8fad0cdd25241d",
"text": "I wouldn't focus too much on dividends itself; at the end of the day what matters is total gain, because you can convert capital gain into income by selling your assets (they have different tax implications, but generally capital gains tend to be more tax efficient). I think the more important question is how much volatility you can tolerate. Since your investment horizon is short & your risk tolerance is low (as in if you suddenly get much lower income than you planned from your investment you'll be in trouble), you probably want assets that have low volatility. To achieve that, I'd consider the following if I were you: tl;dr If I were you I'd just hold a general investment portfolio with a lower risk profile rather than focusing on dividend generating assets.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
be8de904b7f8a5245e6ae318ef9c4634
|
How does the U.S. wash sale replacement stock rule work?
|
[
{
"docid": "6e230288331beca696b9be76c1cb1340",
"text": "\"From Pub 550: More or less stock bought than sold. If the number of shares of substantially identical stock or securities you buy within 30 days before or after the sale is either more or less than the number of shares you sold, you must determine the particular shares to which the wash sale rules apply. You do this by matching the shares bought with an equal number of the shares sold. Match the shares bought in the same order that you bought them, beginning with the first shares bought. The shares or securities so matched are subject to the wash sale rules. You must match \"\"beginning with the first shares bought.\"\" If only activity 1 & 4 happened, you'd have bought and sold stock with no wash sale. If you remove activity 1 & 4 from consideration because they are a \"\"normal\"\" or non-wash sale transaction, then the Activity 2 or Activity 3 trigger a wash sale. The shares in lot 1 are sold for disallowed loss, so the disallowed basis would be added to shares in lot 2 because lot 2 was purchased before lot 3. (hat tip to user662852 who had much better wording) Second example: Activity 5, 7, and 8 all together would not be a wash sale. The addition of activity 6 creates a wash sale. The shares in Activity 5 are sold for a disallowed loss in Activity 7 & 8 because of the wash sale triggering purchase in Activity 6. Activity 6 is where you add the disallowed basis because they are the \"\"first shares bought\"\" that cause the wash sale rule to be triggered.\"",
"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": "36347183e3c2c8963ed56ec4fa8468dc",
"text": "If the share is listed on a stock exchange that creates liquidity and orderly sales with specialist market makers, such as the NYSE, there will always be a counterparty to trade with, though they will let the price rise or fall to meet other open interest. On other exchanges, or in closely held or private equity scenarios, this is not necessarily the case (NASDAQ has market maker firms that maintain the bid-ask spread and can do the same thing with their own inventory as the specialists, but are not required to by the brokerage rules as the NYSE brokers are). The NYSE has listing requirements of at least 1.1 million shares, so there will not be a case with only 100 shares on this exchange.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1e090411bf34d3e1a21c664640f3d881",
"text": "Graphs are nothing but a representation of data. Every time a trade is made, a point is plotted on the graph. After points are plotted, they are joined in order to represent the data in a graphical format. Think about it this way. 1.) Walmart shuts at 12 AM. 2.)Walmart is selling almonds at $10 a pound. 3.) Walmart says that the price is going to reduce to $9 effective tomorrow. 4.) You are inside the store buying almonds at 11:59 PM. 5.) Till you make your way up to the counter, it is already 12:01 AM, so the store is technically shut. 6.) However, they allow you to purchase the almonds since you were already in there. 7.) You purchase the almonds at $9 since the day has changed. 8.) So you have made a trade and it will reflect as a point on the graph. 9.) When those points are joined, the curves on the graph will be created. 10.) The data source is Walmart's system as it reflects the sale to you. ( In your case the NYSE exchange records this trade made). Buying a stock is just like buying almonds. There has to be a buyer. There has to be a seller. There has to be a price to which both agree. As soon as all these conditions are met, and the trade is made, it is reflected on the graph. The only difference between the graphs from 9 AM-4 PM, and 4 PM-9 AM is the time. The trade has happened regardless and NYSE(Or any other stock exchange) has recorded it! The graph is just made from that data. Cheers.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ed78f35d2db90200e5a3c241f8caba8d",
"text": "In addition to the adjustment type in NL7's answer, there are a host of others. If there are any adjustments, form 8949 is required, if not, the gains can be separated into short and long-term and added together to be entered on Schedule D. Anything requiring an adjustment code in column F of the 8949 requires an entry in column G. Some other example entries for column F include: (see the 8949 instructions for a complete list) **A wash sale occurs when you sell or trade stock or securities at a loss and within 30 days before or after the sale you: Buy substantially identical stock or securities, Acquire substantially identical stock or securities in a fully taxable trade, Acquire a contract or option to buy substantially identical stock or securities, or Acquire substantially identical stock for your individual retirement account (IRA) or Roth IRA. (from Pub17)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f1356e9e5e523c2d79e5036f86cc129c",
"text": "During a stock split the only thing that changes is the number of shares outstanding. Typically a stock splits to lower its price per share. Sometimes if a company's value is falling it will do a reverse split where X shares will be exchanged for Y shares. This is typically done to avoid being de-listed from an exchange if the price per share falls below a certain threshold, usually $1. Again the only thing changing is the number of shares outstanding. A 20 for 1 reverse split means for every 20 shares outstanding the shareholder will be granted one new share. Example X Co. has 1,000,000 shares outstanding for a price of $100 per share. It does a 1 for 10 split. Now there are 10,000,000 shares outstanding for a price of $10 per share. Example Y Co has 1,000,000 shares outstanding for a price of $1 per share. It does a 10 for 1 reverse split. Now there are 100,000 shares outstanding for a price of $10. Quickly looking at the news for ASTI it looks like it underwent a 20 for 1 reverse split. You should probably look at your statements and ask your broker how the arithmetic worked in your case. Investopedia links for Reverse Stock Split and Stock Split",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5aa3f904bf8a057a8e5e4f1f7d9de354",
"text": "There isn't a formula like that, there is only the greed of other market participants, and you can try to predict how greedy those participants will be. If someone decided to place a sell order of 100,000 shares at $5, then you can buy an additional 100,000 shares at $5. In reality, people can infer that they might be the only ones trying to sell 100,000 shares right then, and raise the price so that they make more money. They will raise their sell order to $5.01, $5.02 or as high as they want, until people stop trying to buy their shares. It is just a non-stop auction, just like on ebay.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5f2843f0727becf25573f503842927fc",
"text": "On expiry, with the underlying share price at $46, we have : You ask : How come they substract 600-100. Why ? Because you have sold the $45 call to open you position, you must now buy it back to close your position. This will cost you $100, so you are debited for $100 and this debit is being represented as a negative (subtracted); i.e., -$100 Because you have purchased the $40 call to open your position, you must now sell it to close your position. Upon selling this option you will receive $600, so you are credited with $600 and this credit is represented as a positive (added) ; i.e., +$600. Therefore, upon settlement, closing your position will get you $600-$100 = $500. This is the first point you are questioning. (However, you should also note that this is the value of the spread at settlement and it does not include the costs of opening the spread position, which are given as $200, so you net profit is $500-$200 = $300.) You then comment : I know I am selling 45 Call that means : As a writer: I want stock price to go down or stay at strike. As a buyer: I want stock price to go up. Here, note that for every penny that the underlying share price rises above $45, the money you will pay to buy back your short $45 call option will be offset by the money you will receive by selling the long $40 call option. Your $40 call option is covering the losses on your short $45 call option. No matter how high the underlying price settles above $45, you will receive the same $500 net credit on settlement. For example, if the underlying price settles at $50, then you will receive a credit of $1000 for selling your $40 call, but you will incur a debit of $500 against for buying back your short $45 call. The net being $500 = $1000-$500. This point is made in response to your comments posted under Dr. Jones answer.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "28f13758cf91f1e70e60d49db4f80a9b",
"text": "\"According to page 56 of the 2015 IRS Publication 550 on Investment Income and Expenses: Wash sales. Your holding period for substantially identical stock or securities you acquire in a wash sale includes the period you held the old stock or securities. It looks like the rule applies to stocks and other securities, including options. It seems like the key is \"\"substantially identical\"\". For your brokerage / trading platform to handle these periods correctly for reporting to IRS, it seems best to trade the same security instead of trying to use something substantially identical.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bf0540111a2051185227f72005547c32",
"text": "\"Generally if you are using FIFO (first in, first out) accounting, you will need to match the transactions based on the number of shares. In your example, at the beginning of day 6, you had two lots of shares, 100 @ 50 and 10 @ 52. On that day you sold 50 shares, and using FIFO, you sold 50 shares of the first lot. This leaves you with 50 @ 50 and 10 @ 52, and a taxable capital gain on the 50 shares you sold. Note that commissions incurred buying the shares increase your basis, and commissions incurred selling the shares decrease your proceeds. So if you spent $10 per trade, your basis on the 100 @ 50 lot was $5010, and the proceeds on your 50 @ 60 sale were $2990. In this example you sold half of the lot, so your basis for the sale was half of $5010 or $2505, so your capital gain is $2990 - 2505 = $485. The sales you describe are also \"\"wash sales\"\", in that you sold stock and bought back an equivalent stock within 30 days. Generally this is only relevant if one of the sales was at a loss but you will need to account for this in your code. You can look up the definition of wash sale, it starts to get complex. If you are writing code to handle this in any generic situation you will also have to handle stock splits, spin-offs, mergers, etc. which change the number of shares you own and their cost basis. I have implemented this myself and I have written about 25-30 custom routines, one for each kind of transaction that I've encountered. The structure of these deals is limited only by the imagination of investment bankers so I think it is impossible to write a single generic algorithm that handles them all, instead I have a framework that I update each quarter as new transactions occur.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cc5eee7dc69b5b6abe644a127fc97e84",
"text": "I think the simple answer to your question is: Yes, when you sell, that drives down the price. But it's not like you sell, and THEN the price goes down. The price goes down when you sell. You get the lower price. Others have discussed the mechanics of this, but I think the relevant point for your question is that when you offer shares for sale, buyers now have more choices of where to buy from. If without you, there were 10 people willing to sell for $100 and 10 people willing to buy for $100, then there will be 10 sales at $100. But if you now offer to sell, there are 11 people selling for $100 and 10 people buying for $100. The buyers have a choice, and for a seller to get them to pick him, he has to drop his price a little. In real life, the market is stable when one of those sellers drops his price enough that an 11th buyer decides that he now wants to buy at the lower price, or until one of the other 10 buyers decides that the price has gone too low and he's no longer interested in selling. If the next day you bought the stock back, you are now returning the market to where it was before you sold. Assuming that everything else in the market was unchanged, you would have to pay the same price to buy the stock back that you got when you sold it. Your net profit would be zero. Actually you'd have a loss because you'd have to pay the broker's commission on both transactions. Of course in real life the chances that everything else in the market is unchanged are very small. So if you're a typical small-fry kind of person like me, someone who might be buying and selling a few hundred or a few thousand dollars worth of a company that is worth hundreds of millions, other factors in the market will totally swamp the effect of your little transaction. So when you went to buy back the next day, you might find that the price had gone down, you can buy your shares back for less than you sold them, and pocket the difference. Or the price might have gone up and you take a loss.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e6c391040d0712fa20ce2a9e1f391565",
"text": "Yes. Wash rules are only for losses.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eea50bac643f16c661a5f92a666659a4",
"text": "The 'normal' series of events when trading a stock is to buy it, time passes, then you sell it. If you believe the stock will drop in price, you can reverse the order, selling shares, waiting for the price drop, then buying them back. During that time you own say, -100 shares, and are 'short' those shares.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "876b598f5ea78adf444348f7f7188616",
"text": "You have to wait for three (business) days. That's the time it takes for the settlement to complete and for the money to get to your account. If you don't wait - brokers will still allow you to buy a new stock, but may limit your ability to sell it until the previous sale is settled. Here's a FAQ from Schwab on the issue.",
"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": ""
},
{
"docid": "b21a35563393b33d1eaed4bd4598792a",
"text": "Is wash rule applicable for this? No - because you made a gain on the sale. You paid $13,500 for the stock and sold it for $14,250. The wash rule prevents you from claiming a loss if you buy the same stock again within 30 days. You have no loss to claim, so the rule does not apply.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "21f92446dfd048a11ba3713e97294bf3",
"text": "\"No, there are no issues. When you form the corp in DE, you pick a business there to serve as your \"\"agent\"\" (essentially someone who knows to get in contact with you). The \"\"agent\"\" will notify you about taxes and any mail you get, but besides the fee they charge you for being the agent, you should file all the taxes directly with DE (franchise tax is easy to file on the web) instead of going through the agent and paying a surcharge. When your LLC files taxes, you'll do so in DE and then the LLC will issue you a federal and state K1. You'll file taxes where you reside and use the federal K1, but I think you might have to file DE state taxes (unsure about this part, feel free to edit or comment and I'll correct).\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
7bb2a59b7dd522d21e8b57a066443c5b
|
Is there any benefit to investing in an index fund?
|
[
{
"docid": "81fd34136db8af0881a1428438fb5726",
"text": "\"Index funds may invest either in index components directly or in other instruments (like ETFs, index options, futures, etc.) which are highly correlated with the index. The specific fund prospectus or description on any decent financial site should contain these details. Index funds are not actively managed, but that does not mean they aren't managed at all - if index changes and the fund includes specific stock, they would adjust the fund content. Of course, the downside of it is that selling off large amounts of certain stock (on its low point, since it's being excluded presumably because of its decline) and buying large amount of different stock (on its raising point) may have certain costs, which would cause the fund lag behind the index. Usually the difference is not overly large, but it exists. Investing in the index contents directly involves more transactions - which the fund distributes between members, so it doesn't usually buy individually for each member but manages the portfolio in big chunks, which saves costs. Of course, the downside is that it can lag behind the index if it's volatile. Also, in order to buy specific shares, you will have to shell out for a number of whole share prices - which for a big index may be a substantial sum and won't allow you much flexibility (like \"\"I want to withdraw half of my investment in S&P 500\"\") since you can't usually own 1/10 of a share. With index funds, the entry price is usually quite low and increments in which you can add or withdraw funds are low too.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1e4aaf1697caa668813199234ae82966",
"text": "Why not figure out the % composition of the index and invest in the participating securities directly? This isn't really practical. Two indices I use follow the Russell 2000 and the S&P 500 Those two indices represent 2500 stocks. A $4 brokerage commission per trade would mean that it would cost me $10,000 in transaction fees to buy a position in 2500 stocks. Not to mention, I don't want to track 2500 investments. Index funds provide inexpensive diversity.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a7bb32703620e710b90e617d28968259",
"text": "Index funds are good for diversifying risk. For people who don't have a large sum of money to invest, holding all the different types of stocks in the index is both very expensive and not practical because you incur too many transaction costs. For an index funds, the main advantages are that costs are pooled, and investors can invest a smaller amount that they would if they bought all the different stocks individually. Naturally, if you wanted to figure out the percentage composition of the index and invest directly it would be possible, albeit tedious.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "74e5c4eb9edac1768960798a29a788c8",
"text": "\"Beatrice does a good job of summarizing things. Tracking the index yourself is expensive (transaction costs) and tedious (number of transactions, keeping up with the changes, etc.) One of the points of using an index fund is to reduce your workload. Diversification is another point, though that depends on the indexes that you decide to use. That said, even with a relatively narrow index you diversify in that segment of the market. A point I'd like to add is that the management which occurs for an index fund is not exactly \"\"active.\"\" The decisions on which stocks to select are already made by the maintainers of the index. Thus, the only management that has to occur involves the trades required to mimic the index.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7129104fb2ab770f186c5882f2e6074c",
"text": "\"when the index is altered to include new players/exclude old ones, the fund also adjusts The largest and (I would say) most important index funds are whole-market funds, like \"\"all-world-ex-US\"\", or VT \"\"Total World Stock\"\", or \"\"All Japan\"\". (And similarly for bonds, REITS, etc.) So companies don't leave or enter these indexes very often, and when they do (by an initial offering or bankruptcy) it is often at a pretty small value. Some older indices like the DJIA are a bit more arbitrary but these are generally not things that index funds would try to match. More narrow sector or country indices can have more of this effect, and I believe some investors have made a living from index arbitrage. However well run index funds don't need to just blindly play along with this. You need to remember that an index fund doesn't need to hold precisely every company in the index, they just need to sample such that they will perform very similarly to the index. The 500th-largest company in the S&P 500 is not likely to have all that much of an effect on the overall performance of the index, and it's likely to be fairly correlated to other companies in similar sectors, which are also covered by the index. So if there is a bit of churn around the bottom of the index, it doesn't necessarily mean the fund needs to be buying and selling on each transition. If I recall correctly it's been shown that holding about 250 stocks gives you a very good match with the entire US stock market.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "03a1aae9b4a1b33a37b3db492d41c044",
"text": "This is slightly opinion based. Is it appropriate to invest small amounts for short periods of time? At your age and the time period, I would say NO. This is because although the index fund do return 6-7% on average, there are several times it blips and goes negative as well. Stock Markets in short periods like 6 months can be unpredictable. At times a downturn will remain stagnant for periods of 2-3 years before suddenly zoom ahead. If you are not to particular about the time when you need the changes done; i.e. the changes can in worst case wait for few years; then yes investing in Index fund would make sense. Else you are well off keeping this in savings. Try CD's if they can offer better rates for such durations.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d0c0764029404e59244d50be1b159dad",
"text": "\"Here is my simplified take: In any given market portfolio the market index will return the average return on investment for the given market. An actively managed product may outperform the market (great!), achieve average market performance (ok - but then it is more expensive than the index product) or be worse than the market (bad). Now if we divide all market returns into two buckets: returns from active investment and returns from passive investments then these two buckets must be the same as index return are by definition the average returns. Which means that all active investments must return the average market return. This means for individual active investments there are worse than market returns and better then market returns - depending on your product. And since we can't anticipate the future and nobody would willingly take the \"\"worse than market\"\" investment product, the index fund comes always up on top - IF - you would like to avoid the \"\"gamble\"\" of underperforming the market. With all these basics out of the way: if you can replicate the index by simply buying your own stocks at low/no costs I don't see any reason for going with the index product beyond the convenience.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2b6cde81fdb549260eac7262ff180761",
"text": "The idea of an index is that it is representative of the market (or a specific market segment) as a whole, so it will move as the market does. Thus, past performance is not really relevant, unless you want to bank on relative differences between different countries' economies. But that's not the point. By far the most important aspect when choosing index funds is the ongoing cost, usually expressed as Total Expense Ratio (TER), which tells you how much of your investment will be eaten up by trading fees and to pay the funds' operating costs (and profits). This is where index funds beat traditional actively managed funds - it should be below 0.5% The next question is how buying and selling the funds works and what costs it incurs. Do you have to open a dedicated account or can you use a brokerage account at your bank? Is there an account management fee? Do you have to buy the funds at a markup (can you get a discount on it)? Are there flat trading fees? Is there a minimum investment? What lot sizes are possible? Can you set up a monthly payment plan? Can you automatically reinvest dividends/coupons? Then of course you have to decide which index, i.e. which market you want to buy into. My answer in the other question apparently didn't make it clear, but I was talking only about stock indices. You should generally stick to broad, established indices like the MSCI World, S&P 500, Euro Stoxx, or in Australia the All Ordinaries. Among those, it makes some sense to just choose your home country's main index, because that eliminates currency risk and is also often cheaper. Alternatively, you might want to use the opportunity to diversify internationally so that if your country's economy tanks, you won't lose your job and see your investment take a dive. Finally, you should of course choose a well-established, reputable issuer. But this isn't really a business for startups (neither shady nor disruptively consumer-friendly) anyway.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "16ce8dd5b2d51f386b279d94925ba8e0",
"text": "Stock portfolios have diversifiable risk and undiversifiable risk. The market rewards investors for taking undiversifiable risk (e.g. owning an index of oil producing companies) and does not reward investors for assuming diversifiable risk (e.g. owning a single oil producing company). The market will not provide investors with any extra return for owning a single oil company when they can buy an oil index fund at no additional cost. Similarly, the market will not reward you for owning a small-cap index fund when you can purchase a globally diversified / capitalization diversified index fund at no additional cost. This article provides a more detailed description. The Vanguard Total World Stock Index Fund is a much better staring point for an equity portfolio. You will need to make sure that the asset allocation of your overall portfolio (e.g. stocks, bonds, P2P lending, cash) is consistent with your time horizon (5-10 years).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7c1e38777f47d8af6a0319a751443f2a",
"text": "If you're worried about investing all at once, you can deploy your starting chunk of cash gradually by investing a bit of it each month, quarter, etc. (dollar-cost averaging). The financial merits and demerits of this have been debated, but it is unlikely to lose you a lot of money, and if it has the psychological benefit of inducing you to invest, it can be worth it even if it results in slightly less-than-optimal gains. More generally, you are right with what you say at the end of your question: in the long run, when you start won't matter, as long as you continue to invest regularly. The Boglehead-style index-fund-based theory is basically that, yes, you might save money by investing at certain times, but in practice it's almost impossible to know when those times are, so the better choice is to just keep investing no matter what. If you do this, you will eventually invest at high and low points, so the ups and downs will be moderated. Also, note that from this perspective, your example of investing in 2007 is incorrect. It's true that a person who put money in 2007, and then sat back and did nothing, would have barely broken even by now. But a person who started to invest in 2007, and continued to invest throughout the economic downturn, would in fact reap substantial rewards due to continued investing throughout the post-2007 lows. (Happily, I speak from experience on this point!)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0dbb3f8cfda404d02e3a98e694442773",
"text": "\"So many complicated answers for a straight forward question. First to this point \"\"I am failing to see why would a person get an IRA, instead of just putting the same amount of money into a mutual fund...\"\" An IRA can be invested in a mutual fund. The IRA benefit over standard mutual fund is pre-tax contribution lowering your current tax liability. The advantage of an IRA over a 401k is control. Your employer controls where the 401k is invested, you control where your IRA is invested. Often employers have a very small number of options, because this keeps their costs with the brokerage low. 401k is AMAZING if you have employer matched contributions. Use them to the maximum your employer will match. After that OWN your IRA. Control is key when it comes to your money. On IRA's. Buy ROTH first. Contribute the calendar maximum. Then get a traditional. The benefit of ROTH is that you already paid taxes on the contribution so your withdrawal is not taxed AND they do not tax the interest earned like they do on a standard mutual fund.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4d3ffd2c72c84f436a8e2fad96f98f66",
"text": "The companies which define the major indexes do not derive profit directly from the indexes. They are typically brokerages, which use the indexes as a tool for discussing investment options with their clients and as a publicity tool to remind the public that they are long-standing, respected firms whom we might want to consider working with. Can't mention the Dow without being reminded of Dow Jones, for example. Likewise the Standard & Poor's 500 reminds us that S&P is still going strong. There may also be some slight market manipulation opportunities in choosing which specific stocks are included in each index, but since investors rarely follow an index exactly as originally defined I'm not convinced that's significant. And the mix included in each index changes relatively rarely and has to be justified by what the index claims to be representing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bc8f593c174368c4c817cd8ea5e13e90",
"text": "Picking yourself is just what all the fund managers are trying to do, and history shows that the majority of them fails the majority of the time to beat the index fund. That is the core reason of the current run after index funds. What that means is that although it doesn’t sound so hard, it is not easy at all to beat an index consistently. Of course you can assume that you are better than all those high-paid specialists, but I would have some doubt. You might be luckier, but then you might be not.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8b90dc3f316e64f6d93f0fd4e355334d",
"text": "An index fund is inherently diversified across its index -- no one stock will either make or break the results. In that case it's a matter of picking the index(es) you want to put the money into. ETFs do permit smaller initial purchases, which would let you do a reasonable mix of sectors. (That seems to be the one advantage of ETFs over traditional funds...?)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7fbd96694deb9cdb0de005f541ce5f6e",
"text": "Index funds are well-known to give the best long-term investment. Are they? Maybe not all the time! If you had invested in an index fund tracking the S&P500 at the start of 2000 you would still be behind in terms of capital appreciation when taking inflation into considerations. Your only returns in 13.5 years would have been any dividends you may have received. See the monthly chart of the S&P500 below. Diversification can be good for your overall returns, but diversification simply for diversification sake is as you said, a way of reducing your overall returns in order of smoothing out your equity curve. After looking up indexes for various countries the only one that had made decent returns over a 13.5 year period was the Indian BSE 30 index, almost 400% over 13.5 years, although it also has gone nowhere since the end of 2007 (5.5 years). See monthly chart below. So investing internationally (especially in developing countries when developed nations are stagnating) can improve your returns, but I would learn about the various international markets first before plunging straight in. Regarding investing in an Index fund vs direct investment in a select group of shares, I did a search on the US markets with the following criteria on the 3rd January 2000: If the resulting top 10 from the search were bought on 3rd January 2000 and held up until the close of the market on the 19th June 2013, the results would be as per the table below: The result, almost 250% return in 13.5 years compared to almost no return if you had invested into the whole S&P 500 Index. Note, this table lists only the top ten from the search without screening through the charts, and no risk management was applied (if risk management was applied the 4 losses of 40%+ would have been limited to a maximum of 20%, but possibly much smaller losses or even for gains, as they might have gone into positive territory before coming back down - as I have not looked at any of the charts I cannot confirm this). This is one simple example how selecting good shares can result in much better returns than investing into a whole Index, as you are not pulled down by the bad stocks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e2a054405fb83d902a7776b9cb3ec8a2",
"text": "\"Diversification is the only real free lunch in finance (reduction in risk without any reduction in expected returns), so clearly every good answer to your question will be \"\"yes.\"\" Diversification is good.\"\" Let's talk about many details your question solicits. Many funds are already pretty diversified. If you buy a mutual fund, you are generally already getting a large portion of the gains from diversification. There is a very large difference between the unnecessary risk in your portfolio if you only hold a couple of stocks and if you hold a mutual fund. Should you be diversified across mutual funds as well? It depends on what your funds are. Many funds, such as target-date funds, are intended to be your sole investment. If you have funds covering every major asset class, then there may not be any additional benefit to buying other funds. You probably could not have picked your \"\"favorite fund\"\" early on. As humans, we have cognitive biases that make us think we knew things early on that we did not. I'm sure at some point at the very beginning you had a positive feeling toward that fund. Today you regret not acting on it and putting all your money there. But the number of such feelings is very large and if you acted on all those, you would do a lot of crazy and harmful things. You didn't know early on which fund would do well. You could just as well have had a good feeling about a fund that subsequently did much worse than your diversified portfolio did. The advice you have had about your portfolio probably isn't based on sound finance theory. You say you have always kept your investments in line with your age. This implies that you believe the guidelines given you by your broker or financial advisor are based in finance theory. Generally speaking, they are not. They are rules of thumb that seemed good to someone but are not rigorously proven either in theory or empirics. For example the notion that you should slowly shift your investments from speculative to conservative as you age is not based on sound finance theory. It just seems good to the people who give advice on such things. Nothing particularly wrong with it, I guess, but it's not remotely on par with the general concept of being well-diversified. The latter is extremely well established and verified, both in theory and in practice. Don't confuse the concept of diversification with the specific advice you have received from your advisor. A fund averaging very good returns is not an anomaly--at least going forward it will not be. There are many thousand funds and a large distribution in their historical performance. Just by random chance, some funds will have a truly outstanding track record. Perhaps the manager really was skilled. However, very careful empirical testing has shown the following: (1) You, me, and people whose profession it is to select outperforming mutual funds are unable to reliably detect which ones will outperform, except in hindsight (2) A fund that has outperformed, even over a long horizon, is not more likely to outperform in the future. No one is stopping you from putting all your money in that fund. Depending on its investment objective, you may even have decent diversification if you do so. However, please be aware that if you move your money based on historical outperformance, you will be acting on the same cognitive bias that makes gamblers believe they are on a \"\"hot streak\"\" and \"\"can't lose.\"\" They can, and so can you. ======== Edit to answer a more specific line of questions =========== One of your questions is whether it makes sense to buy a number of mutual funds as part of your diversification strategy. This is a slightly more subtle question and I will indicate where there is uncertainty in my answer. Diversifying across asset classes. Most of the gains from diversification are available in a single fund. There is a lot of idiosyncratic risk in one or two stocks and much less in a collection of hundreds of stocks, which is what any mutual fund will hold. Still,you will probably want at least a couple of funds in your portfolio. I will list them from most important to least and I will assume the bulk of your portfolio is in a total US equity fund (or S&P500-style fund) so that you are almost completely diversified already. Risky Bonds. These are corporate, municipal, sovereign debt, and long-term treasury debt funds. There is almost certainly a good deal to be gained by having a portion of your portfolio in bonds, and normally a total market fund will not include bond exposure. Bonds fund returns are closely related to interest rate and inflation changes. They are also exposed to some market risk but it's more efficient to get that from equity. The bond market is very large, so if you did market weights you would have more in bonds than in equity. Normally people do not do this, though. Instead you can get the exposure to interest rates by holding a lesser amount in longer-term bonds, rather than more in shorter-term bonds. I don't believe in shifting your weights toward nor away from this type of bond (as opposed to equity) as you age so if you are getting that advice, know that it is not well-founded in theory. Whatever your relative weight in risky bonds when you are young is should also be your weight when you are older. International. There are probably some gains from having some exposure to international markets, although these have decreased over time as economies have become more integrated. If we followed market weights, you would actually put half your equity weight in an international fund. Because international funds are taxed differently (gains are always taxed at the short-term capital gains rate) and because they have higher management fees, most people make only a small investment to international funds, if any at all. Emerging markets International funds often ignore emerging markets in order to maintain liquidity and low fees. You can get some exposure to these markets through emerging markets funds. However, the value of public equity in emerging markets is small when compared with that of developed markets, so according to finance theory, your investment in them should be small as well. That's a theoretical, not an empirical result. Emerging market funds charge high fees as well, so this one is kind of up to your taste. I can't say whether it will work out in the future. Real estate. You may want to get exposure to real estate by buying a real-estate fund (REIT). Though, if you own a house you are already exposed to the real estate market, perhaps more than you want to be. REITs often invest in commercial real estate, which is a little different from the residential market. Small Cap. Although total market funds invest in all capitalization levels, the market is so skewed toward large firms that many total market funds don't have any significant small cap exposure. It's common for individuals to hold a small cap fund to compensate for this, but it's not actually required by investment theory. In principle, the most diversified portfolio should be market-cap weighted, so small cap should have negligible weight in your portfolio. Many people hold small cap because historically it has outperformed large cap firms of equal risk, but this trend is uncertain. Many researchers feel that the small cap \"\"premium\"\" may have been a short-term artifact in the data. Given these facts and the fact that small-cap funds charge higher fees, it may make sense to pass on this asset class. Depends on your opinion and beliefs. Value (or Growth) Funds. Half the market can be classed as \"\"value\"\", while the other half is \"\"growth.\"\" Your total market fund should have equal representation in both so there is no diversification reason to buy a special value or growth fund. Historically, value funds have outperformed over long horizons and many researchers think this will continue, but it's not exactly mandated by the theory. If you choose to skew your portfolio by buying one of these, it should be a value fund. Sector funds. There is, in general, no diversification reason to buy funds that invest in a particular sector. If you are trying to hedge your income (like trying to avoid investing in the tech sector because you work in that sector) or your costs (buying energy because you buy use a disproportionate amount of energy) I could imagine you buying one of these funds. Risk-free bonds. Funds specializing in short-term treasuries or short-term high-quality bonds of other types are basically a substitute for a savings account, CD, money market fund, or other cash equivalent. Use as appropriate but there is little diversification here per se. In short, there is some value in diversifying across asset classes, and it is open to opinion how much you should do. Less well-justified is diversifying across managers within the same asset class. There's very little if any advantage to doing that.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "32f8621bb2dbd2b0f0f4b28ba3bab59a",
"text": "The only sensible reason to invest in individual stocks is if you have reason to think that they will perform better than the market as a whole. How are you to come to that conclusion other than by doing in-depth research into the stock and the company behind it? If you can't, or don't want to, reach that conclusion about particular stocks then you're better off putting your money into cheap index trackers.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "140b6fef7c8594dd3f234a710c425ab0",
"text": "\"YES.. Management fees cut directly into your profits. A fund which achieves 8% growth but costs 1% to maintain delivers only 7% to you. Compounded over years, even a relatively small difference can add up to a significant amount of money. This is one of the advantages index funds have. They may not be as \"\"sophisticated\"\" as human-managed funds, but their expense ratio is so much lower that the end result for the investor is often as good as or better than the more expensive products. In fact, at least one study found that, for each category they researched, low expense ratio was a better predictor of good return on investment than anything else they looked at. That doesn't mean cheapest is always best or most expensive is always worst .... but it does mean you should be very, very sure an expensive fund really is that much better before choosing it. And sticking with simple index funds may be a perfectly reasonable choice.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "78edcf3c84f09c26a42e0c97f2ab44b3",
"text": "Index Funds & ETFs, if they are tracking the same index, will be the same in an ideal world. The difference would be because of the following factors: Expense ratio: i.e. the expense the funds charge. This varies and hence it would lead to a difference in performance. Tracking error: this means that there is a small percentage of error between the actual index composition and the fund composition. This is due to various reasons. Effectively this would result in the difference between values. Demand / Supply: with ETFs, the fund is traded on stock exchanges like a stock. If the general feeling is that the index is rising, it could lead to an increase in the price of the ETF. Index funds on the other hand would remain the same for the day and are less liquid. This results in a price increase / decrease depending on the market. The above explains the reason for the difference. Regarding which one to buy, one would need to consider other factors like: a) How easy is it to buy ETFs? Do you already hold Demat A/C & access to brokers to help you conduct the transaction or do you need to open an additional account at some cost. b) Normally funds do not need any account, but are you OK with less liquidity as it would take more time to redeem funds.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9c1f1e8e2449c5553a47f4f5373a243e",
"text": "S-Corp income is passed through to owners and is taxed on their 1040 as ordinary income. If you take a wage (pay FICA) and then take additional distributions these are not subject to FICA. A lot of business owners will buy up supplies/ necessary expenses right before the end of the tax year to lower their tax liability.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
ea640d578e966ed36ce8b472509e48bf
|
How does a company select a particular price for its shares?
|
[
{
"docid": "9692b2413db6b0adda9a83275dc5c41d",
"text": "\"First, keep in mind that there are generally 2 ways to buy a corporation's shares: You can buy a share directly from the corporation. This does not happen often; it usually happens at the Initial Public Offering [the first time the company becomes \"\"public\"\" where anyone with access to the stock exchange can become a part-owner], plus maybe a few more times during the corporations existence. In this case, the corporation is offering new ownership in exchange for a price set the corporation (or a broker hired by the corporation). The price used for a public offering is the highest amount that the company believes it can get - this is a very complicated field, and involves many different methods of evaluating what the company should be worth. If the company sets the price too low, then they have missed out on possible value which would be earned by the previous, private shareholders (they would have gotten the same share % of a corporation which would now have more cash to spend, because of increased money paid by new shareholders). If the company sets the price too high, then the share subscription might only be partially filled, so there might not be enough cash to do what the company wanted. You can buy a share from another shareholder. This is more common - when you see the company's share price on the stock exchange, it is this type of transaction - buying out other current shareholders. The price here is simply set based on what current owners are willing to sell at. The \"\"Bid Price\"\" listed by an exchange is the current highest bid that a purchaser is offering for a single share. The \"\"Ask Price\"\" is the current lowest offer that a seller is offering to sell a single share they currently own. When the bid price = the ask price, a share transaction happens, and the most recent stock price changes.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dd66ed1d90d3a1b1ed76cbf6bd7a73e4",
"text": "\"In the case of an \"\"initial public offering\"\", the brokers underwriting the share issue will look at the current earnings being generated by the company and compare these to those of other competitor companies already listed in the stock market. For example, if a new telephone company is undertaking an initial public offering, then the share price of those telephone companies which are already traded on the stock market will serve as a reference for how much investors will be willing to pay for the new company's shares. If investors are willing to pay 15 times earnings for telecom shares, then this will be the benchmark used in determining the new share price. In addition, comparative growth prospects will be taken into account. Finally, the underwriter will want to see a successful sale, so they will tend to \"\"slightly under price\"\" the new shares in order to make them attractive. None of this is an exact science and we often see shares trading at a large premium to the initial offer price during the first few days of trading. More often that not, prices then settle down to something closer to the offer price. The initial price spike is usually the result of high demand for the shares by investors who believe that past examples of a price spike will repeat with this initial public offering. There will also usually be high demand for the new shares from funds that specialise in shares of the type being issued. In the case of a \"\"rights issue\"\", where an existing publicly traded company wishes to raise capital by issuing new shares, the company will price the new shares at a significant discount to the current market price. The new shares will be initially offered to existing shares holders and the discounted price is intended to encourage the existing shareholders to exercise their \"\"rights\"\" since the new shares may have the effect of diluting the value of their shares. Any shares which are not purchased by existing share holder will then be offered for sale in the market.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "e185bd487ce466eea430fe6c6c67a618",
"text": "If a deal is struck, you're part of that deal because you own shares. If someone offers $10/share for the entire company, you'll get that. If the stock price is $1.50 and someone offers $2/share, you'll get that.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1920b12c965b6e8b83ad3c79708f019b",
"text": "Companies pay their employees in stocks and stock options, so they have an incentive towards increasing a company's share price. There are many elements that go into a stock's price. For example, if you hold a stock for eternity you should be indifferent if the expected present value of all its future dividends (i.e. earnings) equals the price you paid for it. Also, buy-back policies and voting rights determine stock price as well. The theory is that since shareholders want return on their investments they would promote company executives in such a way that their incentives are aligned to increase the share price.",
"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": "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": "336984e37cb89b35c1815137305e8800",
"text": "Prices can go up or down for a variety of reasons. If interest rates decline typically every stock goes up, and vice versa. Ultimately, there are two main value-related factors to a price of a stock: the dividends the company may issue or the payoff in the event the company is bought by someone else. Any dividend paid will give concrete value to a stock. For example, imagine a company has shares selling at $1.00 and they announce that they will pay a dividend at the end of the year of $1.00 per share. If their claim is believable then the stock is practically FREE at $1.00 a share, so in all likelihood the stock will go up a lot, just on the basis of the dividend alone. If a company is bought by another, they need to buy at least a majority of the shares, and in some cases all the shares. Since the price the buyer will be willing to pay for the company is related to its potential future income for the buyer, the more profitable the company is, the more a buyer will be willing to pay and hence the greater the value of the stock.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "94ca522ac3e692fc40a81e334445cace",
"text": "\"Many companies (particularly tech companies like Atlassian) grant their employees \"\"share options\"\" as part of their compensation. A share option is the right to buy a share in the company at a \"\"strike price\"\" specified when the option is granted. Typically these \"\"vest\"\" after 1-4 years so long as the employee stays with the company. Once they do vest, the employee can exercise them by paying the strike price - typically they'd do that if the shares are now more valuable. The amount they pay to exercise the option goes to the company and will show up in the $2.3 million quoted in the question.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "651f0068eeb897a2615880fe252207ee",
"text": "\"In an IPO (initial public offering) or APO (additional public offering) situation, a small group of stakeholders (as few as one) basically decide to offer an additional number of \"\"shares\"\" of equity in the company. Usually, these \"\"shares\"\" are all equal; if you own one share you own a percentage of the company equal to that of anyone else who owns one share. The sum total of all shares, theoretically, equals the entire value of the company, and so with N shares in existence, one share is equivalent to 1/Nth the company, and entitles you to 1/Nth of the profits of the company, and more importantly to some, gives you a vote in company matters which carries a weight of 1/Nth of the entire shareholder body. Now, not all of these shares are public. Most companies have the majority (51%+) of shares owned by a small number of \"\"controlling interests\"\". These entities, usually founding owners or their families, may be prohibited by agreement from selling their shares on the open market (other controlling interests have right of first refusal). For \"\"private\"\" companies, ALL the shares are divided this way. For \"\"public\"\" companies, the remainder is available on the open market, and those shares can be bought and sold without involvement by the company. Buyers can't buy more shares than are available on the entire market. Now, when a company wants to make more money, a high share price at the time of the issue is always good, for two reasons. First, the company only makes money on the initial sale of a share of stock; once it's in a third party's hands, any profit from further sale of the stock goes to the seller, not the company. So, it does little good to the company for its share price to soar a month after its issue; the company's already made its money from selling the stock. If the company knew that its shares would be in higher demand in a month, it should have waited, because it could have raised the same amount of money by selling fewer shares. Second, the price of a stock is based on its demand in the market, and a key component of that is scarcity; the fewer shares of a company that are available, the more they'll cost. When a company issues more stock, there's more shares available, so people can get all they want and the demand drops, taking the share price with it. When there's more shares, each share (being a smaller percentage of the company) earns less in dividends as well, which figures into several key metrics for determining whether to buy or sell stock, like earnings per share and price/earnings ratio. Now, you also asked about \"\"dilution\"\". That's pretty straightforward. By adding more shares of stock to the overall pool, you increase that denominator; each share becomes a smaller percentage of the company. The \"\"privately-held\"\" stocks are reduced in the same way. The problem with simply adding stocks to the open market, getting their initial purchase price, is that a larger overall percentage of the company is now on the open market, meaning the \"\"controlling interests\"\" have less control of their company. If at any time the majority of shares are not owned by the controlling interests, then even if they all agree to vote a certain way (for instance, whether or not to merge assets with another company) another entity could buy all the public shares (or convince all existing public shareholders of their point of view) and overrule them. There are various ways to avoid this. The most common is to issue multiple types of stock. Typically, \"\"common\"\" stock carries equal voting rights and equal shares of profits. \"\"Preferred stock\"\" typically trades a higher share of earnings for no voting rights. A company may therefore keep all the \"\"common\"\" stock in private hands and offer only preferred stock on the market. There are other ways to \"\"class\"\" stocks, most of which have a similar tradeoff between earnings percentage and voting percentage (typically by balancing these two you normalize the price of stocks; if one stock had better dividends and more voting weight than another, the other stock would be near-worthless), but companies may create and issue \"\"superstock\"\" to controlling interests to guarantee both profits and control. You'll never see a \"\"superstock\"\" on the open market; where they exist, they are very closely held. But, if a company issues \"\"superstock\"\", the market will see that and the price of their publicly-available \"\"common stock\"\" will depreciate sharply. Another common way to increase market cap without diluting shares is simply to create more shares than you issue publicly; the remainder goes to the current controlling interests. When Facebook solicited outside investment (before it went public), that's basically what happened; the original founders were issued additional shares to maintain controlling interests (though not as significant), balancing the issue of new shares to the investors. The \"\"ideal\"\" form of this is a \"\"stock split\"\"; the company simply multiplies the number of shares it has outstanding by X, and issues X-1 additional shares to each current holder of one share. This effectively divides the price of one share by X, lowering the barrier to purchase a share and thus hopefully driving up demand for the shares overall by making it easier for the average Joe Investor to get their foot in the door. However, issuing shares to controlling interests increases the total number of shares available, decreasing the market value of public shares that much more and reducing the amount of money the company can make from the stock offering.\"",
"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": "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": "c8d38e25fd85004355db844fe32dfaf9",
"text": "\"Well, they don't have to enter a market order. I was just saying that for your benefit. In practice what will really happen is they'll say to themselves \"\"I want ABC for no more than 70.00\"\" The current bid is at 69.60 They'll use a limit order on 10,000 shares. If anyone offers them more than 70.00 the computer program they're using will not accept. However, the shares won't be bought all at once. A limit order for 10,000 shares will be spit into 1,000 shares at 69.70 and 10,000 for 69.65 The HFT can then make a reasonable guess someone is buying in bulk. So then the HFT sends out a sell order saying \"\"10 shares at 70.10\"\". The guy doesn't want that so they do it over again at 70.09 Eventually they notice when the guy accepts at 70.00 So now they knew this guy is willing to pay that. Then HFT buys all the shares they can. ALL SHARES, not just the amount the guy wants. They buy it all at 69.95, which is higher than the 69.70 the guy just paid or whatever. They then sell it all back to the guy at 70.00 The guy has no choice because all the shares are now gone. He has to pay his highest price. Once the guy gets his order the HFT just dumps the rest of the shares back at the price they bought them at. edit: Another way to pull this off is to just literally build your own exchange. Then you can do all of this without any clever tricks. You can just outright give yourself preference over everyone else because you can truly decide what order the trades are being executed.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "67678b24e00d599afb2ad4f0fb52c905",
"text": "\"First, note that a share represents a % of ownership of a company. In addition to the right to vote in the management of the company [by voting on the board of directors, who hires the CEO, who hires the VPs, etc...], this gives you the right to all future value of the company after paying off expenses and debts. You will receive this money in two forms: dividends approved by the board of directors, and the final liquidation value if the company closes shop. There are many ways to attempt to determine the value of a company, but the basic theory is that the company is worth a cashflow stream equal to all future dividends + the liquidation value. So, the market's \"\"goal\"\" is to attempt to determine what that future cash flow stream is, and what the risk related to it is. Depending on who you talk to, a typical stock market has some degree of 'market efficiency'. Market efficiency is basically a comment about how quickly the market reacts to news. In a regulated marketplace with a high degree of information available, market efficiency should be quite high. This basically means that stock markets in developed countries have enough traders and enough news reporting that as soon as something public is known about a company, there are many, many people who take that information and attempt to predict the impact on future earnings of the company. For example, if Starbucks announces earnings that were 10% less than estimated previously, the market will quickly respond with people buying Starbucks shares lowering their price on the assumption that the total value of the Starbucks company has decreased. Most of this trading analysis is done by institutional investors. It isn't simply office workers selling shares on their break in the coffee room, it's mostly people in the finance industry who specialize in various areas for their firms, and work to quickly react to news like this. Is the market perfectly efficient? No. The psychology of trading [ie: people panicking, or reacting based on emotion instead of logic], as well as any inadequacy of information, means that not all news is perfectly acted upon immediately. However, my personal opinion is that for large markets, the market is roughly efficient enough that you can assume that you won't be able to read the newspaper and analyze stock news in a way better than the institutional investors. If a market is generally efficient, then it would be very difficult for a group of people to manipulate it, because someone else would quickly take advantage of that. For example, you suggest that some people might collectively 'short AMZN' [a company worth half a trillion dollars, so your nefarious group would need to have $5 Billion of capital just to trade 1% of the company]. If someone did that, the rest of the market would happily buy up AMZN at reduced prices, and the people who shorted it would be left holding the bag. However, when you deal with smaller items, some more likely market manipulation can occur. For example, when trading penny stocks, there are people who attempt to manipulate the stock price and then make a profitable trade afterwards. This takes advantage of the low amount of information available for tiny companies, as well as the limited number of institutional investors who pay attention to them. Effectively it attempts to manipulate people who are not very sophisticated. So, some manipulation can occur in markets with limited information, but for the most part prices are determined by the 'market consensus' on what the future profits of a company will be. Additional example of what a share really is: Imagine your neighbor has a treasure chest on his driveway: He gathers the neighborhood together, and asks if anyone wants to buy a % of the value he will get from opening the treasure chest. Perhaps it's a glass treasure chest, and you can mostly see inside it. You see that it is mostly gold and silver, and you weigh the chest and can see that it's about 100 lbs all together. So in your head, you take the price of gold and silver, and estimate how much gold is in the chest, and how much silver is there. You estimate that the chest has roughly $1,000,000 of value inside. So, you offer to buy 10% of the chest, for $90k [you don't want to pay exactly 10% of the value of the company, because you aren't completely sure of the value; you are taking on some risk, so you want to be compensated for that risk]. Now assume all your neighbors value the chest themselves, and they come up with the same approximate value as you. So your neighbor hands out little certificates to 10 of you, and they each say \"\"this person has a right to 10% of the value of the treasure chest\"\". He then calls for a vote from all the new 'shareholders', and asks if you want to get the money back as soon as he sells the chest, or if you want him to buy a ship and try and find more chests. It seems you're all impatient, because you all vote to fully pay out the money as soon as he has it. So your neighbor collects his $900k [$90k for each 10% share, * 10], and heads to the goldsmith to sell the chest. But before he gets there, a news report comes out that the price of gold has gone up. Because you own a share of something based on the price of gold, you know that your 10% treasure chest investment has increased in value. You now believe that your 10% is worth $105k. You put a flyer up around the neighborhood, saying you will sell your share for $105k. Because other flyers are going up to sell for about $103-$106k, it seems your valuation was mostly consistent with the market. Eventually someone driving by sees your flyer, and offers you $104k for your shares. You agree, because you want the cash now and don't want to wait for the treasure chest to be sold. Now, when the treasure chest gets sold to the goldsmith, assume it sells for $1,060,000 [turns out you underestimated the value of the company]. The person who bought your 10% share will get $106k [he gained $2k]. Your neighbor who found the chest got $900k [because he sold the shares earlier, when the value of the chest was less clear], and you got $104k, which for you was a gain of $14k above what you paid for it. This is basically what happens with shares. Buy owning a portion of the company, you have a right to get a dividend of future earnings. But, it could take a long time for you to get those earnings, and they might not be exactly what you expect. So some people do buy and sell shares to try and earn money, but the reason they are able to do that is because the shares are inherently worth something - they are worth a small % of the company and its earnings.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "16ee6a0072309fede7b941a7feb66c44",
"text": "how does the trading company know which one I want to sell? It doesn't need to know. You just sell one. From taxation point of view depending on the country / tax jurisdiction, it can be only be FIFO or specific stock.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "424b8db0ca2d65a2f3c4d72547fa7115",
"text": "? Share price reflects the residual value of the company to the shareholders and therefore the value they assume it can create for its customers. Now, if you have a better understanding of that value than the millions of investors that own and trade its share, that's a different story.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d8b1c36e5d1791682dd0255c1fe4c7d4",
"text": "I don't know why stocks in some industries tend to have lower prices per share than others. It doesn't really matter much. Whether a company has 1,000,0000 shares selling for $100 each, or 10,000,000 shares selling for $10 each, either way the total value is the same. Companies generally like to keep the share price relatively low so that if someone wants to buy a small amount, they can. Like if the price was $10,000 per share, than an investor with less than $10,000 to put in that one stock would be priced out of the market. If it's $10, then if someone wants $10 they can buy one share, and if someone wants $10,000 they can buy 1000 shares. As to why energy stocks are volatile, I can think of several reasons. One, in our current world, energy is highly susceptible to politics. A lot of the world's energy comes from the Middle East, which is a notoriously unstable region. Any time there's conflict there, energy supplies from the region become uncertain. Oil-producing countries may embargo countries that they don't like. A war will, at the very least, interfere with transportation and shipping, and may result in oil wells being destroyed. Etc. Two, energy is consumed when you use it, and most consumers have very limited ability to stockpile. So you're constantly buying the energy you need as you need it. So if demand goes down, it is reflected immediately. Compare this to, say, clothing. Most people expect to keep the same clothes for years, wearing them repeatedly. (Hopefully washing them now and then!) So if for some reason you decided today that you only need three red shirts instead of four, this might not have any immediate impact on your buying. It could be months before you would have bought a new red shirt anyway. There is a tendency for the market to react rather slowly to changes in demand for shirts. But with energy, if you decide you only need to burn 3 gallons of gas per week instead of 4, your consumption goes down immediately, within days. Three, really adding to number two, energy is highly perishable, especially some forms of energy. If a solar power station is capable of producing 10 megawatts but today there is only demand for 9 megawatts, you can't save the unused megawatt for some future time when demand is higher. It's gone. (You can charge a battery with it, but that's pretty limited.) You can pile up coal or store natural gas in a tank until you need it, but you can't save the output of a power plant. Note numbers two and three also apply to food, which is why food production is also very volatile.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b599fa547d14e731b3f8685f44242823",
"text": "of course the value will be non zero however it would be very small, as all the countries would not leave at once... if its a piig holding the bag it would fall precipitously, if its a AAA (non france) it would go to 1.5 Its very path dependent on whom leaves when",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
c7a5c49cf42c1d5d58e0946c09f7264e
|
What does it mean if a company pays a quarterly dividend? How much would I get quarterly?
|
[
{
"docid": "70d32f3db9a82272eb3e45a684f27220",
"text": "\"Google is a poor example since it doesn't pay a dividend (and doesn't expect to), so let's use another example with easy numbers. Company X has a stock price of $100, and it pays a quarterly dividend (many companies do). Let's assume X pays a dividend of $4. Dividends are always quoted in annual terms, as is dividend yield. When a company says that they pay \"\"quarterly dividends,\"\" it means that the company pays dividends every quarter, or every 3 months. BUT, if a company has a $4 dividend, you will not receive $4 every quarter per share. You will receive $4/4 = $1 per share, every quarter. So over the course of a fiscal year, or 4 quarters, you'll get $1 + $1 + $1 + $1 = $4 per share, which is the annual dividend. The dividend yield = annual dividend/stock price. So in this case, company X's div. yield will be $4/$100 * 100 = 4%. It's important to note that this is the annual yield. To get the quarterly yield, you must divide by 4. It's also important to note that the yield fluctuates based on stock price, but the dividend payment stays constant unless the company states an announcement. For a real world example, consider Intel Corp. (TICKER: INTC) http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=INTC The share price is currently $22.05, and the dividend is $0.84. This makes the annual yield = $0.84/$22.05 * 100 = 3.80%. Intel pays a quarterly dividend, so you can expect to receive $0.21 every quarter for every share of Intel that you own. Hope that clears it up!\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "6c9b901dcb208842722dfa2933ce510e",
"text": "Stocks aren't just paper -- they're ownership of a company. Getting cash from a stock that doesn't pay dividends basically means reducing your stake in the company. If the stock pays dividends, on the other hand, you still have the same shares, but now you have cash too. You can choose to buy more of the company...or, more importantly, to use it elsewhere if that's what you want to do.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "420682ca10f90e896ec85db9f666cf3a",
"text": "Not quite. The EPS is noted as ttm, which means trailing twelve months --- so the earnings are taken from known values over the previous year. The number you quote as the dividend is actually the Forward Annual Dividend Rate, which is an estimate of the future year's dividends. This means that PFE is paying out more in the coming year (per share) than it made in the previous year (per share).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8251000cc2c3e8b95abfb04205e6fcc7",
"text": "\"The answer is Discounted Cash Flows. Companies that don't pay dividends are, ostensibly reinvesting their cash at returns higher than shareholders could obtain elsewhere. They are reinvesting in productive capacity with the aim of using this greater productive capacity to generate even more cash in the future. This isn't just true for companies, but for almost any cash-generating project. With a project you can purchase some type of productive assets, you may perform some kind of transformation on the good (or not), with the intent of selling a product, service, or in fact the productive mechanism you have built, this productive mechanism is typically called a \"\"company\"\". What is the value of such a productive mechanism? Yes, it's capacity to continue producing cash into the future. Under literally any scenario, discounted cash flow is how cash flows at distinct intervals are valued. A company that does not pay dividends now is capable of paying them in the future. Berkshire Hathaway does not pay a dividend currently, but it's cash flows have been reinvested over the years such that it's current cash paying capacity has multiplied many thousands of times over the decades. This is why companies that have never paid dividends trade at higher prices. Microsoft did not pay dividends for many years because the cash was better used developing the company to pay cash flows to investors in later years. A companies value is the sum of it's risk adjusted cash flows in the future, even when it has never paid shareholders a dime. If you had a piece of paper that obligated an entity (such as the government) to absolutely pay you $1,000 20 years from now, this $1,000 cash flows present value could be estimated using Discounted Cash Flow. It might be around $400, for example. But let's say you want to trade this promise to pay before the 20 years is up. Would it be worth anything? Of course it would. It would in fact typically go up in value (barring heavy inflation) until it was worth very close to $1,000 moments before it's value is redeemed. Imagine that this \"\"promise to pay\"\" is much like a non-dividend paying stock. Throughout its life it has never paid anyone anything, but over the years it's value goes up. It is because the discounted cash flow of the $1,000 payout can be estimated at almost anytime prior to it's payout.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0d3fa3c1fb4a2e3d18fc2865cf5ec1a9",
"text": "The same as you would for an individual stock. A stock starts the year at $100, and has $4 in dividends over the year, why would the fact the the stock ends the year at say $90, confuse you? You pay tax on the dividend at the favored rate, if held in a taxable account, obviously, and that's about it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4e18de0fd8f9319a9c913d4939e763d4",
"text": "\"It's actually the other way around. Distributions in an LLC are usually based on each member's equity share, although the operating agreement can specify how often such distributions are made. Shareholders in a corporation can receive dividends, but those are determined by the corporation's board and can vary depending on the class of stock each shareholder owns. Preferred-class shareholders, who may hold a smaller overall fraction of the company's outstanding shares than the common stock shareholders, may receive disproportionately larger dividends per share than common stock shareholders, which is one of the (many) reasons that preferred stock is a better choice when it is available. Take, for instance, what Berkshire Class \"\"A\"\" shareholders receive in dividends per year compared to Class \"\"B\"\" shareholders. Here's a good link from LegalZoom that can explain what you're asking about: Explanation of LLC distributions I hope this helps. Good luck!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "67bc3979d4e8d6e5a329e82b5f8ab282",
"text": "Join me for a look at the Quote for SPY. A yield of 1.82%. So over a year's time, your $100K investment will give you $1820 in dividends. The Top 10 holdings show that Apple is now 3% of the S&P. With a current dividend of 2.3%. Every stock in the S&P has its own different dividend. (Although the zeros are all the same. Not every stock has a dividend.) The aggregate gets you to the 1.82% current dividend. Dividends are accumulated and paid out quarterly, regardless of which months the individual stocks pay.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d682ec08327aec0e660ebd6bf5b50850",
"text": "\"I agree with all the people cautioning against working for free, but I'll also have a go at answering the question: When do I see money related to that 5%? Is it only when they get bought, or is there some sort of quarterly payout of profits? It's up to the shareholders of the company whether and when it pays dividends. A new startup will typically have a small number of people, perhaps 1-3, who between them control any shareholder vote (the founder(s) and an investor). If they're offering you 5%, chances are they've made sure your vote will not matter, but some companies (an equity partnership springs to mind) might be structured such that control is genuinely distributed. You would want to check what the particular situation is in this company. Assuming the founders/main investors have control, those people (or that person) will decide whether to pay dividends, so you can ask them their plans to realise money from the company. It is very rare for startups to pay any dividends. This is firstly because they're rarely profitable, but even when they are profitable the whole point of a startup is to grow, so there are plenty of things to spend cash on other than payouts to shareholders. Paying anything out to shareholders is the opposite of receiving investment. So unless you're in the very unusual position of a startup that will quickly make so much money that it doesn't need investment, and is planning to pay out to shareholders rather than spend on growth, then no, it will not pay out. One way for a shareholder to exit is to be bought out by other shareholders. For example if they want to get rid of you then they might make you an offer for your 5%. This can be any amount they think you'll take, given the situation at the time. If you don't take it, there may be things they can do in future to reduce its value to you (see below). If you do take it then your 5% would pay you once, when you leave. If the company succeeds, commonly it will be wholly or partly sold (either privately or by IPO). At this point, if it's wholly sold then the soon-to-be-ex-shareholders at the time will receive the proceeds of the sale. If it's partly sold then as with an investment round it's up for negotiation what happens. For example I believe the cash from an IPO of X% of the company could be taken into the company, leaving the shareholders with no immediate direct payout but (100-X)% of shares in their names that they're more-or-less free to sell, or retain and receive future dividends. Alternatively, if the company settles down as a small private business that's no longer in startup mode, it might start paying out without a sale. If the company fails, as most startups do, it will never pay anything. It's very important to remember that it's the shareholders at the time who receive money in proportion to their holding (or as defined by the company articles, if there are different classes of share). Just because you have 5% now doesn't mean you'll have 5% by that time, because any new investment into the company in the mean time will \"\"dilute\"\" your shareholding. It works like this: Note that I've assumed for simplicity that the new investment comes in at equal value to the old investment. This isn't necessarily the case, it can be more or less according to the terms of the new investment voted for by the shareholders, so the first line really is \"\"nominal value\"\", not necessarily the actual cash the founders put in. Therefore, you should not think of your 5% as 5% of what you imagine a company like yours might eventually exit for. At best, think of it as 5% of what a company like yours might exit for, if it receives no further investment whatsoever. Ah, but won't the founders also have their holdings diluted and lose control of the company, so they wouldn't do that? Well, not necessarily. Look carefully at whether you're being offered the same class of shares as the founders. If not consider whether they can dilute your shares without diluting their own. Look also at whether a new investor could use the founders' executive positions to give them new equity in the same way they gave you old equity, without giving you any new equity. Look at whether the founders will themselves participate in future investment rounds using sacks of cash that they own from other ventures, when you can't afford to keep up. Look at whether new investors will receive a priority class of share that's guaranteed at exit to pay out a certain multiple of the money invested before the older, inferior classes of shares receive anything (VCs like to do this, at least in the UK). Look at any other tricks they can legally pull: even if the founders aren't inclined to be tricky, they may eventually be forced to consider pulling them by a future new investor. And when I say \"\"look\"\", I mean get your lawyer to look. If your shareholding survives until exit, then it will pay out at exit. But repeated dilutions and investors with priority classes of shares could mean that your holding doesn't survive to exit even if the company does. Your 5% could turn into a nominal holding that hasn't really \"\"survived\"\", that entitles you to 0.5% of any sale value over $100 million. Then if the company sells for $50 million you get $0, while other investors are getting a good return. All of this is why you should not work for equity unless you can afford to work for free. And even then you need to lawyer up, now and during any future investment, so your lawyer can explain to you what your investment actually is, which almost certainly is different from what it looks like at a casual uninformed glance.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ef79f26ff20897a23ca918338ef24e8b",
"text": "\"Dividend rate is \"\"dividend per share\"\" over a specified time period, usually a year. So in the first example, if the company paid a $1/share dividend over the year before the stock dividend the shareholder would receive $100, while if it paid the $1/share the year after the stock dividend the shareholder would receive $105. The company could have achieved the same thing by paying total dividends of $1.05/share, which is what the last phrase of the last quoted paragraph is saying. Here's an Investopedia page on dividend rate. Also, what you're calling \"\"payout ratio\"\" is really \"\"dividend yield\"\". \"\"Payout ratio\"\" is how much of the company's net earnings are paid out in dividends. That's all in the US, I could see the terms being used differently outside the US.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "3abf0ab5f68b7624c40fb07f3a3affd5",
"text": "Ok you're looking at this in a very confusing way. First, as said by CapitalNumb3rs, the dividend yield is the dividends paid in the year as a percent of the stock price. Given this fact then if the stock price moves down and the dividend stays the same then the yield increases. Company's don't usually pay out on a yield basis, that's mostly just a calculation to measure how strong a dividend is. This could mean either A. The stock is underpriced and will rise which will lower the yield to a more normal level or B. the company is not doing as well and eventually the dividends will decrease to a point where the yield again looks more normal. Second off let's look at it in a more realistic way that still takes into account your assumptions: **YEAR 1** 1. Instead of assuming buying 35% let's put this into a share amount. Let's say there are 1,000,000 shares so you just bought 350k shares for $700k. You paid a price of $2/share. Let's assume the market decides that's a fair price and it stays that way through the end of year 1. This gives us a market capitalization of $2 million. 2. The dividend paid out at year 1 is $60k so you could calculate on a per share basis which would be a dividend of $60k / 1 million shares or a $0.06 dividend per share. Our stock price is still at $2.00 so our yield comes out to $0.06 / $2.00 or 3.0% **YEAR 2** Assuming no additional shares issued there are still a total of 1 million shares outstanding. You owned 350k and now want to purchase another 50k (5% of outstanding share float). The market price you are able to purchase the 50k shares at has now changed which means that share price is now valued at $1.50 / share. We have a dividend paid out at $100k, which comes out to a dividend per share of $0.10. We have a share value of $1.50 and the $0.10 dividend per share giving us a new yield of 6.66%. **CONCLUSION:** There are many factors that can cause a company's stock price to fluctuate, some of it is hype based but some of it is a result of material changes. In your case the stock went down 25%. In most scenarios where a stock would have that much decline it would likely either not have been paying a dividend in the first place or would maybe not be paying one for much longer. Most companies that pay dividends are larger and more mature companies with a steady, healthy and predictable cash flow. Also most companies that are that size would not trade a stock under $3.00, I know this is just an example but the scenario is definitely a bit extreme in terms of the price drop and dividend increase. Again the yield is just a calculation that depends on the dividend that is usually planned in advance and the stock price that can fluctuate for many reasons. I hope this made everything more clear and let me know if you have any other questions.",
"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": "b68a08ae762146bd2022814306162a4a",
"text": "\"Random question: are there any companies with \"\"physical,\"\" \"\"real,\"\" or \"\"in-kind\"\" dividends? For clarification, suppose a winery offers a security with a dividend of X bottles of wine deliverable annually for every Y amount of shares owned. Does such a company or practice exist?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "03b5874b3cdae035a4a2bfba3261aedd",
"text": "Dividends indicate that a business is making more profit than it can effectively invest into expansion or needs to regulate cash-flow. This generally indicates that the business is well established and has stabilized in a dominant market position. This can be contrasted against businesses that: Dividends are also given preferential tax treatment. Specifically, if I buy a stock and sell it 30 days later, I will be taxed on the capital gains at the regular income rate (typically 25-33%), but the dividends would be taxed at the lower long-term capital gains rate (typically 15%).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aa896ef199e1088f7bdc3a379dbc2767",
"text": "Less shares outstanding means that, holding the dividend per share constant you would have a lower total dividend expenditure. The more likely outcome is that, if you want to return capital to shareholders through a dividend, you just pay a higher amount per share.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "94630e795ff7fd42e6357f0e6e1df8ad",
"text": "It's 5% free money, if you believe the company's stock is fairly valued and likely to grow and/or return reasonable dividends until you're ready to sell it. There's usually a minimum holding period of a few months to a year before these discounted shares can be sold; take that into account",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
a0731aafea7cb1d3b983a16bae982f47
|
Best starting options to invest for retirement without a 401k
|
[
{
"docid": "2a1480ee3136d3cfa3c40fb998a544ef",
"text": "First, check out some of the answers on this question: Oversimplify it for me: the correct order of investing When you have determined that you are ready to invest for retirement, there are two things you need to consider: the investment and the account. These are separate items. The investment is what makes your money grow. The type of account provides tax advantages (and restrictions). Generally, these can be considered separately; for the most part, you can do any type of investment in any account. Briefly, here is an overview of some of the main options: In your situation, the Roth IRA is what I would recommend. This grows tax free, and if you need the funds for some reason, you can get out what you put in without penalty. You can invest up to $5500 in your Roth IRA each year. In addition to the above reasons, which are true for anybody, a Roth IRA would be especially beneficial for you for three reasons: For someone that is closer in age to retirement and in a higher tax bracket now, a Roth IRA is less attractive than it is for you. Inside your Roth IRA, there are lots of choices. You can invest in stocks, bonds, mutual funds (which are simply collections of stocks and bonds), bank accounts, precious metals, and many other things. Discussing all of these investments in one answer is too broad, but my recommendation is this: If you are investing for retirement, you should be investing in the stock market. However, picking individual stocks is too risky; you need to be diversified in a lot of stocks. Stock mutual funds are a great way to invest in the stock market. There are lots of different types of stock mutual funds with different strategies and expenses associated with them. Managed funds actively buy and sell different stocks inside them, but have high expenses to pay the managers. Index funds buy and hold a list of stocks, and have very low expenses. The conventional wisdom is that, in general, index funds perform better than managed funds when you take the expenses into account. I hope this overview and these recommendations were helpful. If you have any specific questions about any of these types of accounts or investments, feel free to ask another question.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "173ef301437d7f08e22684184e2cd0b5",
"text": "\"There's already an excellent answer here from @BenMiller, but I wanted to expand a bit on Types of Investments with some additional actionable information. You can invest in stocks, bonds, mutual funds (which are simply collections of stocks and bonds), bank accounts, precious metals, and many other things. Discussing all of these investments in one answer is too broad, but my recommendation is this: If you are investing for retirement, you should be investing in the stock market. However, picking individual stocks is too risky; you need to be diversified in a lot of stocks. Stock mutual funds are a great way to invest in the stock market. So how does one go about actually investing in the stock market in a diversified way? What if you also want to diversify a bit into bonds? Fortunately, in the last several years, several products have come about that do just these things, and are targeted towards newer investors. These are often labeled \"\"robo-advisors\"\". Most even allow you to adjust your allocation according to your risk preferences. Here's a list of the ones I know about: While these products all purport to achieve similar goals of giving you an easy way to obtain a diversified portfolio according to your risk, they differ in the buckets of stocks and funds they put your money into; the careful investor would be wise to compare which specific ETFs they use (e.g. looking at their expense ratios, capitalization, and spreads).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a4ce02fa0fca547f4cbca7df1bc95cd9",
"text": "Being from the UK, I'd not heard of a Roth IRA, but it sounds very similar to our own ISA (Individual Savings Account). Having just looked it up, I couldn't believe the annual limit was so low: $5500! Still, you have to work within your jurisdiction's legal framework (or agitate for change?). I would definitely agree with Ben Miller's answer: you need different savings buckets for the different savings objectives you'll have throughout the different periods of your life. I, for instance, am now a parent of two young children. I am fortunate to be able to provide for them on multiple levels: I hope that's of some help.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "058718c4ba38b0df9089d96f290571b4",
"text": "If you do not need the money in the 401k right away and are interested in avoiding penalties on the amounts accumulated, roll over the 401k monies into a Roth IRA (your contributions and growth thereof) and a Traditional IRA (company match a d growth thereof). You can choose to take out money from the Traditional IRA not as a lump sum (penalties in addition to lots of income tax in the year of taking the distribution) but as series of equal payments over your life expectancy (no penalty but US income tax is still due each year). Be aware that he who rides a tiger cannot dismount: if you opt for this method, you must take a distribution every year whether you need the money or not, and the amount of the distribution must match what the IRS wants you to take exactly; excess withdrawals lead to penalties etc. Publication 590 says Annuity. You can receive distributions from your traditional IRA that are part of a series of substantially equal payments over your life (or your life expectancy), or over the lives (or the joint life expectancies) of you and your beneficiary, without having to pay the 10% additional tax, even if you receive such distributions before you are age 59.5. You must use an IRS-approved distribution method and you must take at least one distribution annually for this exception to apply. The “required minimum distribution method,” when used for this purpose, results in the exact amount required to be distributed, not the minimum amount. Be aware that, depending on your country of residence/citizenship, you may be required to close all foreign accounts within x months of return, and if so, this stratagem will not work.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f4169e685a12d264278d31530c50068e",
"text": "Here is a nice overview from Vanguard on some options for a small business owner to offer retirement accounts. https://investor.vanguard.com/what-we-offer/small-business/compare-plans I would look over the chart and decide which avenue is best for you and then call around to investment companies (Vanguard, Fidelity, etc. etc.) asking for pricing information.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5e7474ca387cdf47d9c57a7c165ff9a1",
"text": "The alternative isn't too bad. Invest in a regular account. The dividends and cap gains will see favorable tax treatment. In my opinion, much of the magic of the retirement account is with 401(k) matched deposits. The benefit you'll miss is the long term opportunity to skim income off the top, at say, 25%, have it grow, and then withdraw it at a much lower average tax rate. If that benefit doesn't outweigh the fear of the 10%, stick with my first thought above.",
"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": "2ac5ffe36c101ca43bf5aead9409f206",
"text": "None of your options seem mutually exclusive. Ordinarily nothing stops you from participating in your 401(k), opening an IRA, qualifying for your company's pension, and paying off your debts except your ability to pay for all this stuff. Moreover, you can open an IRA anywhere (scottrade, vanguard, etrade, etc.) and freely invest in vanguard mutual funds as well as those of other companies...you aren't normally locked in to the funds of your IRA provider. Consider a traditional IRA. To me your marginal tax rate of 25% doesn't seem that great. If I were in your shoes I would be more likely to contribute to a traditional IRA instead of a Roth. This will save you taxes today and you can put the extra 25% of $5,500 toward your loans. Yes, you will be taxed on that money when you retire, but I think it's likely your rate will be lower than 25%. Moreover, when you are retired you will already own a house and have paid off all your debt, hopefully. You kind of need money now. Between your current tax rate and your need for money now, I'd say a traditional makes good sense. Buy whatever funds you want. If you want a single, cheap, whole-market fund just buy VTSAX. You will need a minimum of $10K to get in, so until then you can buy the ETF version, VTI. Personally I would contribute enough to your 401(k) to get the match and anything else to an IRA (usually they have more and better investment options). If you max that out, go back to the 401(k). Your investment mix isn't that important. Recent research into target date funds puts them in a poor light. Since there isn't a good benchmark for a target date fund, the managers tend to buy whatever they feel like and it may not be what you would prefer if you were choosing. However, the fund you mention has a pretty low expense ratio and the difference between that and your own allocation to an equity index fund or a blend of equity and bond funds is small in expectation. Plus, you can change your allocation whenever you want. You are not locked in. The investment options you mention are reasonable enough that the difference between portfolios is not critical. More important is optimizing your taxes and paying off your debt in the right order. Your interest rates matter more than term does. Paying off debt with more debt will help you if the new debt has a lower interest rate and it won't if it has a higher interest rate. Normally speaking, longer term debt has a higher interest rate. For that reason shorter term debt, if you can afford it, is generally better. Be cold and calculating with your debt. Always pay off highest interest rate debt first and never pay off cheap debt with expensive debt. If the 25 year debt option is lower than all your other interest rates and will allow you to pay off higher interest rate debt faster, it's a good idea. Otherwise it most likely is not. Do not make debt decisions for psychological reasons (e.g., simplicity). Instead, always chose the option that maximizes your ultimate wealth.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "473bea867c1ec882bb7dd4adaa25a42a",
"text": "Variable Annuities would be one option though there are SEC warnings about them, for an option that is tax-deferred and intended to be used for long-term investing such as retirement. There is a bit of a cost to gain the tax-deferral which may not always make them worthwhile.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8439491878fa8722c81dcce170268652",
"text": "Your approach sounds solid to me. Alternatively, if (as appears to be the case) then you might want to consider devoting your tax-advantaged accounts to tax-inefficient investments, such as REITs and high-yield bond funds. That way your investments that generate non-capital-gain (i.e. tax-expensive) income are safe from the IRS until retirement (or forever). And your investments that generate only capital gains income are safe until you sell them (and then they're tax-cheap anyway). Of course, since there aren't really that many tax-expensive investment vehicles (especially not for a young person), you may still have room in your retirement accounts after allocating all the money you feel comfortable putting into REITs and junk bonds. In that case, the article I linked above ranks investment types by tax-efficiency so you can figure out the next best thing to put into your IRA, then the next, etc.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a49a54204023c175881cedcd8f91556f",
"text": "What is my best bet with the 401K? I know very little about retirement plans and don't plan to ever touch this money until I retire but could this money be of better use somewhere else? You can roll over a 401k into an IRA. This lets you invest in other funds and stocks that were not available with your 401k plan. Fidelity and Vanguard are 2 huge companies that offer a number of investment opportunities. When I left an employer that had the 401k plan with Fidelity, I was able to rollover the investments and leave them in the existing mutual funds (several of the funds have been closed to new investors for years). Usually, when leaving an employer, I have the funds transferred directly to the place my IRA is at - this avoids tax penalties and potential pitfalls. The student loans.... pay them off in one shot? If the interest is higher than you could earn in a savings account, then it is smarter to pay them off at once. My student loans are 1.8%, so I can earn more money in my mutual funds. I'm suspicious and think something hinky is going to happen with the fiscal cliff negotiations, so I'm going to be paying off my student loans in early 2013. Disclaimer: I have IRA accounts with both Fidelity and Vanguard. My current 401k plan is with Vanguard.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "77e9140c25e0ef55b3e9960805faf2dd",
"text": "A self-directed IRA could be a good solution for you and all IRAs are qualified IRAs the administrator must allow for alternative assets. However, if you're looking to do the ROBS (Roll Over Business Start-up) system, there are not very many administrators that can facilitate that. There is also a checkbook IRA (aka single member LLC) that more administrators are able to work with, but the rules are different from a ROBS plan. Check with your financial adviser, CPA, tax guru and ask which method would work best for what you're looking to accomplish.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b36177c86a000963a421bfef2ab82829",
"text": "I use the self-directed option for the 457b plan at my job, which basically allows me to invest in any mutual fund or ETF. We get Schwab as a broker, so the commissions are reasonable. Personally, I think it's great, because some of the funds offered by the core plan are limited. Generally, the trustees of your plan are going to limit your investment options, as participants generally make poor investment choices (even within the limited options available in a 401k) and may sue the employer after losing their savings. If I was a decision-maker in this area, there is no way I would ever sign off to allowing employees to mess around with options.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e591f2bbb0ae08accdfad6bf76f89cee",
"text": "401(k) can come in traditional and Roth forms, as can IRAs. Roth IRA money is not locked away for 40 years, only the earnings are locked away, and earnings can also be withdrawn for special cases. You might not be able to invest in an IRA if your income is too high, and if you don't get a match for your 401(k), that might not be the best option either. The biggest advantage of the 401(k) is the match (if it exists) if there's no match, the second biggest advantage is the tax deferral. If you are in a low tax bracket, that isn't as big of an advantage either. I would say that there are plenty of reasons why you might not max out the 401(k) for savings, but it's pretty easy to max out the Roth IRA if that makes more sense, so there aren't a lot of reasons why not.",
"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": "1636550ce3e207462a8bd1aff3e49301",
"text": "The first step is to contact the company you are considering using as an administrator. Ask if they have a loan provision. For what it's worth, I looked at Schwab, and it seems to indicate they do not offer loans against this type of 401(k). That doesn't mean no one does, just that you may need to look around.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f03a13fea8f0037151eb5edbd661c22d",
"text": "\"when you contribute to a 401k, you get to invest pre-tax money. that means part of it (e.g. 25%) is money you would otherwise have to pay in taxes (deferred money) and the rest (e.g. 75%) is money you could otherwise invest (base money). growth in the 401k is essentially tax free because the taxes on the growth of the base money are paid for by the growth in the deferred portion. that is of course assuming the same marginal tax rate both now and when you withdraw the money. if your marginal tax rate is lower in retirement than it is now, you would save even more money using a traditional 401k or ira. an alternative is to invest in a roth account (401k or ira). in which case the money goes in after tax and the growth is untaxed. this would be advantageous if you expect to have a higher marginal tax rate during retirement. moreover, it reduces tax risk, which could give you peace of mind considering u.s. marginal tax rates were over 90% in the 1940's. a roth could also be advantageous if you hit the contribution limits since the contributions are after-tax and therefore more valuable. lastly, contributions to a roth account can be withdrawn at any time tax and penalty free. however, the growth in a roth account is basically stuck there until you turn 60. unlike a traditional ira/401k where you can take early retirement with a SEPP plan. another alternative is to invest the money in a normal taxed account. the advantage of this approach is that the money is available to you whenever you need it rather than waiting until you retire. also, investment losses can be deducted from earned income (e.g. 15-25%), while gains can be taxed at the long term capital gains rate (e.g. 0-15%). the upshot being that even if you make money over the course of several years, you can actually realize negative taxes by taking gains and losses in different tax years. finally, when you decide to retire you might end up paying 0% taxes on your long term capital gains if your income is low enough (currently ~50k$/yr for a single person). the biggest limitation of this strategy is that losses are limited to 3k$ per year. also, this strategy works best when you invest in individual stocks rather than mutual funds, increasing volatility (aka risk). lastly, this makes filing your taxes more complicated since you need to report every purchase and sale and watch out for the \"\"wash sale\"\" rules. side note: you should contribute enough to get all the 401k matching your employer offers. even if you cash out the whole account when you want the money, the matching (typically 50%-200%) should exceed the 10% early withdrawal penalty.\"",
"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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
7dc9bc9687920da8c21dae2b8c730f06
|
Calculating return on a series of stock positions with multiple uneven transactions
|
[
{
"docid": "bf0540111a2051185227f72005547c32",
"text": "\"Generally if you are using FIFO (first in, first out) accounting, you will need to match the transactions based on the number of shares. In your example, at the beginning of day 6, you had two lots of shares, 100 @ 50 and 10 @ 52. On that day you sold 50 shares, and using FIFO, you sold 50 shares of the first lot. This leaves you with 50 @ 50 and 10 @ 52, and a taxable capital gain on the 50 shares you sold. Note that commissions incurred buying the shares increase your basis, and commissions incurred selling the shares decrease your proceeds. So if you spent $10 per trade, your basis on the 100 @ 50 lot was $5010, and the proceeds on your 50 @ 60 sale were $2990. In this example you sold half of the lot, so your basis for the sale was half of $5010 or $2505, so your capital gain is $2990 - 2505 = $485. The sales you describe are also \"\"wash sales\"\", in that you sold stock and bought back an equivalent stock within 30 days. Generally this is only relevant if one of the sales was at a loss but you will need to account for this in your code. You can look up the definition of wash sale, it starts to get complex. If you are writing code to handle this in any generic situation you will also have to handle stock splits, spin-offs, mergers, etc. which change the number of shares you own and their cost basis. I have implemented this myself and I have written about 25-30 custom routines, one for each kind of transaction that I've encountered. The structure of these deals is limited only by the imagination of investment bankers so I think it is impossible to write a single generic algorithm that handles them all, instead I have a framework that I update each quarter as new transactions occur.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "bed8b2d05e6186d99205cd74037190f1",
"text": "Ok well in that case here are my thoughts. Its been a while since I've done this type of school work so hope it's right/helpful. AR Oustanding = Avg AR / (credit sales/Operating Cycle*) = 35 *I'm guessing they didn't give you sales for the year or else I would divide by 365 but since you mentioned operating cycle I'm assuming thats the sales number you were given. So you want to divide the sales by 50 and then times it by the 35. Should give you the average AR. Inventory - I really don't remember having to calculate this so I'm just thinking logically here. You should be able to take COGS divide by the days in the period then times it by In Invetory. So = (COGS/Operating Cycle)* In Inventory = (COGS/50)*15 Accounts Payable....man, I'm afraid to drive you in the wrong direction on this one. Avg Accounts Payable/(COGS/Operating Cycle) = 40 Plug in COGS, divide by the operating cycle, 50 then times by 40, the days vendor credit.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "237d225e0da24ae0ac9d26ba666568d8",
"text": "i will not calculate it for you but just calculate the discounted cash flow (by dividing with 1.1 / 1.1^2 / 1.1^3 ...)of each single exercise as stated and deduct the 12.000 of the above sum. in the end compare which has the highest npv",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "37c2382b45e55c431fdc9686dd772e26",
"text": "Firstly 795 is not even. Secondly - generally you would pay tax on the sale of the 122 shares, whether you buy them back or not, even one minute later, has nothing to do with it. The only reason this would not create a capital gains event is if your country (which you haven't specified) has some odd rules or laws about this that I, and most others, have never heard of before.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ce932128386e9ac1e3bdbe0c347a0ad7",
"text": "If annualized rate of return is what you are looking for, using a tool would make it a lot easier. In the post I've also explained how to use the spreadsheet. Hope this helps.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "275df9312e040d3309fae20aff051c75",
"text": "Technically you should take the quarterly dividend yield as a fraction, add one, take the cube root, and subtract one (and then multiple by the stock price, if you want a dollar amount per share rather than a rate). This is to account for the fact that you could have re-invested the monthly dividends and earned dividends on that reinvestment. However, the difference between this and just dividing by three is going to be negligible over the range of dividend rates that are realistically paid out by ordinary stocks.",
"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": "9ab606921ac142b915d0bb2d892e276a",
"text": "To complement farnsy's answer, I want to warn people against market prediction scams. If they give uniformly distributed buy/sell predictions to 256 people, one of them will get eight correct predictions in a row. They are trading a few cents of Amazon server time for 3% of your capital.",
"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": "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": "3d9a087db7ac36a435de1783db63916d",
"text": "\"What you are seeking is termed \"\"Alpha\"\", the mispricing in the market. Specifically, Alpha is the price error when compared to the market return and beta of the stock. Modern portfolio theory suggests that a portfolio with good Alpha will maximize profits for a given risk tolerance. The efficient market hypotheses suggests that Alpha is always zero. The EMH also suggests that taxes, human effort and information propagation delays don't exist (i.e. it is wrong). For someone who is right, the best specific answer to your question is presented Ben Graham's book \"\"The Intelligent Investor\"\" (starting on page 280). And even still, that book is better summarized by Warren Buffet (see Berkshire Hathaway Letters to Shareholders). In a great disservice to the geniuses above it can be summarized much further: closely follow the company to estimate its true earnings potential... and ignore the prices the market is quoting. ADDENDUM: And when you have earnings potential, calculate value with: NPV = sum(each income piece/(1+cost of capital)^time) Update: See http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2014/02/24/warren-buffett-berkshire-letter/ \"\"When Charlie Munger and I buy stocks...\"\" for these same ideas right from the horse's mouth\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2a299334dcf6600c0e5f2e0f087fa951",
"text": "You'd need millions of dollars to trade the number of shares it would take to profit from these penny variations. What you bring up here is the way high frequency firms front-run trades and profit on these pennies. Say you have a trade commission of $5. Every time you buy you pay $5, every time you sell you pay $5. So you need a gain in excess of $10, a 10% gain on $100. Now if you wanted to trade on a penny movement from $100 to $100.01, you need to have bought 1,000 shares totaling $100,000 for the $0.01 price movement to cover your commission costs. If you had $1,000,000 to put at risk, that $0.01 price movement would net you $90 after commission, $10,000,000 would have made you $990. You need much larger gains at the retail level because commissions will equate to a significant percentage of the money you're investing. Very large trading entities have much different arrangements and costs with the exchanges. They might not pay a fee on each transaction but something that more closely resembles a subscription fee, and costs something that more closely resembles a house. Now to your point, catching these price movements and profiting. The way high frequency trading firms purportedly make money relates to having a very low latency network connection to a particular exchange. Their very low latency/very fast network connection lets them see orders and transact orders before other parties. Say some stock has an ask at $101 x 1,000 shares. The next depth is $101.10. You see a market buy order come in for 1,000 shares and place a buy order for 1,000 shares at $101 which hits the exchange first, then immediately place a sell order at $101.09, changing the ask from $101.00 to $101.09 and selling in to the market order for a gain of $0.09 per share.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7aed4fdea82e42dc1c111d0e275f97b8",
"text": "I’m going to answer this because: Accounting books only reflect the dollar value of inventories. Which means if you look at the balance sheet of McDonalds, you will not see how many bags of French fries are remaining at their storage facility, you will only see the total value at cost basis. Your requirement for noting the number of shares purchased is not part of the double entry accounting system. When you transfer $10000 from bank to broker, the entries would be: The bank’s name and the broker’s name will not appear on the balance sheet. When you purchase 50 shares at $40 per share, the accounting system does not care about the number of shares or the price. All it cares is the $2000 total cost and the commission of $10. You have two choices, either place $10 to an expense account, or incorporate it into the total cost (making it $2010). The entries for the second method would be: Now your balance sheet would reflect: What happens if the price increases from $40 per share to $50 per share tomorrow? Do nothing. Your balance sheet will show the cost of $2010 until the shares are sold or the accounting period ends. It will not show the market value of $2500. Instead, the Portfolio Tracker would show $2500. The most basic tracker is https://www.google.com/finance/portfolio . Later if you finally sell the shares at $50 per share with $10 commission: Again, the number of shares will not be reflected anywhere in the accounting system. Only the total proceeds from the sale matters.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5e7a7044a927ec8ab40b5f4398ddd8cb",
"text": "Generally speaking. 1. Take the position size / average daily volume. 2. Multiply that number by 10 or whatever 1/whatever % of volume you think you can execute, ( you can at best acct for 10 percent of traded volume on a day). 3. You now have days until liquidation (x) 4. Take the days until liquidation sample the return over time x. I.e. if days until liquidation is 10, you would sample 10 day returns. 5. Calculate the distribution characteristics of this window (mean, var, skew, kurt) and calculate VaR based on some confidence. You can now have a liquidity risk expected loss and a VaR. If position is on margin don't forget to add the interest cost. Note: Instead of taking 10 day return, you can take the 10 day VWAP and calculate return between Open and 10 day vwap.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8e99f14ffed8f409ea84518036cfbd1d",
"text": "You have only sold 200 shares for $4.75 from those bought for $3.15. So your profit on those 200 shares is $1.60 per share or $320 or 51%. From that you have 110 shares left that cost you $3.15 and 277 shares that cost you $3.54. So the total cost of your remaining shares is $1,327.08 (110 x $3.15 + 277 x $3.54). So your remaining shares have a average cost of $3.429 per share ($1,327.08/387). We don't know what the current share price is as you haven't provided it, nor do we know what the company is, so lets say that the current price is $5 (or that you sell the remaining 387 shares for $5 per share). Then the profit on these 387 shares would be $1.571 per share or $607.92 or 46%. Your total profit would then be $320 + $ 607.92 = $927.92 or 47% (note that this profit neglects any brokerage or other fees, as you have not provided any). Edit due to new info. provided in question With the current share price at $6.06 then the profit on these 387 shares would be $2.631 per share or $1018.20 or 77%. Your total profit would then be $320 + $1018.20 = $1338.20 or 75% (note that this profit neglects any brokerage or other fees, as you have not provided any).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "86cc49b09050e154d0e41b6e2828d838",
"text": "Don't let tax considerations be the main driver. That's generally a bad idea. You should keep tax in mind when making the decision, but don't let it be the main reason for an action. selling the higher priced shares (possibly at a loss even) - I think it's ok to do that, and it doesn't necessarily have to be FIFO? It is OK to do that, but consider also the term. Long term gain has much lower taxes than short term gain, and short term loss will be offsetting long term gain - means you can lose some of the potential tax benefit. any potential writeoffs related to buying a home that can offset capital gains? No, and anyway if you're buying a personal residence (a home for yourself) - there's nothing to write off (except for the mortgage interest and property taxes of course). selling other investments for a capital loss to offset this sale? Again - why sell at a loss? anything related to retirement accounts? e.g. I think I recall being able to take a loan from your retirement account in order to buy a home You can take a loan, and you can also withdraw up to 10K without a penalty (if conditions are met). Bottom line - be prepared to pay the tax on the gains, and check how much it is going to be roughly. You can apply previous year refund to the next year to mitigate the shock, you can put some money aside, and you can raise your salary withholding to make sure you're not hit with a high bill and penalties next April after you do that. As long as you keep in mind the tax bill and put aside an amount to pay it - you'll be fine. I see no reason to sell at loss or pay extra interest to someone just to reduce the nominal amount of the tax. If you're selling at loss - you're losing money. If you're selling at gain and paying tax - you're earning money, even if the earnings are reduced by the tax.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
64ddaf44719b911385a832abe92af54a
|
ESPP (Employee Stock Purchase Plan) Funds on Mortgage Loan Application
|
[
{
"docid": "bb75764a1a664f34c803affb51dc5d76",
"text": "The problem is that you don't have the money now; so they can't know with 100% certainty that you will have it on settlement day. What happens if you don't file the paperwork in time? or you change your mind because you think the company stock is going to go through the roof next quarter? They would have to pull the funding for the loan. The seller would be upset, and could even file for damages if the deal falls through. It could even snowball because if they delay the sale then they can't buy the new place, which impacts another closing... Frequently lenders want to see the money for the down payment long before settlement. They want to know the money is there, and it isn't a hidden loan. While you can point to the money in the ESPP, they would still like to see the money in a regular bank account. Even if you do convince them to delay their evaluation you can count on being asked to prove the existence of the funds in the days before closing, or they will delay giving the loan.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "db300bdf45f95888255c2045855a611f",
"text": "ESPP shares, once purchased, are just normal shares that you got at a discount. They're just as much a part of your current net wealth as any other shares of stock. What you can't do is claim that discount increases your salary, even if it does result in your effectively taking home more money. It's a benefit like the company contribution to your health plan, not a bonus.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "1ad8afd66a346863ad67ec813bbba710",
"text": "The mortgage I got last year through Wells Fargo explicitly indicates in its terms that excess payment will be considered against future payments (i.e., pay $500 extra in January and you owe $500 less in February) unless indicated otherwise. It goes on to state that with electronic payments you do not get to specify where excess payment goes, so excess payment made electronically always goes toward future payments. If you want to make excess payments toward principal, you must actually send them a check and your payment stub, with the appropriate box ticked. This won't be very different for other major banks, I wouldn't imagine.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ce5d619eaed53c079cb9c16c785f478a",
"text": "Some other answers mention the ability to sell at grant. This is very important. If you have that ability, think about your guaranteed return. In my case, I get a 15% discount on the lowest 6 month window price from the last two years. If you do the math, the worst case return can be calculated: 1) Money that from the beginning of the window, I make 15% for 6 months (30% annual return guaranteed) 2) Money at the end of the window (say the last month) is 15% for one month (180% annual return guaranteed) In the end, your average holding window for your money is about 3 months (you can calculate it exactly). At that rate, you have a guaranteed 60% annual return. You can't beat that anywhere, with a significant upside if your company stock is increasing. So, if your company has an instant sell at grant option, you have to be brain dead not to do it. If it takes time to get your shares, then you need to look at the volatility of the stock to see how big the chance of losing money is. To generalize to a formula (if that's what you want): WM = purchase window (in months); D = Discount Percentage; GR = Guaranteed Return GR = 12/(WM/2) * D = 6*D/WM One last thing, If you are going to participate in ESPP, make you that you understand how to do your taxes yourself. I haven't found a tax person yet who does ESPP correctly (including an ex IRS agent), so I always have to do my taxes myself to make sure they get done correctly.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9269ac9dbe2b303176fc7b1fd4142849",
"text": "Easier to copy paste than type this out. Credit: www.financeformulas.net Note that the present value would be the initial loan amount, which is likely the sale price you noted minus a down payment. The loan payment formula is used to calculate the payments on a loan. The formula used to calculate loan payments is exactly the same as the formula used to calculate payments on an ordinary annuity. A loan, by definition, is an annuity, in that it consists of a series of future periodic payments. The PV, or present value, portion of the loan payment formula uses the original loan amount. The original loan amount is essentially the present value of the future payments on the loan, much like the present value of an annuity. It is important to keep the rate per period and number of periods consistent with one another in the formula. If the loan payments are made monthly, then the rate per period needs to be adjusted to the monthly rate and the number of periods would be the number of months on the loan. If payments are quarterly, the terms of the loan payment formula would be adjusted accordingly. I like to let loan calculators do the heavy lifting for me. This particular calculator lets you choose a weekly pay back scheme. http://www.calculator.net/loan-calculator.html",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "990ada206b3efd2ac13b0f6e35791830",
"text": "Long ago when I was applying for my first mortgage I had to list all my income and assets. At the time I had some US Savings Bonds from payroll deduction. I asked about them. The loan officer told me that unless I was willing/planning on selling them to make the down payment, they were immaterial to the loan application. So unless you have a habit of turning RSUs into cash, or are willing to do so for the down payment, it is no different from having money in a 401K or IRA: the restrictions on selling them make them illiquid.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "989c8a9db04133d998e45fee93e31476",
"text": "Something very similar to this was extremely popular in the UK in the late 1980s. The practice has completely vanished since the early 2000s. Reading up on the UK endowment mortgage scandals will probably give you an excellent insight into whether you should attempt your plan. Endowment mortgages were provided by banks and at their peak were probably the most popular mortgage form. The basic idea was that you only pay the interest on your mortgage and invest a small amount each month into a low fee endowment policy. Many endowment policies were simply index tracking, and the idea being that by the end of your mortgage you would have built up a portfolio sufficient to pay off your mortgage, and may well have extra left over. In the late 1990s the combination of falling housing market and poor stock performance meant that many people were left with both the endowment less than their mortgage and their house in negative equity.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2091e876d65d16a2472976058dc08912",
"text": "A security is a class of financial instrument you can trade on the market. A share of stock is a kind of security, for example, as is a bond. In the case of your mortgage, what happens: You take out a loan for $180k. The loan has two components. a. The payment stream (meaning the principal and the interest) from the loan b. The servicing of the loan, meaning the company who is responsible for accepting payments, giving the resulting income to whomever owns it. Many originating banks, such as my initial lender, do neither of these things - they sell the payment stream to a large bank or consortium (often Fannie Mae) and they also sell the servicing of the loan to another company. The payment stream is the primary value here (the servicing is worth essentially a tip off the top). The originating bank lends $180k of their own money. Then they have something that is worth some amount - say $450k total value, $15k per year for 30 years - and they sell it for however much they can get for it. The actual value of $15k/year for 30 years is somewhere in between - less than $450k more than $180k - since there is risk involved, and the present value is far less. The originating bank has the benefit of selling that they can then originate more mortgages (and make money off the fees) plus they can reduce their risk exposure. Then a security is created by the bigger bank, where they take a bunch of mortgages of different risk levels and group them together to make something with a very predictable risk quotient. Very similar to insurance, really, except the other way around. One mortage will either default or not at some % chance, but it's a one off thing - any good statistician will tell you that you don't do statistics on n=1. One hundred mortgages, each with some risk level, will very consistently return a particular amount, within a certain error, and thus you have something that people are willing to pay money on the market for.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "50c15e6e432a625ce7b9e4a9183e3463",
"text": "If the money is a gift the lender will make everybody acknowledge that the money is a gift. They will not care if the gift triggers tax forms for the giver. Signing the gift forms specifying it is a gift when it isn't a gift is fraud, and there are penalties attached to that. If it is a loan that will not erase the PMI requirement. Because the lender for the main part of the mortgage will want to protect their investment. Related to other impacts.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c7ea920399694772f15173c6e7867f48",
"text": "The money is paid to investors who bought those mortgage backed securities. The company that services those loans is responsible for making sure the money is paid to the right investors",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e226da0a1e46adde2a78e73341eb9350",
"text": "I don't think you are reading the stock chart right. ORCL has a beta of 1.12 which means it has more volatility than the market as a whole. See image below for a fairly wild stock chart for a year. I would not truly consider ESPP participation investing, unless you intend to buy and hold the stock. If you intend to sell the stock soon after you are able, it is more speculation. ESPP's are okay based upon the terms. If the stock was a constant price, and you could sell right away, then an ESPP plan would be easy money. Often, employees are often given a 15% discount to purchase the stock. If you can sell it before any price drop, then you are guaranteed to make 15% on the money invested minus any commissions. Some employers make ESPP participants hold the stock for a year. This makes such a plan less of a value. The reasons are the stock can drop in price during that time, you could need the money, or (in the best case) your money is tied up longer making the ROI less. The reasons people invest in stock are varied and is far to much to discuss in a single post. Some of your colleagues are using the ESPP solely to earn the discount in their money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7d4ba7208ee4504c419e95dd85ca7fd8",
"text": "\"There are two ways that mortgages are sold: The loan is collateralized and sold to investors. This allows the bank to free up money for more loans. Of course sometime the loan may be treated like in the game of hot potato nobody want s to be holding a shaky loan when it goes into default. The second way that a loan is sold is through the servicing of the loan. This is the company or bank that collects your monthly payments, and handles the disbursement of escrow funds. Some banks lenders never sell servicing, others never do the servicing themselves. Once the servicing is sold the first time there is no telling how many times it will be sold. The servicing of the loan is separate from the collateralization of the loan. When you applied for the loan you should have been given a Servicing Disclosure Statement Servicing Disclosure Statement. RESPA requires the lender or mortgage broker to tell you in writing, when you apply for a loan or within the next three business days, whether it expects that someone else will be servicing your loan (collecting your payments). The language is set by the US government: [We may assign, sell, or transfer the servicing of your loan while the loan is outstanding.] [or] [We do not service mortgage loans of the type for which you applied. We intend to assign, sell, or transfer the servicing of your mortgage loan before the first payment is due.] [or] [The loan for which you have applied will be serviced at this financial institution and we do not intend to sell, transfer, or assign the servicing of the loan.] [INSTRUCTIONS TO PREPARER: Insert the date and select the appropriate language under \"\"Servicing Transfer Information.\"\" The model format may be annotated with further information that clarifies or enhances the model language.]\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b016ad4e91e887d07872457741a50b2c",
"text": "Can anyone recommend a good textbook that covers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, or more broadly the US home mortgage market? A basic search seems to mostly turn up books that aim to make an ideological point rather than attempt to provide an actual explanation. I have a basic financial knowledge including a basic understanding of derivatives at the level of say the textbook by Hull, but know very little about the US mortgage market specifically. I don't mind technical detail, and am not afraid of math. I don't mind if the book is broader, as long as it includes a reasonably in depth look at these GSEs and their role. This seems to be a pretty basic piece of knowledge for many financial professionals, so I assume there must be at least one standard textbook on this that I just haven't been able to find. EDIT: I'm looking for something post 2008 of course.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "685c14304a8149f9c6767409cb71bdb3",
"text": "This is what is called a Structured Product. The linked page gives an overview of the relative pros and cons. They tend to hold the bulk of funds in bonds and then used equity index futures and other derivatives to match returns on the S&P, or other indices tracked. All combine to provide the downside protection. Note that your mother did not receive the dividends paid by the constituent companies. She only received the capital return. Here is a link to Citigroup (Europe) current structured product offerings. Here is a link to Fidelity's current offerings of structured products. Here is Investopedia's article detailing the pitfalls. The popularity of these products appears to be on the wane, having been heavily promoted and sold by the providers at the time your mother invested. Most of these products only provide 100% protection of capital if the market does not fall by a specified amount, either in successive reporting periods or over the life of the product. There are almost as many terms and conditions imposed on the protection as there are structured products available. I have no personal experience buying this type of product, preferring to have the option to trade and receive dividend income.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7f398ad2294afdfaf8c2e0f39a65b251",
"text": "The underlying investment is usually somewhat independent of your mortgage, since it encompasses a bundle of mortgages, and not only yours. It works similarly to a fund. When, you pay off the old mortgage while re-financing, the fund receives the outstanding debt in from of cash, which can be used to buy new mortgages.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "97bee22e50c5e9e4c608cbaf1cf7febf",
"text": "You should always always enroll in an espp if there is no lockup period and you can finance the contributions at a non-onerous rate. You should also always always sell it right away regardless of your feelings for the company. If you feel you must hold company stock to be a good employee buy some in your 401k which has additional advantages for company stock. (Gains treated as gains and not income on distribution.) If you can't contribute at first, do as much as you can and use your results from the previous offering period to finance a greater contribution the next period. I slowly went from 4% to 10% over 6 offering periods at my plan. The actual apr on a 15% discount plan is ~90% if you are able to sell right when the shares are priced. (Usually not the case, but the risk is small, there usually is a day or two administrative lockup (getting the shares into your account)) even for ESPP's that have no official lockup period. see here for details on the calculation. http://blog.adamnash.com/2006/11/22/your-employee-stock-purchase-plan-espp-is-worth-a-lot-more-than-15/ Just a note For your reference I worked for Motorola for 10 years. A stock that fell pretty dramatically over those 10 years and I always made money on the ESPP and more than once doubled my money. One additional note....Be aware of tax treatment on espp. Specifically be aware that plans generally withhold income tax on gains over the purchase price automatically. I didn't realize this for a couple of years and double taxed myself on those gains. Fortunately I found out my error in time to refile and get the money back, but it was a headache.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "baa15753021d8703b48539871d120fcd",
"text": "You're not responsible for the mortgages on the property - those are agreements between the lender and the borrower. The risk you have is that the title search missed something. If the seller (i.e., the bank or banks who foreclosed) did not have full rights to sell the property, and there was another party who had a lien on the property or had an interest in it in some fashion, that party could make a claim that would interfere with your purchase. You wouldn't be responsible for the loan, but you might not end up with the title to the property if that happened.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
2f388d975e2661f91e8f0d8194c8e1f6
|
Placing limit order and stop loss on same stock at same time
|
[
{
"docid": "69003ef4b8e5329aecf0172a01c19054",
"text": "Although this is possible with many brokers, it's not advisable. In many cases you may end up with both trades executed at the same time. This is because during the opening, the stock might spike up or down heavily, bid/ask spread widens, and both of your orders would get picked up, resulting in an instant loss. Your best bet is to place the stop manually sometime after you get filled.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4627e2e2e149b4cc2196a252bd34dbec",
"text": "\"if it opens below my limit order What exactly are you trying to achieve here? If your limit order is for 100 and the stock opens \"\"below\"\" your limit order, say 99, then it is obviously going to buy it automatically. also place a stop loss on the same order Most brokers allow limit + stop loss order at the same time on same order. What I conclude from your question is that you're with a broker that is using obscure technology. Get a better broker or maybe, retry phrasing your question correctly.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "54de8f950e5eb26faf4845ac8f2c2bc7",
"text": "From your question, I am guessing that you are intending to have stoploss buy order. is the stoploss order is also a buy order ? As you also said, you seems to limit your losses, I am again guessing that you have short position of the stock, to which you are intending to place a buy limit order and buy stoploss order (stoploss helps when when the price tanks). And also I sense that you intend to place buy limit order at the price below the market price. is that the situation? If you place two independent orders (one limit buy and one stoploss buy). Please remember that there will be situation where two orders also get executed due to market movements. Add more details to the questions. it helps to understand the situation and others can provide a strategic solution.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "ecf39246158293d3d1fb46cfd64757d9",
"text": "if I put a limit sell at $22.00 now, will it not sell until it's at $22.00 and I will continue to keep the stock? Basically yes. But note that brokers generally don't allow such limit orders to persist indefinitely. The default may even be that they're only valid until the end of the day, and usually the maximum validity is 30 or 60 days.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e43a11f2f07debb1aab6bda4d0b3e316",
"text": "Firstly, going short on a stock and worrying if the price suddenly gaps up a lot due to good news is the same as being long on a stock and worrying that the price will suddenly collapse due to bad news. Secondly, an out of the money call option would be cheaper than an in the money call option, in fact the further out of the money the cheaper the premium will be, all other things being equal. So a good risk management strategy would be to set your stop orders as per your trading plan and if you wish to have added protection in case of a large gap is to buy a far out of the money call option. The premium should not be too expensive. Something you should also consider is the time until expiry for the option, if your time frame for trading is days to weeks you make consider a cheaper option that expires in about a month, but if you are planning on holding the position for more than a month you might need a longer expiry period on the option, which will increase the premium. Another option to consider, if your broker offers it, is to use a guaranteed stop loss order. You will pay a little premium for this type of order and not all brokers offer it, but if it is offered you will be protected against any price gaps past your guaranteed stop loss price.",
"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": "e9751acb6e9a16304e1187f41bf68f52",
"text": "If there are no traded options in a company you can get your broker to write OTC options but this may not be possible given some restrictions on accounts. Going short on futures may also be an option. You can also open a downside CFD (contract for difference) on the stock but will have to have margin posted against it so will have to hold cash (or possibly liquid assets if your AUM is large enough) to cover the margin which is unutilized cash in the portfolio that needs to be factored into any portfolio calculations as a cost. Diversifying into uncorrelated stock or shorting correlated (but low div yield) stock would also have the same effect. stop loss orders would probably not be appropriate as it is not the price of the stock that you are concerned with but mitigating all price changes and just receiving the dividend on the stock. warning: in a crash (almost) all stocks become suddenly correlated so be aware that might cause you a short term loss. CFDs are complex and require a degree of sophistication before you can trade them well but as you seem to understand options they should not be too hard to understand.",
"title": ""
},
{
"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": "30d84d3ec8b3413e06cec8c48818b308",
"text": "But how does the quantity matching happen? For example, if I want to buy 1000 shares at $100, but there is only one seller to sell 10 shares at $100, what happens then? This depends on the type of order you've placed. If you placed a fill-or-kill order, your order to buy or sell a certain number of shares is routed to the trading floor for immediate execution. If the order cannot be immediately filled, it is cancelled (killed) automatically. Note that the order must be filled in its entirety. Partial fills are not allowed. In your example, your buy order wouldn't be filled because it couldn't be matched to a sell order of the same volume. This is similar to an all-or-none order, which is an order that contains A condition instructing the broker to fill the order completely or not at all. If there is insufficient supply to meet the quantity requested by the order then it is canceled at the close of the market. In this case, if your order wasn't matched to an order of the same volume by the time the market closes, it's cancelled. If you simply placed a market/limit order, and (in the case of the limit order), part of your order was matched to another order with the right price, that part of your order will be filled, while the rest will remained unfilled.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2a2c27db18a6aa6c1335142a0fb1f2f3",
"text": "If you can afford the cost and risk of 100 shares of stock, then just sell a put option. If you can only afford a few shares, you can still use the information the options market is trying to give you -- see below. A standing limit order to buy a stock is essentially a synthetic short put option position. [1] So deciding on a stock limit order price is the same as valuing an option on that stock. Options (and standing limit orders) are hard to value, and the generally accepted math for doing so -- the Black-Scholes-Merton framework -- is also generally accepted to be wrong, because of black swans. So rather than calculate a stock buy limit price yourself, it's simpler to just sell a put at the put's own midpoint price, accepting the market's best estimate. Options market makers' whole job (and the purpose of the open market) is price discovery, so it's easier to let them fight it out over what price options should really be trading at. The result of that fight is valuable information -- use it. Sell a 1-month ATM put option every month until you get exercised, after which time you'll own 100 shares of stock, purchased at: This will typically give you a much better cost basis (several dollars better) versus buying the stock at spot, and it offloads the valuation math onto the options market. Meanwhile you get to keep the cash from the options premiums as well. Disclaimer: Markets do make mistakes. You will lose money when the stock drops more than the option market's own estimate. If you can't afford 100 shares, or for some reason still want to be in the business of creating synthetic options from pure stock limit orders, then you could maybe play around with setting your stock purchase bid price to (approximately): See your statistics book for how to set ndev -- 1 standard deviation gives you a 30% chance of a fill, 2 gives you a 5% chance, etc. Disclaimer: The above math probably has mistakes; do your own work. It's somewhat invalid anyway, because stock prices don't follow a normal curve, so standard deviations don't really mean a whole lot. This is where market makers earn their keep (or not). If you still want to create synthetic options using stock limit orders, you might be able to get the options market to do more of the math for you. Try setting your stock limit order bid equal to something like this: Where put_strike is the strike price of a put option for the equity you're trading. Which option expiration and strike you use for put_strike depends on your desired time horizon and desired fill probability. To get probability, you can look at the delta for a given option. The relationship between option delta and equity limit order probability of fill is approximately: Disclaimer: There may be math errors here. Again, do your own work. Also, while this method assumes option markets provide good estimates, see above disclaimer about the markets making mistakes.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aacf84abf0e15e48cd79c9cdb7a0e26c",
"text": "\"Yes. There are several downsides to this strategy: You aren't taking into account commissions. If you pay $5 each time you buy or sell a stock, you may greatly reduce or even eliminate any possible gains you would make from trading such small amounts. This next point sounds obvious, but remember that you pay a commission on every trade regardless of profit, so every trade you make that you make at a loss also costs you commissions. Even if you make trades that are profitable more often than not, if you make quite a few trades with small amounts like this, your commissions may eat away all of your profits. Commissions represent a fixed cost, so their effect on your gains decreases proportionally with the amount of money you place at risk in each trade. Since you're in the US, you're required to follow the SEC rules on pattern day trading. From that link, \"\"FINRA rules define a “pattern day trader” as any customer who executes four or more “day trades” within five business days, provided that the number of day trades represents more than six percent of the customer’s total trades in the margin account for that same five business day period.\"\" If you trip this rule, you'll be required to maintain $25,000 in a margin brokerage account. If you can't maintain the balance, your account will be locked. Don't forget about capital gains taxes. Since you're holding these securities for less than a year, your gains will be taxed at your ordinary income tax rates. You can deduct your capital losses too (assuming you don't repurchase the same security within 30 days, because in that case, the wash sale rule prevents you from deducting the loss), but it's important to think about gains and losses in real terms, not nominal terms. The story is different if you make these trades in a tax-sheltered account like an IRA, but the other problems still apply. You're implicitly assuming that the stock's prices are skewed in the positive direction. Remember that you have limit orders placed at the upper and lower bounds of the range, so if the stock price decreases before it increases, your limit order at the lower bound will be triggered and you'll trade at a loss. If you're hoping to make a profit through buying low and selling high, you want a stock that hits its upper bound before hitting the lower bound the majority of the time. Unless you have data analysis (not just your intuition or a pattern you've talked yourself into from looking at a chart) to back this up, you're essentially gambling that more often than not, the stock price will increase before it decreases. It's dangerous to use any strategy that you haven't backtested extensively. Find several months or years of historical data, either intra-day or daily data, depending on the time frame you're using to trade, and simulate your strategy exactly. This helps you determine the potential profitability of your strategy, and it also forces you to decide on a plan for precisely when you want to invest. Do you invest as soon as the stock trades in a range (which algorithms can determine far better than intuition)? It also helps you figure out how to manage your risk and how much loss you're willing to accept. For risk management, using limit orders is a start, but see my point above about positively skewed prices. Limit orders aren't enough. In general, if an active investment strategy seems like a \"\"no-brainer\"\" or too good to be true, it's probably not viable. In general, as a retail investor, it's foolish to assume that no one else has thought of your simple active strategy to make easy money. I can promise you that someone has thought of it. Trading firms have quantitative researchers that are paid to think of and implement trading strategies all the time. If it's viable at any scale, they'll probably already have utilized it and arbitraged away the potential for small traders to make significant gains. Trust me, you're not the first person who thought of using limit orders to make \"\"easy money\"\" off volatile stocks. The fact that you're asking here and doing research before implementing this strategy, however, means that you're on the right track. It's always wise to research a strategy extensively before deploying it in the wild. To answer the question in your title, since it could be interpreted a little differently than the body of the question: No, there's nothing wrong with investing in volatile stocks, indexes, etc. I certainly do, and I'm sure many others on this site do as well. It's not the investing that gets you into trouble and costs you a lot of money; it's the rapid buying and selling and attempting to time the market that proves costly, which is what you're doing when you implicitly bet that the distribution of the stock's prices is positively skewed. To address the commission fee problem, assuming a fee of $8 per trade ... and a minimum of $100 profit per sale Commissions aren't your only problem, and counting on $100 profit per sale is a significant assumption. Look at point #4 above. Through your use of limit orders, you're making the implicit assumption that, more often than not, the price will trigger your upper limit order before your lower limit order. Here's a simple example; let's assume you have limit orders placed at +2 and -2 of your purchase price, and that triggering the limit order at +2 earns you $100 profit, while triggering the limit order at -2 incurs a loss of $100. Assume your commission is $5 on each trade. If your upper limit order is triggered, you earn a profit of 100 - 10 = 90, then set up the same set of limit orders again. If your lower limit order is triggered this time, you incur a loss of 100 + 10 = 110, so your net gain is 90 - 110 = -20. This is a perfect example of why, when taking into account transaction costs, even strategies that at first glance seem profitable mathematically can actually fail. If you set up the same situation again and incur a loss again (100 + 10 = 110), you're now down -20 - 110 = -130. To make a profit, you need to make two profitable trades, without incurring further losses. This is why point #4 is so important. Whenever you trade, it's critical to completely understand the risk you're taking and the bet you're actually making, not just the bet you think you're making. Also, according to my \"\"algorithm\"\" a sale only takes place once the stock rises by 1 or 2 points; otherwise the stock is held until it does. Does this mean you've removed the lower limit order? If yes, then you expose yourself to downside risk. What if the stock has traded within a range, then suddenly starts declining because of bad earnings reports or systemic risks (to name a few)? If you haven't removed the lower limit order, then point #4 still stands. However, I never specified that the trades have to be done within the same day. Let the investor open up 5 brokerage accounts at 5 different firms (for safeguarding against being labeled a \"\"Pattern Day Trader\"\"). Each account may only hold 1 security at any time, for the span of 1 business week. How do you control how long the security is held? You're using limit orders, which will be triggered when the stock price hits a certain level, regardless of when that happens. Maybe that will happen within a week, or maybe it will happen within the same day. Once again, the bet you're actually making is different from the bet you think you're making. Can you provide some algorithms or methods that do work for generating some extra cash on the side, aside from purchasing S&P 500 type index funds and waiting? When I purchase index funds, it's not to generate extra liquid cash on the side. I don't invest nearly enough to be able to purchase an index fund and earn substantial dividends. I don't want to get into any specific strategies because I'm not in the business of making investment recommendations, and I don't want to start. Furthermore, I don't think explicit investment recommendations are welcome here (unless it's describing why something is a bad idea), and I agree with that policy. I will make a couple of points, however. Understand your goals. Are you investing for retirement or a shorter horizon, e.g. some side income? You seem to know this already, but I include it for future readers. If a strategy seems too good to be true, it probably is. Educate yourself before designing a strategy. Research fundamental analysis, different types of orders (e.g., so you fully understand that you don't have control over when limit orders are executed), different sectors of the market if that's where your interests lie, etc. Personally, I find some sectors fascinating, so researching them thoroughly allows me to make informed investment decisions as well as learn about something that interests me. Understand your limits. How much money are you willing to risk and possibly lose? Do you have a risk management strategy in place to prevent unexpected losses? What are the costs of the risk management itself? Backtest, backtest, backtest. Ideally your backtesting and simulating should be identical to actual market conditions and incorporate all transaction costs and a wide range of historical data. Get other opinions. Evaluate those opinions with the same critical eye as I and others have evaluated your proposed strategy.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"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": "5771743ff63660295d09ab422941f4d1",
"text": "Let's consider that transaction cost is 0(zero) for calculation. In the scenario you have stated, maximum profit that could be made is 55$, however risk is unlimited. Hedging can also be used to limit your losses, let's consider this scenario. Stock ABC trading @ 100$, I'll buy the stock ABC @ 100$ and buy a put option of ABC @ strike price 90$ for a premium of 5$ with an expiration date of 1 month. Possible outcomes I end up in a loss in 3 out of 4 scenarios, however my loss is limited to 15$, whereas profit is unlimited.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7ce961b6cfac8676162a167d62aa2949",
"text": "Is the parent company's common stock public? If not, then there will be absolutely no pressure from everyone liquidating at the same time. If so, consider the average daily volume of transactions in the parent company's stock. Is it much greater than the volume your 10k co-workers will have to liquidate? If so, I wouldn't expect much of an impact from all liquidating at once. Any other situation, you are probably right to be a bit worried about simultaneous liquidation. If this was my case, I'd probably submit a limit sell order so as to try and pick out a high for the timing of my liquidation, and lower my limit vs fair value as it got closer to the expiration of your ability to hold the parent company stock.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8efad011153e1a252633e7cf601a316f",
"text": "\"The process of borrowing shares and selling them is called shorting a stock, or \"\"going short.\"\" When you use money to buy shares, it is called \"\"going long.\"\" In general, your strategy of going long and short in the same stock in the same amounts does not gain you anything. Let's look at your two scenarios to see why. When you start, LOOT is trading at $20 per share. You purchased 100 shares for $2000, and you borrowed and sold 100 shares for $2000. You are both long and short in the stock for $2000. At this point, you have invested $2000, and you got your $2000 back from the short proceeds. You own and owe 100 shares. Under scenario A, the price goes up to $30 per share. Your long shares have gone up in value by $1000. However, you have lost $1000 on your short shares. Your short is called, and you return your 100 shares, and have to pay interest. Under this scenario, after it is all done, you have lost whatever the interest charges are. Under scenario B, the prices goes down to $10 per share. Your long shares have lost $1000 in value. However, your short has gained $1000 in value, because you can buy the 100 shares for only $1000 and return them, and you are left with the $1000 out of the $2000 you got when you first sold the shorted shares. However, because your long shares have lost $1000, you still haven't gained anything. Here again, you have lost whatever the interest charges are. As explained in the Traders Exclusive article that @RonJohn posted in the comments, there are investors that go long and short on the same stock at the same time. However, this might be done if the investor believes that the stock will go down in a short-term time frame, but up in the long-term time frame. The investor might buy and hold for the long term, but go short for a brief time while holding the long position. However, that is not what you are suggesting. Your proposal makes no prediction on what the stock might do in different periods of time. You are only attempting to hedge your bets. And it doesn't work. A long position and a short position are opposites to each other, and no matter which way the stock moves, you'll lose the same amount with one position that you have gained in the other position. And you'll be out the interest charges from the borrowed shares every time. With your comment, you have stated that your scenario is that you believe that the stock will go up long term, but you also believe that the stock is at a short-term peak and will drop in the near future. This, however, doesn't really change things much. Let's look again at your possible scenarios. You believe that the stock is a long-term buy, but for some reason you are guessing that the stock will drop in the short-term. Under scenario A, you were incorrect about your short-term guess. And, although you might have been correct about the long-term prospects, you have missed this gain. You are out the interest charges, and if you still think the stock is headed up over the long term, you'll need to buy back in at a higher price. Under scenario B, it turns out that you were correct about the short-term drop. You pocket some cash, but there is no guarantee that the stock will rise anytime soon. Your investment has lost value, and the gain that you made with your short is still tied up in stocks that are currently down. Your strategy does prevent the possibility of the unlimited loss inherent in the short. However, it also prevents the possibility of the unlimited gain inherent in the long position. And this is a shame, since you fundamentally believe that the stock is undervalued and is headed up. You are sabotaging your long-term gains for a chance at a small short-term gain.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ced0eec88f0ff8ca5c9fb5e786ee9731",
"text": "\"What you did is called a \"\"strangle.\"\" It's rather unlikely that both will be exercised on the same day. But yes, it can happen. That is if the market is very volatile on a given day, so that the stock hits 13 in the morning, the put gets exercised, and then hits 15 later in the day, so the call gets exercised. Or vice versa. More to the point, the prices are close enough that one might be hit on one day, and the other on a DIFFERENT day. In either case, if one side gets hit, you need to reevaluate your position in the other. But basically, any open position you have can be hit at any time. The only way to avoid this risk is not to have positions.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "2026e8b41d83bbb037d4643cd3c94844",
"text": "Yes, maybe. The 529 is pretty cool in that you can open an account for yourself, and change the beneficiary as you wish, or not. In theory, one can start a 529 for children or grandchildren yet unborn. Back to you - a 529 is not deductible on your federal return. It grows tax deferred, and tax free if used for approved education. Some states offer deductions depending on the state. There is a list of states that offer such a deduction.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
45e2127fc966774fe27919bf51530987
|
What's the difference between shares outstanding and regular shares?
|
[
{
"docid": "66cf2a60fd5afb42e290e2d9d52f4199",
"text": "outstanding shares are the shares(regular shares) that are still tradable in the market, where the firm in question is listed. The term is primarily used to distinguish from shares held in treasury(treasury stock), which have been bought back(buybacks) from the market and aren't currently tradable in the market. Wikipedia is a bit more clearer and mentions the diluted outstanding shares(used for convertible bonds, warrants, etc) which is used to calculated diluted EPS.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "b32701eca361387d32f57d1bcda9f2b7",
"text": "I believe, I could be wrong, it has been a long day. By exercising this right you have the right to purchase the equivalent of their current share. Eg. Someone owns 50 of 100 shares. and the company does a rights offering and is expanding the shares to 200. That person has first right to purchase 50 more shares to keep his share from being diluted.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "928751b619c8acb14b05b9788c7ed7fb",
"text": "It's not quite identical, due to fees, stock rights, and reporting & tax obligations. But the primary difference is that a person could have voting rights in a company while maintaining zero economic exposure to the company, sometimes known as empty voting. As an abstract matter, it's identical in that you reduce your financial exposure whether you sell your stock or short it. So the essence of your question is fundamentally true. But the details make it different. Of course there are fee differences in how your broker will handle it, and also margin requirements for shorting. Somebody playing games with overlapping features of ownership, sales, and purchases, may have tax and reporting obligations for straddles, wash sales, and related issues. A straight sale is generally less complicated for tax reporting purposes, and a loss is more likely to be respected than someone playing games with sales and purchases. But the empty voting issue is an important difference. You could buy stock with rights such as voting, engage in other behavior such as forwards, shorts, or options to negate your economic exposure to the stock, while maintaining the right to vote. Of course in some cases this may have to be disclosed or may be covered by contract, and most people engaging in stock trades are unlikely to have meaningful voting power in a public company. But the principle is still there. As explained in the article by Henry Hu and Bernie Black: Hedge funds have been especially creative in decoupling voting rights from economic ownership. Sometimes they hold more votes than economic ownership - a pattern we call empty voting. In an extreme situation, a vote holder can have a negative economic interest and, thus, an incentive to vote in ways that reduce the company's share price. Sometimes investors hold more economic ownership than votes, though often with morphable voting rights - the de facto ability to acquire the votes if needed. We call this situation hidden (morphable) ownership because the economic ownership and (de facto) voting ownership are often not disclosed.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "40e19a42d0c1030422b12eaa08ea15d4",
"text": "The shortest-hand yet most reliable metric is daily volume / total shares outstanding. A security with a high turnover rate will be more efficient than a lower one, ceteris paribus. The practical impacts are tighter spread and lower average percentage change between trades. A security with a spread of 0% and an average change of 0% between trades is perfectly efficient.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "306e4dbc38dd9989c1d6bd8e12f8a6bc",
"text": "\"What you need to do is go to yahoo finance and look at different stock's P/E ratios. You'll quickly see that the stocks can be sorted by this number. It would be an interesting exercise to get an idea of why P/E isn't a fixed number, how certain industries cluster around a certain number, but even this isn't precise. But, it will give you an idea as to why your question has no answer. \"\"Annual earnings are $1. What is the share price?\"\" \"\"Question has no answer\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b08954541826ede87341a0bc377e552b",
"text": "\"Treasury stock is not really represented in the Balance Sheet as a \"\"Treasury stock\"\" line item in the assets. Some companies will break out Treasury Shares as a line item in the \"\"Shareholders Equity\"\" heading of the balance sheet but Apple hides it in the \"\"Shares Issued and Outstanding\"\" counts under the \"\"Shareholders Equity\"\" heading. As of the most recent Q2 2017 quarterly report There are 5,205,815,000 shares issued against 5,336,166,000 shares outstanding. This indicates that Apple is retaining about 130,351,000 shares in treasury. On the Q1 10-Q you can see that Apple had 5,255,423,000 shares issued which indicates roughly 49mm shares were repurchased by the end of Q2. You can roughly verify this by looking at page 18 of the Q2 filing in the summary of the share repurchase program. Repurchased as part of an Accelerated Share Repurchase arrangement bleeds between quarters but from February 2017 through May 2017 there have been 17.5mm shares repurchased. 31mm shares were also repurchased on the open market in Q2. The \"\"shares issued\"\" total is on a downward trend as part of Apple's share repurchase initiative that has been underway for the last couple of years.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6d710ce4d7a4275036f7b4a3cce5a07e",
"text": "\"The best place to start looking is the companies \"\"Balance Sheet\"\" (B/S). This would show you the total shares \"\"outstanding.\"\" The quarterly B/S's arent audited but a good starting point. To use in any quant method, You also need to look a growth the outstanding shares number. Company can issue shares to any employee without making a filing. Also, YOU will NEVER know exactly the total number because of stock options that are issued to employees that are out of the money arent account for. Some companies account for these, some dont. You should also explore the concepts of \"\"fully dilute\"\" shares and \"\"basis\"\" shares. These concepts will throw-off your calc if the company has convertible bonds.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5949539198c871c182c0da1bb78ce5e5",
"text": "I'm going to guess that you found this because of a stock screener. This company went through a 1:20 reverse split on June 30, so every 20 shares outstanding became a single share. Where before you had 20 shares worth $100 you now have 1 share worth $100, the value of the company doesn't change because of a split. This company was never trading for $30+ per share. Reverse splits are typical of a floundering company trading on an exchange that has a minimum share price requirement. While reverse splits don't change the value of the company, just the number of shares outstanding and the price per share, no healthy company performs a reverse split. Reverse splits are generally a massive signal to jump ship... The company seems to be trading for $1 right now, why the value fell from a pre-split $1.65 ($33/20) to $1 is anyone's guess; how the company ever got to $1.65 is also anyone's guess. But looking at the most recent 10-Q there are numerous causes for concern: Note 2. Capital Stock On March 6, 2017, the Company issued as compensation for services provided a total of 650,000 common shares with a fair value of $390,000 to a third party. The fair value of the shares was based on the price quoted on the OTC pink sheets on the grant date. this indicates a share price of $0.60 ($390,000/650,000) as of 3/6/2017, just to reinforce that the google price chart doesn't show the true past but a past adjusted for the split Results of Operations The three months ended March 31, 2017 compared to the three months ended March 31, 2016 For the three months ended March 31, 2017 compared to the three months ended March 31, 2016, total revenues were $0 and $0, respectively, and net losses from operations were $414,663 and $26,260, respectively. The net losses were attributable to costs attributable to operating as a public company, in particular, common stock with a valuation of $390,000 that was issued to an investor relations firm in the first quarter of 2017. Going Concern As of March 31, 2017, there is substantial doubt regarding our ability to continue as a going concern as we have not generated sufficient cash flow to fund our proposed business. We have suffered recurring losses from operations since our inception. In addition, we have yet to generate an internal cash flow from our business operations or successfully raised the financing required to develop our proposed business. As a result of these and other factors, our independent auditor has expressed substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. Liquidity and Capital Resources We had no cash as of the date of March 31, 2017. Additionally, since there is no balance sheet in the last 10-Q (another bad sign), the last annual report 10-K has this balance sheet: So the company: So why did the stock value plummet? It's anyones' guess but there is no shortage of ways to justify it. In fact, it's reasonable to ask how is this company still worth $3mm ($1 * 3mm shares outstanding)...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9c243d1eac92836b54948f6676ef8da4",
"text": "I also reckon the tax situation is a relevant difference. I'd rather take shares over a wage when, you know, I'm not / minimally taxed for capital gains, at a rate way lower than what I should be paying for the equivalent as income tax.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f15e1b1e2d695565c4dfa9ef72174040",
"text": "\"The formulae #issued shares = #outstanding shares + #treasury shares looks right. However it looks like the Treasury Shares are treated as -ve in accounting books and thus the outstanding shares are more than issued shares to the extent of Treasury shares. Further info at \"\"Accounting for treasury stock\"\" on wiki\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b17badf725c241c03f061a9db2a96bff",
"text": "The price of a share has two components: Bid: The highest price that someone who wants to buy shares is willing to pay for them. Ask: The lowest price that someone who has a share is willing to sell it for. The ask is always higher than the bid, since if they were equal the buyer and seller would have a deal, make a transaction, and that repeats until they are not equal. For stock with high volume, there is usually a very small difference between the bid and ask, but a stock with lower volume could have a major difference. When you say that the share price is $100, that could mean different things. You could be talking about the price that the shares sold for in the most recent transaction (and that might not even be between the current bid and ask), or you could be talking about any of the bid, the ask, or some value in between them. If you have shares that you are interested in selling, then the bid is what you could immediately sell a share for. If you sell a share for $100, that means someone was willing to pay you $100 for it. If after buying it, they still want to buy more for $100 each, or someone else does, then the bid is still $100, and you haven't changed the price. If no one else is willing to pay more than $90 for a share, then the price would drop to $90 next time a transaction takes place and thats what you would be able to immediately sell the next share for.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "93fab222b68576800518b5b1a4e554ec",
"text": "Coca Cola doesn't seem to have any preferred shares outstanding. From the annual report, it does say that the number of common shares outstanding was 2,294,316,831 as of February 22, 2011. (cover page, right before the horizontal break) But normally, you can find it either toward the beginning of the document or in the statement of shareholder's equity.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e6a86727ce2c1f10f9574097f583a59e",
"text": "Shareholders are the equity holders. They mean the same thing. A simplified formula for the total value of a company is the value of its equity, plus the value of its debt, less its cash (for reasons I won't get into). There are usually other things to add or subtract, but that's the basic formula.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f9d078018380bf6a6a8f2211d217c6a3",
"text": "Is it normal for such transactions to create new outstanding shares? Yes a company can create new shares or a Majority share holder can sell some of his stake or it can be a mix of both. how will this news affect the short-term and long-term price of the company's stock? This is opinion based and not apt for this site. It can be positive or negative depending on how the market reacts to the news.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0e80debd630aed2f9bc1a63c7aade6a6",
"text": "I haven't seen any of the other answers address this point – shares are (a form of) ownership of a company and thus they are an entitlement to the proceeds of the company, including proceeds from liquidation. Imagine an (extreme, contrived) example whereby you own shares in a company that is explicitly intended to only exist for a finite and definite period, say to serve as the producers of a one-time event. Consider a possible sequence of major events in this company's life: So why would the shares of this hypothetical company be worth anything? Because the company itself is worth something, or rather the stuff that the company owns is worth something, even (or in my example, especially) in the event of its dissolution or liquidation. Besides just the stuff that a company owns, why else would owning a portion of a company be a good idea, i.e. why would I pay for such a privilege? Buying shares of a company is a good idea if you believe (and are correct) that a company will make larger profits or capture more value (e.g. buy and control more valuable stuff) than other people believe. If your beliefs don't significantly differ from others then (ideally) the price of the companies stock should reflect all of the future value that everyone expects it to have, tho that value is discounted based on time preference, i.e. how much more valuable a given amount of money or a given thing of value is today versus some time in the future. Some notes on time preference: But apart from whether you should buy shares in a specific company, owning shares can still be valuable. Not only are shares a claim on a company's current assets (in the event of liquidation) but they are also claims on all future assets of the company. So if a company is growing then the value of shares now should reflect the (discounted) future value of the company, not just the value of its assets today. If shares in a company pays dividends then the company gives you money for owning shares. You already understand why that's worth something. It's basically equivalent to an annuity, tho dividends are much more likely to stop or change whereas the whole point of an annuity is that it's a (sometimes) fixed amount paid at fixed intervals, i.e. reliable and dependable. As CQM points out in their answer, part of the value of stock shares, to those that own them, and especially to those considering buying them, is the expectation or belief that they can sell those shares for a greater price than what they paid for them – irrespective of the 'true value' of the stock shares. But even in a world where everyone (magically) had the same knowledge always, a significant component of a stock's value is independent of its value as a source of trading profit. As Jesse Barnum points out in their answer, part of the value of stocks that don't pay dividends relative to stocks that do is due to the (potential) differences in tax liabilities incurred between dividends and long-term capital gains. This however, is not the primary source of value of a stock share.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0c9e754e3769d7ad1a16dbc3e6c90ba5",
"text": "It seems like you want to compare the company's values not necessarily the stock price. Why not get the total outstanding shares and the stock price, generate the market cap. Then you could compare changes to market cap rather than just share price.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
61a347fac7d4b21f64aec2000e29998c
|
Should I invest $35,000 for 3-5 months? [duplicate]
|
[
{
"docid": "8a8a67ea7ce494e435405a0f4a50e3b6",
"text": "Yes, and there are several ways, the safest is a high-yield savings account which will return about 1% yearly, so $35 per month. That's not extremely much, but better than nothing (you probably get almost zero interest on a regular checking account).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f5f9a84be965d5f77c90eb158666c8e9",
"text": "\"Is it possible to profit from some of this money in the short term before I need to access it? Sure, it's possible. But if the stock market decides to \"\"correct\"\" (or even crashes), you'll be in a world of hurt. Thus, since it's so important that you not lose this money, just stick it in an online bank earning 1.2%, and withdraw \"\"enough\"\" twice a month. EDIT: by \"\"withdraw\"\", I mean to transfer to your checking account.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "1805ce71824f0d9e5274a06566cfe5f8",
"text": "\"I don't think you should mix the two notions. Not starting out with at least. It takes so much money, time and expertise to invest for income that, starting out at least, you should view it as a goal, not a starting point. Save your money in the lowest cost investments you can find. If you are like me, you can't pick a stock from a bond, so put your money into a target retirement fund. Let the experts manage the risk and portfolio. Start early and save often! At only 35 you have lots of time. Perhaps you are really into finance, in which case you might somebody manage your own portfolio. Great, but for now, let an expert do the heavy lifting. You are an app developer. Your best bet to increase your income stream with via your knowledge and expertise. While you are still so young, you should use labor to make money, and then save that money for retirement. I am going to make an assumption that where you are will software development means you can become a great developer long before you can become a great financier. Play to your strengths. I am also afraid you are over estimating how comfortable you are with risk. Any \"\"investment\"\" that has the kinds of returns you are looking for is going to be wildly risky. I would say those types of opportunities are more \"\"speculation\"\" rather than \"\"investments.\"\" There isn't necessarily anything wrong with speculations, but know the difference in risk. Are you really willing to gamble your retirement?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f321b5f5dcf5df983195cc9e9609e344",
"text": "Firstly, I think you need to separate your question into two parts: If you are Chinese, live in China and intend to stay in China for most of your life then the default answer to question 1 should be Renminbi. Question 2 is not as important, you can hold USD in almost any country in the world. Any investment you hold has risk, which may include market risk, credit risk, liquidity risk, inflation risk etc. Holding USD will expose you to exchange rate fluctuations as well. If the Renminbi rises in value against the dollar your returns in USD will be reduced by the same amount (remember that for currency fluctuations you have to multiply the percentages, see here for a good explanation). The first thing you probably want to do is find out exactly what the assets are in the 理财 you have invested in. The fact that there is a 'risk level' (even if it is only 2) would suggest to me that the fund is investing in some combination of bonds and stocks which means that your returns are not guaranteed and could make a loss. Interest rates on deposit accounts are mandated by the government in China, and the current 12 month deposit rate on RMB is 3%. To earn over 3%, GEB must be investing your assets in something else (I'm guessing bonds). Bear in mind that 1.5 years is a very short amount of time in investments, so don't assume this return will continue! I'm afraid I've only been studying Chinese for a year, so I can't really help you much with the link you've sent through - you may want to check if there is any guaranteed minimum return, which can be the case in more complex structured products. Ultimately you will need to pick an investment which you feel gives you the best combination of risk and return for your situation, there are a huge amount of options to choose between. The 4-5% you are earning right now is not a huge risk premium on the 3% you could earn in China from a time deposit, but in the current environment you may struggle to beat it without taking on more risk. Before considering that though - understand how much risk you already have with GEB.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "55007fd29e85f7c0371128de9781b4b8",
"text": "\"Think about the implications if the world worked as your question implies that it \"\"should\"\": A $15 share of stock would return you (at least) $15 after 3 months, plus another $15 after 6 months, plus another after 9 and 12 months. This would have returned to you $60 over the year that you owned it (plus you still own the share). Only then would the stock be worth buying? Anything less than $60 would be too little to be worth bothering about for $15? Such a thing would indeed be worth buying, but you won't find golden-egg laying stocks like that on the stock market. Why? Because other people would outbid your measly $15 in order to get this $60-a-year producing stock (in fact, they would bid many hundreds of dollars). Since other people bid more, you can't find such a deal available. (Of course, there are the points others have brought up: the earnings per share are yearly, not quarterly, unless otherwise noted. The earnings may not be sent to you at all, or only a small part, but you would gain much of their value because the company should be worth about that much more by keeping the earnings.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9dfff4439dc88f19cb59daada05aed8f",
"text": "More often than not the market will rise year on year. Your best move is to put the $5000 in on Jan 2. Are you in the 15% bracket? If not, that is, if higher, I'd suggest the traditional, deductible, IRA.",
"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": "30145c66a11d058bae0676502bd4bb35",
"text": "\"Invest! Because you are young and have lots of time, I recommend opening an investment account and putting most (1000£?) or all in something like an S&P 500 index fund or ETF. Start building your savings now because compound growth over time will build significant wealth. You can still invest the other 500£/mo in something a bit less volatile if you think you'll need the money in < 5 years. If you expect your income to continue to grow and you expect to have extra cash every month for the foreseeable future, I'd just put it all in an index fund. You can weather any temporary market swings, and in the worst-case scenario you can always sell a few shares if you need the cash. The advantage of an index fund is that it has very low fees and it's an \"\"invest-and-forget\"\" approach. You don't have to watch the market every day because your money will simply match the market. And in the long term the market does much better than most managed funds or ETFs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_fund\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e52cab25c8a4b58dd01b6ff3d0d8a071",
"text": "\"Can is fine, and other answered that. I'd suggest that you consider the \"\"should.\"\" Does your employer offer a matched retirement account, typically a 401(k)? Are you depositing up to the match? Do you have any higher interest short term debt, credit cards, car loan, student loan, etc? Do you have 6 months worth of living expenses in liquid funds? One point I like to beat a dead horse over is this - for most normal mortgages, the extra you pay goes to principal, but regardless of how much extra you pay, the next payment is still due next month. So it's possible that you are feeling pretty good that for 5 years you pay so much that you have just 10 left on the 30 year loan, but if you lose your job, you still risk losing the house to foreclosure. It's not like you can ask the bank for that money back. If you are as disciplined as you sound, put the extra money aside, and only when you have well over the recommended 6 months, then make those prepayments if you choose. To pull my comment to @MikeKale into my answer - I avoided this aspect of the discussion. But here I'll suggest that a 4% mortgage costs 3% after tax (in 25% bracket), and I'd bet cap gain rates will stay 15% for non-1%ers. So, with the break-even return of 3.5% (to return 3 after tax) and DVY yielding 3.33%, the questions becomes - do you think the DVY top yielders will be flat over the next 15 years? Any return over .17%/yr is profit. That said, the truly risk averse should heed the advise in original answer, then pre-pay. Update - when asked,in April 2012, the DVY I suggested as an example of an investment that beats the mortgage cost, traded at $56. It's now $83 and still yields 3.84%. To put numbers to this, a lump sum $100K would be worth $148K (this doesn't include dividends), and giving off $5700/yr in dividends for an after-tax $4800/yr. We happened to have a good 4 years, overall. The time horizon (15 years) makes the strategy low risk if one sticks to it.\"",
"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": "7e33d6cc87fcb2c47d6eb1a0b9675d66",
"text": "You may also want to consider short term, low risk investments. Rolling Certificate of Deposits can be good for this. They don't grow like an Index Fund but there's 0 risk and they will grow faster than your bank. For my bank as an example today's rates on my Money Market is 0.10% APY while the lowest CD (90 days) is 0.20% APY with a 5 year going up to 0.90% APY. It's not substantial by any stretch but its secure and the money would just be sitting in my bank otherwise. For more information look at: What is CD laddering and what are its pros and cons?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "35897c65549bc4b4a106fc62120d6160",
"text": "\"Well depends but \"\"on average\"\" the stock market has historically returned somewhere around 10% per year. Note, this can vary wildly from year to year see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%26P_500#Market_statistics So it would be roughly 2.8 years to get your 30% if you happen to get the average market return for those 3 years, but the chances of that happening exactly are slim to none. You could end up with +50% or -30% over that ~3 year period of time - so the calculation doesn't do you that much good for that short period of time, but if you are talking a span of 30 years then you could plan using that as a very rough ballpark. Good rule of thumb is you shouldn't put any money in the stock market you think you will need anytime in the next 5 years. Formula to figure out total gain would be Principal x (1+ rate of return) ^ years\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fa2b0a6b3793f38dafffe53ce49dc70d",
"text": "5 years is very short term, and since you are sure you'll need the money, investing it into the markets should probably not be done. You can toss it in Ally bank for 1% or consider a 5 yr raise your rate CD A decent write-up on time horizons: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/110813/using-time-horizons-investing.asp If you want to go the stock/bond route you can assess the benefits of using something like a vanguard target date fund, or a roboadvisor such as wealthfront or betterment. You need to assess whether you think you may move up your time horizon, say you want to buy a house in 4 years, or, if it is 5 years, are you ok with it being 6.5-7 if there is a market downturn.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "06ca6b7b052a8a23dd05e70c68e92efb",
"text": "\"You have a good thing going. One of the luxuries of being invested in an index fund for the long term is that you don't have to sweat the inevitable short term dips in the market. Instead, look at the opportunity that presents itself on market dips: now your monthly investment is getting in at a lower price. \"\"Buy low, sell high.\"\" \"\"Don't lose money.\"\" These are common mantras for long term investment mentality. 5-8 years is plenty of time -- I'd call it \"\"medium-term\"\". As you get closer to your goals (~2-3 years out) you should start slowly moving money out of your index fund and start dollar cost averaging out into cash or short-term bonds (but that's another question). Keep putting money in, wait, and sell high. If it's not high, wait another year or two to buy the house. A lot of people do the opposite for their entire lives: buying high, panic selling on the dips, then buying again when it goes up. That's bad! I recommend a search on \"\"dollar cost averaging\"\", which is exactly what you are doing right now with your monthly investments.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bab6ea73a159b162acf0efe1a8be6b24",
"text": "\"The answer to your question depends very much on your definition of \"\"long-term\"\". Because let's make something clear: an investment horizon of three to six months is not long term. And you need to consider the length of time from when an \"\"emergency\"\" develops until you will need to tap into the money. Emergencies almost by definition are unplanned. When talking about investment risk, the real word that should be used is volatility. Stocks aren't inherently riskier than bonds issued by the same company. They are likely to be a more volatile instrument, however. This means that while stocks can easily gain 15-20 percent or more in a year if you are lucky (as a holder), they can also easily lose just as much (which is good if you are looking to buy, unless the loss is precipitated by significantly weaker fundamentals such as earning lookout). Most of the time stocks rebound and regain lost valuation, but this can take some time. If you have to sell during that period, then you lose money. The purpose of an emergency fund is generally to be liquid, easily accessible without penalties, stable in value, and provide a cushion against potentially large, unplanned expenses. If you live on your own, have good insurance, rent your home, don't have any major household (or other) items that might break and require immediate replacement or repair, then just looking at your emergency fund in terms of months of normal outlay makes sense. If you own your home, have dependents, lack insurance and have major possessions which you need, then you need to factor those risks into deciding how large an emergency fund you might need, and perhaps consider not just normal outlays but also some exceptional situations. What if the refrigerator and water heater breaks down at the same time that something breaks a few windows, for example? What if you also need to make an emergency trip near the same time because a relative becomes seriously ill? Notice that the purpose of the emergency fund is specifically not to generate significant interest or dividend income. Since it needs to be stable in value (not depreciate) and liquid, an emergency fund will tend towards lower-risk and thus lower-yield investments, the extreme being cash or the for many more practical option of a savings account. Account forms geared toward retirement savings tend to not be particularly liquid. Sure, you can usually swap out one investment vehicle for another, but you can't easily withdraw your money without significant penalties if at all. Bonds are generally more stable in value than stocks, which is a good thing for a longer-term portion of an emergency fund. Just make sure that you are able to withdraw the money with short notice without significant penalties, and pick bonds issued by stable companies (or a fund of investment-grade bonds). However, in the present investment climate, this means that you are looking at returns not significantly better than those of a high-yield savings account while taking on a certain amount of additional risk. Bonds today can easily have a place if you have to pick some form of investment vehicle, but if you have the option of keeping the cash in a high-yield savings account, that might actually be a better option. Any stock market investments should be seen as investments rather than a safety net. Hopefully they will grow over time, but it is perfectly possible that they will lose value. If what triggers your financial emergency is anything more than local, it is certainly possible to have that same trigger cause a decline in the stock market. Money that you need for regular expenses, even unplanned ones, should not be in investments. Thus, you first decide how large an emergency fund you need based on your particular situation. Then, you build up that amount of money in a savings vehicle rather than an investment vehicle. Once you have the emergency fund in savings, then by all means continue to put the same amount of money into investments instead. Just make sure to, if you tap into the emergency fund, replenish it as quickly as possible.\"",
"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": "d530f2b6588cb43271a67fa236e2bc7c",
"text": "You can put them in a 5 years CD and getting a maximum of %2.5 APY if you're lucky. If you put 15k now, in 5 years you'll have $1.971. If it sounds good then take a look at the current inflation rate (i'm in usa)... If you want to think about retirement then you should open a Roth IRA. But you won't be able to touch the money without penalties (10% of earnings) before you get 59 1/2 years old. Another option would be to open a regular investment account with an online discounted broker. Which one? Well, this should be a totally separate question... If you decide to invest (Roth IRA or regular account) and you're young and inexperienced then go for a balanced mutual fund. Still do a lot of research to determine your portfolio allocation or which fund is best suited for you. Betterment (i never used it) is a no brainer investment broker. Please don't leave them in a generic checking or low interest savings account because you'll save nothing (see inflation again)...",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
36f4758fb23c5d4db609dee5cd1bbdd7
|
How could strike price for new shares be higher than the market price
|
[
{
"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": "abb18dbd2f2d77771ff42e3621a39e25",
"text": "Berkshire Hathaway issues first ever-negative coupon security from back in 2002 had this part: The warrants will give the holder the right to purchase either shares of the Company's class A or class B common stock at the holder’s option. The initial exercise price represents a 15% premium over the closing price of the class A shares on the NYSE on May 21, 2002. The Notes will pay holders a 3.0% interest rate per annum and holders will pay 3.75% installment payments per annum on the warrants. The warrant payments due from holders will be greater than the coupon on the senior notes, effectively making SQUARZ the first negative coupon security. Berkshire Hathaway will use the net proceeds from the issuance for general corporate purposes, including possible acquisitions, none of which are pending. This would be an example where the strike price was 15% higher than the closing price yet the security sold well.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "b6467e804b2819ebdf69bc967a7c1f66",
"text": "At any given time there are buy orders and there are sell orders. Typically there is a little bit of space between the lowest sell order and the highest buy order, this is known as the bid/ask spread. As an example say person A will sell for $10.10 but person B will only buy at $10.00. If you have a billion shares outstanding just the space between the bid and ask prices represents $100,000,000 of market cap. Now imagine that the CEO is in the news related to some embezzlement investigation. A number of buyers cancel their orders. Now the highest buy order is $7. There isn't money involved, that's just the highest offer to buy at the time; but that's a drop from $10 to $7. That's a change in market cap of $3,000,000,000. Some seller thinks the stock will continue to fall, and some buyer thinks the stock has reached a fair enterprise value at $7 billion ($7 per share). Whether or not the seller lost money depends on where the seller bought the stock. Maybe they bought when it was an IPO for $1. Even at $7 they made $6 per share. Value is changing, not money. Though it would be fun, there's no money bonfire at the NYSE.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b9a93210621735731fdc511dc1bc1fff",
"text": "You should not trade based on what news is just released, if you try you will be too slow to react most of the time. In many cases the news is already priced into the stock during the anticipation of the news being released. Other times as soon as the news is released the price will gap up or down in response to the news. Some times when you think that the news is good, like new record profits have been achieved, but the share price goes down instead of up. This may be due to the expectation of the record profits by analysts to be 20% more than last year, but the company only achieves 10% more than last year. So the news is actually seen as bad because, even though record profits, it hasn't met expectations. The same can happen in the other direction, a company may make a loss and the share price goes up. This may be because it was expected to make a 50% loss but only made a 20% loss due to cost cutting, so this is seen as a good thing and the price can shoot up, especially if it had been beaten down for months. An other example is when the Federal Reserve in the USA put up interest rates earlier this month. Some may have seen this as bad news and expected share prices to fall, but instead prices rallied. This was actually seen as good news, firstly because it had been expected for a long time, and secondly and more importantly because a small rise in interest rates after many years of near zero rates is a sign of the economy finally starting to improve. If the economy is improving, that means more people will have jobs, more people will be spending more money, companies will start to make higher revenues and start to expand, which means higher profits and higher share prices. A better way to trade is to have a written trading plan and use technical analysis to develop a set of buy and sell criteria that you follow to the tea. Then back test your trading plan through various market conditions to make sure you get a positive expectancy.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7cdff41bc8fe9de657c5969883088d44",
"text": "\"Buying pressure is when there are more buy orders than sell orders outstanding. Just because someone wants to buy a stock doesn't mean there's a seller ready to fill that order. When there's buying pressure, stock prices rise. When there's selling pressure, stock prices fall. There can be high volume where buying and selling are roughly equal, in which case share prices wouldn't move much. The market makers who actually fill buy and sell orders for stock will raise share prices in the face of buying pressure and lower them in the face of selling pressure. That's because they get to keep the margin between what they bought shares from a seller for and what they can sell them to a new buyer for. Here's an explanation from InvestorPlace.com about \"\"buying pressure\"\": Buying pressure can basically be defined as increasingly higher demand for a particular stock's shares. This demand for shares exceeds the supply and causes the price to rise. ... The strength or weakness of a stock determines how much buying or selling interest will be required to break support and resistance areas. I hope this helps!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c189277f36f28c2d2c117dbfbf90c88c",
"text": "\"Systemic and well know patterns in sales are priced in to the security. Typically companies with very cyclical earnings like this will issue guidance of earnings per share within a range. These expected earnings are priced in before the earnings are actually booked. If a company meets these expectations the stock will likely stay relatively flat. If the company misses this expectation, the stock, generally, will get slammed. This kind of Wall Street behavior typically mystifies media outlets when a company's stock declines after reporting a record high level of whatever metric. The record high is irrelevant if it misses the expectation. There is no crystal ball but if something is both well known and expected it's already been \"\"priced in.\"\" If the well known expected event doesn't occur, maybe it's a new normal.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f34458f083eae68c8949828e68620000",
"text": "A stock market is just that, a market place where buyers and sellers come together to buy and sell shares in companies listed on that stock market. There is no global stock price, the price relates to the last price a stock was traded at on a particular stock market. However, a company can be listed on more than one stock exchange. For example, some Australian companies are listed both on the Australian Stock Exchange (ASX) and the NYSE, and they usually trade at different prices on the different exchanges. Also, there is no formula to determine a stock price. In your example where C wants to buy at 110 and B wants to sell at 120, there will be no sale until one or both of them decides to change their bid or offer to match the opposite, or until new buyers and/or sellers come into the market closing the gap between the buy and sell prices and creating more liquidity. It is all to do with supply and demand and peoples' emotions.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d22e351c9ec928739d7ed725da136615",
"text": "How is it possible that a publicly traded investment company's net asset value per share is higher than their share price? Wouldn't you (in theory) be able to buy the company and liquidate it to make a profit of (NAV/share - price/share)*number of shares, ignoring transaction costs and such? I realize that since part of their portfolio is in private equity, NAV is hard to calculate and hard to liquidate as well, but it doesn't really seem to make sense to me. Would love some input. The company I'm talking about in this instance is 180 Degree Capital Corp, but this isn't the first time I've seen this.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "177520afa3ba3c94f80b068568d73cc0",
"text": "\"Note that we do not comment on specific stocks here, and have no place doing so. If your question is only about that specific stock then it is off topic. I have not tried to answer that part below. The key to valuation is predicting the net present value of all of a company's cash flows; i.e. of their future profits and losses. Through a number of methods to long to explain here investment banks and hedge funds work out what they expect the company's cash flows to be and trade so that these future profits, losses etc. are priced into the stock price. Since future cash flows, profits or whatever you want to call them are priced in, the price of a stock shouldn't move at all on an earnings statement. This begs the question \"\"why do some stock prices move violently when they announce earnings?\"\" The models that the institutional investors use are not perfect and cannot take into account everything. An unexpected craze for a product or a supply chain agreement breaking down on not being as good as it seems will not be factored into this pricing and so the price will move based on the degree to which expectation is missed or exceeded. Since penny socks are speculative their value is based far more on the long term expected cash flows and less on the short run cash flows. This goes a long way to explaining why some of the highest market capitalisation penny stocks are those making consistent losses. This means that they can be far less susceptible to price movements after an earnings announcement even if it is well out of the consensus range. Higher (potential) future value comes with the higher risks of penny stocks which discounts current value. In the end if people's expectation of the company's performance reflects reality then the profitability is priced in and there will be no price movement. If the actuality is outside of the expected range then there will be a price movement.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6e6390bc4bd318df463271b969ab2ba9",
"text": "This has never really adequately explained it for me, and I've tried reading up on it all over the place. For a long time I thought that in a trade, the market maker pockets the spread *for that trade*, but that's not the case. The only sensible explanation I've found (which I'm not going to give in full...) is that the market maker will provide liquidity by buying and selling trades they have no actual view on (short or long), and if the spread is higher, that contributes directly to the amount they make over time when they open and close positions they've made. It would be great to see a single definitive example somewhere that shows how a market maker makes money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0c9e754e3769d7ad1a16dbc3e6c90ba5",
"text": "It seems like you want to compare the company's values not necessarily the stock price. Why not get the total outstanding shares and the stock price, generate the market cap. Then you could compare changes to market cap rather than just share price.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "22d688f1402e8f49f666d9a6935b39a0",
"text": "The volatility measures how fast the stock moves, not how much. So you need to know the period during which that change occurred. Then the volatility naturally is higher the faster is the change.",
"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": "e8d4e739a306ca89e667e6fb2291fbb6",
"text": "\"An important thing that many people fail to realize is that the number of shares outstanding in a stock, times the current market price of those shares, does not represent anything related to the total value of those shares. If a company has one million shares outstanding and its total value is $10 million, then the real worth of each share is $10. If few people feels like buying or selling, but a few people think the company is worth $50 million and offer $50/share, that could raise the market price to $50/share, but it wouldn't mean that the company became worth five times as much; it would merely mean the stock was overpriced. If, after the price went to $50/share, all the owners of the stock put in stop-loss orders at $45. Note that the real $10/share \"\"real value\"\" of their stock would never have changed. If the people who thought the stock was worth $50 decided to get out of the market, and nobody else was willing to offer more than $10, that would instantly drop the price to $10. The fact that a million shares of stock have stop-loss orders at $45 wouldn't magically generate buyers for those stocks at that price. Indeed, unchecked stop-loss orders would have the reverse effect, since many people who would have been willing if not eager to buy the stock if it had been available for less than $10/share would instead be trying to sell it below that price. It's too bad people think that the number of shares outstanding times the current market price represents some kind of \"\"meaningful quantity\"\". If the present cash value of all future payouts associated with a share of stock is $10, then someone who buys a share of stock for less than that makes money off the seller; someone who pays more loses money to the seller. Many people think they can lose money to the seller and still come out okay if the price goes higher, but what that really means is that they're hoping to find a bigger sucker--a game where it's guaranteed that some people will have losses they don't recoup.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b7deba6712b7fb28aabe4197b393aa59",
"text": "Assuming you are saying that the company issues 20,000 additional shares of its own stock and sells them for $8 each: The money from the sale is not income and not part of earnings. It is capital and appears on the balance sheet as part of shareholder's equity. With no other transactions, yes, the total of shares outstanding is increased by 20,000 to 100,000.",
"title": ""
},
{
"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": "70011115542a3425b818a404927a4b7b",
"text": "I'm a college student and recently got an interview at an energy investing firm for a job upon graduation. I have academic and extracurricular experience in finance, but I'm not too knowledgeable on the energy sector. What are some good resources (websites, newsletters, etc.) on learning more about the energy industry? Are there any industry specific questions that are likely to come up during the interview?",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
7b94b4a7c1c084d70cf97b69e48e1bb9
|
Determining the basis for capital gain [duplicate]
|
[
{
"docid": "410f540b4ab654bf8bda42f5bd8443f1",
"text": "If you make money in currency speculation (as in your example), that is a capital gain. A more complicated example is if you were to buy and then sell stocks on the mexican stock exchange. Your capital gain (or loss) would be the difference in value in US dollars of your stocks accounting for varying exchange rates. It's possible for the stocks to go down and for you to still have a capital gain, and vice versa.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "baebd309ec2e588da4ec6750b375502a",
"text": "If the gift was stock that they have owned for years there can be one hitch: The basis of the stock doesn't reset when it is gifted. For example if grandparents have owned stock that is currently worth $10,000 today, but they bought it decades ago when it only cost them $1,000; then if the new owner sells it today they will have a gain of $9,000. The clock to determine short term/long term also doesn't reset; which is good. The basis needs to be determined now so that the gain can be accurately calculated in the future. This information should be stored in a safe place. Gains for dividends are investment income and the rules regarding the kiddie tax need to be followed.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2ed3c177786d18301727f0854afccc2d",
"text": "\"In the USA there are two ways this situation can be treated. First, if your short position was held less than 45 days. You have to (when preparing the taxes) add the amount of dividend back to the purchase price of the stock. That's called adjusting the basis. Example: short at $10, covered at $8, but during this time stock paid a $1 dividend. It is beneficial for you to add that $1 back to $8 so your stock purchase basis is $9 and your profit is also $1. Inside software (depending what you use) there are options to click on \"\"adjust the basis\"\" or if not, than do it manually specifically for those shares and add a note for tax reviewer. Second option is to have that \"\"dividednd payment in lieu paid\"\" deducted as investment expence. But that option is only available if you hold the shorts for more than 45 days and itemize your deductions. Hope that helps!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "75ffd20447fc3efc958c6f9cf52db524",
"text": "Is the Grant Date or the Vest Date used when determining the 12-month cutoff for long-term and short-term capital gains? You don't actually acquire the stock until it's vested, so that is the date and price used to determine your cost basis and short-term/long-term gain/loss. The grant date really has no tax bearing. If you held the stock (time between vesting and sale) for more than one year you will owe long-term CG tax, if less than one year you will owe short-term CG tax.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2344c287634cb6e22a4b35f37aee3997",
"text": "Sale of a stock creates a capital gain. It can be offset with losses, up to $3000 more than the gains. It can be deferred when held within a retirement account. When you gift appreciated stock, the basis follows. So when I gifted my daughter's trust shares, there was still tax due upon sale. The kiddy tax helped reduce but not eliminate it. And there was no quotes around ownership. The money is gone, her account is for college. No 1031 exchange exists for stock.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "730f045c86fb1fd0f70292b5f620bc95",
"text": "\"I'm not 100% certain on boats, since they aren't typically sold for a gain, but the tax base of an asset is typically the cost of the asset plus the cost of any improvements, so your $15,000 gain looks right (check with a CPA to be certain, though, if you can). Your \"\"cost basis\"\" would be $50,000 + $25,000 = $75,000, and your net gain would be $90,000 - $75,000 = $15,000. The result is the same, but the arithmetic is organized a little differently. I am fairly confident you cannot include your time in the \"\"cost of improvements\"\". If you incorporated and \"\"paid yourself\"\" for the time, then the payment would be considered income (and taxed), if it was even allowed. Depending on your tax bracket that may be a WORSE option for you. You can look at it this way - you only pay the tax on the $15k gain versus paying someone else $15k to do the labor.\"",
"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": "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": "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": "a16cdeba56a7edbdb8277e7c90b16dce",
"text": "\"You can exclude up to $250000 ($500000 for married filing jointly) of capital gains on property which was your primary residence for at least 2 years within the 5 years preceding the sale. This is called \"\"Section 121 exclusion\"\". See the IRS publication 523 for more details. Gains is the difference between your cost basis (money you paid for the property) and the proceeds (money you got when you sold it). Note that the amounts you deducted for depreciation (or were allowed to deduct during the period the condo was a rental, even if you chose not to) will be taxed at a special rate of 25% - this is called \"\"depreciation recapture\"\", and is discussed in the IRS publication 544.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "065f69630f86e51394730e12b6f82f9b",
"text": "To sum up: My question came from misunderstanding what cost basis applies to. Now I get it that it applies to stocks as physical entities. Consider a chain of buys of 40 stock A with prices $1-$4-$10-$15 (qty 10 each time) then IRS wants to know exactly which stock I am selling. And when I transfer stocks to different account, that cost basis transfers with them. Cost basis is included in transfers, so that removes ambiguity which stock is being sold on the original account. In the example above, cost basis of 20 stocks moved to a new account would probably be $1 x 10 and $4 x 10, i.e. FIFO also applies to transfers.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "17c82c8934c11cba29787c4df49b7d52",
"text": "In a comment on this answer you asked It's not clear to me why the ability to defer the gains would matter (since you never materially benefit until you actually sell) but the estate step up in basis is a great point! Could you describe a hypothetical exploitive scenario (utilizing a wash sale) in a little more detail? This sounds like you still have the same question as originally, so I'll take a stab at answering with an example. I sell some security for a $10,000 profit. I then sell another security at a $10,000 loss and immediately rebuy. So pay no taxes (without the rule). Assuming a 15% rate, that's $1500 in savings which I realize immediately. Next year, I sell that same security for a $20,000 profit over the $10,000 loss basis (so a $10,000 profit over my original purchase). I sell and buy another security to pay no taxes. In fact, I pay no taxes like this for fifty years as I live off my investments (and a pension or social security that uses up my tax deductions). Then I die. All my securities step up in basis to their current market value. So I completely evade taxes on $500,000 in profits. That's $75,000 in tax savings to make my heirs richer. And they're already getting at least $500,000 worth of securities. Especially consider the case where I sell a privately held security to a private buyer who then sells me back the same shares at the same price. Don't think that $10,000 is enough? Remember that you also get the original value. But this also scales. It could be $100,000 in gains as well, for $750,000 in tax savings over the fifty years. That's at least $5 million of securities. The effective result of this would be to make a 0% tax on capital gains for many rich people. Worse, a poorer person can't do the same thing. You need to have many investments to take advantage of this. If a relatively poor person with two $500 investments tried this, that person would lose all the benefit in trading fees. And of course such a person would run out of investments quickly. Really poor people have $0 in investments, so this is totally impractical.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d3ad5c3e23220983ecf4990d8cae163b",
"text": "\"The wash sale rule only applies when the sale in question is at a loss. So the rule does not apply at all to your cases 3, 4, 7, 8, 11, 12, 15, and 16, which all start with a gain. You get a capital gain at the first sale and then a separately computed gain / loss at the second sale, depending on the case, BUT any gain or loss in the IRA is not a taxable event due to the usual tax-advantaged rules for the IRA. The wash sale does not apply to \"\"first\"\" sales in your IRA because there is no taxable gain or loss in that case. That means that you wouldn't be seeking a deduction anyway, and there is nothing to get rolled into the repurchase. This means that the rule does not apply to 1-8. For 5-8, where the second sale is in your brokerage account, you have a \"\"usual\"\" capital gain / loss as if the sale in the IRA didn't happen. (For 1-4, again, the second sale is in the IRA, so that sale is not taxable.) What's left are 9-10 (Brokerage -> IRA) and 13-14 (Brokerage -> Brokerage). The easier two are 13-14. In this case, you cannot take a capital loss deduction for the first sale at a loss. The loss gets added to the basis of the repurchase instead. When you ultimately close the position with the second sale, then you compute your gain or loss based on the modified basis. Note that this means you need to be careful about what you mean by \"\"gain\"\" or \"\"loss\"\" at the second sale, because you need to be careful about when you account for the basis adjustment due to the wash sale. Example 1: All buys and sells are in your brokerage account. You buy initially at $10 and sell at $8, creating a $2 loss. But you buy again within the wash sale window at $9 and sell that at $12. You get no deduction after the first sale because it's wash. You have a $1 capital gain at the second sale because your basis is $11 = $9 + $2 due to the $2 basis adjustment from wash sale. Example 2: Same as Example 1, except that final sale is at $8 instead of at $12. In this case you appear to have taken a $2 loss on the first buy-sell and another $1 loss on the second buy-sell. For taxes however, you cannot claim the loss at the first sale due to the wash. At the second sale, your basis is still $11 (as in Example 1), so your overall capital loss is the $3 dollars that you might expect, computed as the $8 final sale price minus the $11 (wash-adjusted) basis. Now for 9-10 (Brokerage->IRA), things are a little more complicated. In the IRA, you don't worry about the basis of individual stocks that you hold because of the way that tax advantages of those accounts work. You do need to worry about the basis of the IRA account as a whole, however, in some cases. The most common case would be if you have non-deductable contributions to your traditional IRA. When you eventually withdraw, you don't pay tax on any distributions that are attributable to those nondeductible contributions (because you already paid tax on that part). There are other cases where basis of your account matters, but that's a whole question in itself - It's enough for now to understand 1. Basis in your IRA as a whole is a well-defined concept with tax implications, and 2. Basis in individual holdings within your account don't matter. So with the brokerage-IRA wash sale, there are two questions: 1. Can you take the capital loss on the brokerage side? 2. If no because of the wash sale, does this increase the basis of your IRA account (as a whole)? The answer to both is \"\"no,\"\" although the reason is not obvious. The IRS actually put out a Special Bulletin to answer the question specifically because it was unclear in the law. Bottom line for 9-10 is that you apparently are losing your tax deduction completely in that case. In addition, if you were counting on an increase in the basis of your IRA to avoid early distribution penalties, you don't get that either, which will result in yet more tax if you actually take the early distribution. In addition to the Special Bulletin noted above, Publication 550, which talks about wash sale rules for individuals, may also help some.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6fe6793ff8919f9399c7387c88a30ead",
"text": "\"Tax cost basis is the amounts you've spent on developing the product which you hasn't deducted yet from previous income. From what you've described, it sounds like your cost basis is $0. Time you spent is not your cost, since time is not money. The fact that you might have earned something if working at that time but you didn't - is irrelevant, because potential income that you didn't get is not a loss that you took. Someone mentioned \"\"intangibles\"\" in the comments - that would be the line of thought of the buyer. However, since you didn't buy the product but rather developed it, you can only deduct the actual expenses you've incurred, that you haven't deducted so far.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "98a515cbd0567da8e4039af7b5522f27",
"text": "That's tricky, actually. First, as the section 1015 that you've referred to in your other question says - you take the lowest of the fair market value or the actual donor basis. Why is it important? Consider these examples: So, if the relative bought you a brand new car and you're the first title holder (i.e.: the relative paid, but the car was registered directly to you) - you can argue that the basis is the actual money paid. In essence you got a money gift that you used to purchase the car. If however the relative bought the car, took the title, and then drove it 5 miles to your house and signed the title over to you - the IRS can argue that the car basis is the FMV, which is lower because it is now a used car that you got. You're the second owner. That may be a significant difference, just by driving off the lot, the car can lose 10-15% of its value. If you got a car that's used, and the donor gives it to you - your basis is the fair market value (unless its higher than the donor's basis - in which case you get the donor's basis). You always get the lowest basis for losses (and depreciation is akin to a loss). Now consider the situation when your relative is a business owner and used the car for business. He didn't take the depreciation, but he was entitled to. IRS can argue that the fact that he didn't take is irrelevant and reduce the donor's basis by the allowable depreciation. That may bring your loss basis to below the FMV. I suggest you take it to a tax professional licensed in your state who will check all the facts and circumstances of your situation. Your relative might be slapped with a gift tax as well, if the car FMV is above certain amount (currently the exemption is $14000).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1af8f81a857213cb573cf7e58603bb56",
"text": "You don't. When you sell them - your cost basis would be the price of the stock at which you sold the stocks to cover the taxes, and the difference is your regular capital gain.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
97f7552e03d551b382e0eb9cfd3e35b3
|
selling apple stock limit order
|
[
{
"docid": "42e6c151f76413441c383a8aaf9f510f",
"text": "Your order may or may not be executed. The price of stock can open anywhere. Often yesterday's close is a good indication of today's open, but with a big event overnight, the open may be somewhere quite different. You'll have to wait and see like the rest of us. Also, even if it doesn't execute at the open, the price could vary during the day and it might execute later.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "e9ff81339f4419ca37158c942331a99e",
"text": "\"A market sell order will be filled at the highest current \"\"bid\"\" price. For a reasonably liquid stock, there will be several buy orders in line, and the highest bid must be filled first, so there should a very short time between when you place the order and when it is filled. What could happen is what's called front running. That's when the broker places their own order in front of yours to fulfill the current bid, selling their own stock at the slightly higher price, causing your sale to be filled at a lower price. This is not only unethical but illegal as well. It is not something you should be concerned about with a large broker. You should only place a market order when you don't care about minute differences between the current ask and your execution price, but want to guarantee order execution. If you absolutely have to sell at a minimum price, then a limit order is more appropriate, but you run the risk that your limit will not be reached and your order will not be filled. So the risk is a tradeoff between a guaranteed price and a guaranteed execution.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "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": "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": "84434322484e6ec1298d53c4d304f4a4",
"text": "The obvious thing would happen. 10 shares change owner at the price of $100. A partially still open selling order would remain. Market orders without limits means to buy or sell at the best possible or current price. However, this is not very realistic. Usually there is a spread between the bid and the ask price and the reason is that market makers are acting in between. They would immediately exploit this situation, for example, by placing appropriately limited orders. Orders without limits are not advisable for stocks with low trading activity. Would you buy or sell stuff without caring for the price?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "29d55ab26f576d446bf5ddcd88929106",
"text": "Congratulations! You own a (very small) slice of Apple. As a stockholder, you have a vote on important decisions that the company makes. Each year Apple has a stockholder meeting in Cupertino that you are invited to. If you are unable to attend and vote, you can vote by proxy, which simply means that you register your vote before the meeting. You just missed this year's meeting, which was held on February 26, 2016. They elected people to the board of directors, chose an accounting firm, and voted on some other proposals. Votes are based on the number of shares you own; since you only own one share, your vote is very small compared to some of the other stockholders. Besides voting, you are entitled to receive profit from the company, if the company chooses to pay this out in the form of dividends. Apple's dividend for the last several quarters has been $0.52 per share, which means that you will likely receive 4 small checks from Apple each year. The value of the share of stock that you have changes daily. Today, it is worth about $100. You can sell this stock whenever you like; however, since you have a paper certificate, in order to sell this stock on the stock market, you would need to give your certificate to a stock broker before they can sell it for you. The broker will charge a fee to sell it for you. Apple has a website for stockholders at investor.apple.com with some more information about owning Apple stock. One of the things you'll find here is information on how to update your contact information, which you will want to do if you move, so that Apple can continue to send you your proxy materials and dividend checks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8b8ddc850fe99c878acf046cdcaa9c0d",
"text": "\"I'll answer this question: \"\"Why do intraday traders close their position at then end of day while most gains can be done overnight (buy just before the market close and sell just after it opens). Is this observation true for other companies or is it specific to apple ?\"\" Intraday traders often trade shares of a company using intraday leverage provided by their firm. For every $5000 dollars they actually have, they may be trading with $100,000, 20:1 leverage as an example. Since a stock can also decrease in value, substantially, while the markets are closed, intraday traders are not allowed to keep their highly leveraged positions opened. Probabilities fail in a random walk scenario, and only one failure can bankrupt you and the firm.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "d789e42d59c3ecd9aa81709d72c53a26",
"text": "Buy and sell orders always include the price at which you buy/sell. That's how the market prices for stocks are determines. So if you want to place a buy order at 106, you can do that. When that order was fulfilled and you have the stock, you can place a sell order at 107. It will be processed as soon as someone places a buy order at 107. Theoretically you can even place sell orders for stocks you haven't even bought yet. That's called short selling. You do that when you expect a stock to go down in the future. But this is a very risky operation, because when you mispredict the market you might end up owing more money than you invested. No responsible banker will even discuss this with you when you can not prove you know what you are doing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "b6e009ec30f69b32a49996716bf36410",
"text": "\"The psychology of investing is fascinating. I buy a stock that's out of favor at $10, and sell half at a 400% profit, $50/share. Then another half at $100, figuring you don't ever lose taking a profit. Now my Apple shares are over $500, but I only have 100. The $10 purchase was risky as Apple pre-iPod wasn't a company that was guaranteed to survive. The only intelligent advice I can offer is to look at your holdings frequently, and ask, \"\"would I buy this stock today given its fundamentals and price?\"\" If you wouldn't buy it, you shouldn't hold it. (This is in contrast to the company ratings you see of buy, hold, sell. If I should hold it, but you shouldn't buy it to hold, that makes no sense to me.) Disclaimer - I am old and have decided stock picking is tough. Most of our retirement accounts are indexed to the S&P. Maybe 10% is in individual stocks. The amount my stocks lag the index is less than my friends spend going to Vegas, so I'm happy with the results. Most people would be far better off indexing than picking stocks.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ec8f8aec8dbc65664a5e95008f9d34f6",
"text": "This is rather simple if you understand a trailing limit order but to be sure I am going to explain a limit, trailing limit, and trailing LIT order. I am going to use an example assuming that you already own a stock and want to sell it. Limit Order I place an order to sell 100 PG @ 65.00. This order will only be executed if the bid price of PG is at $65.0000 or greater. Trailing Limit Order I place an order to sell 100 CAT @ 85.25 with a trailing 5%. This order will be executed when CAT drops 5% below the highest point it reaches after you place this order. So if you place this order at 85.25 and the stock drops 5% to $80.9875, your order will be executed. However, if the stock jumps to $98, the order will not be executed until the stock falls to $93.10. The sell point will go up with the stock and will always remain at the specified % or $ amount behind the high point. Trailing Limit If Touched Order I place an order to sell 100 INTC @ 24.75 with a trailing 5% if the stock touches $25.00. Essentially, this is the same as the trailing limit except that it doesn't take effect until the stock first gets $25.00. I think the page they provide to explain this is confusing because I think they are explaining it from the shorting a stock perspective instead of the selling a stock you want to profit from. I could also be wrong in how I understand it. My advice would be to either call their customer support and ask for a better explanation or what I do in my finances, avoid things I don't understand.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fba9914819f98040a5ae17c9cd641ae5",
"text": "From the non-authoritative Investopedia page: A stop-limit order will be executed at a specified price, or better, after a given stop price has been reached. Once the stop price is reached, the stop-limit order becomes a limit order to buy or sell at the limit price or better. So once the stop price has been breached, your limit order is placed and will be on the order books as a $9 ask. For a vanilla stop order, a market order will be placed and will be filled using the highest active bid(s).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9c2369c3d29be396f7eedfb5f2064015",
"text": "Okay. They're faster than most other computers. They either have a dedicated fiber line or are physically closer. But anyways, they flood the NYSE with tons of orders to slow it down. So they see another broker's order in the line up and delete the bogus orders. They can then make the purchase faster than the other guy. The other guy now has to pay a higher strike price than he initially thought the bid would be. So let's say Apple's quote is 1.00 They send one order for apple One for IBM One for Yahoo One for NBC Comcast They see another guy wants Apple. So they cancel the orders for IBM, Yahoo and NBC Comcast and leave the Apple one to complete. The Apple one goes through and then they automatically resell it to the guy looking to buy Apple at a price of 1.0001 TLDR They flood a bunch of orders at a bunch of different prices/quantities. They cancel before it goes through unless they see someone else wants it. If that person wants it they don't cancel. edit: I don't even know if all or any of those stocks are listed on the NYSE. In today's world it doesn't make a difference anymore. However, replace NYSE with any exchange and the stock with any ticker symbol. edit 2: They could also manipulate cross listing. Listing the same stock on two different exchanges. Those prices are mostly uniform but of course higher volume on one could mean a higher price on one before they stabilize. So if you can move fast you can buy the stock at the lower price and sell it on the exchange with the higher price.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3d3024badcf485a7f35871a15bc54bf9",
"text": "\"The question you are asking concerns the exercise of a short option position. The other replies do not appear to address this situation. Suppose that Apple is trading at $96 and you sell a put option with a strike price of $95 for some future delivery date - say August 2016. The option contract is for 100 shares and you sell the contract for a premium of $3.20. When you sell the option your account will be credited with the premium and debited with the broker commission. The premium you receive will be $320 = 100 x $3.20. The commission you pay will depend on you broker. Now suppose that the price of Apple drops to $90 and your option is exercised, either on expiry or prior to expiry. Then you would be obliged to take delivery of 100 Apple shares at the contracted option strike price of $95 costing you $9,500 plus broker commission. If you immediately sell the Apple shares you have purchased under your contract obligations, then assuming you sell the shares at the current market price of $90 you would realise a loss of $500 ( = 100x($95-$90) )plus commission. Since you received a premium of $320 when you sold the put option, your net loss would be $500-$320 = $180 plus any commissions paid to your broker. Now let's look at the case of selling a call option. Again assume that the price of Apple is $96 and you sell a call option for 100 shares with a strike price of $97 for a premium of $3.60. The premium you receive would be $360 = 100 x $3.60. You would also be debited for commission by your broker. Now suppose that the price of Apple shares rises to $101 and your option is exercised. Then you would be obliged to deliver 100 Apple shares to the party exercising the option at the contracted strike price of $97. If you did not own the shares to effect delivery, then you would need to purchase those shares in the market at the current market price of $101, and then sell them to the party exercising the option at the strike price of $97. This would realise an immediate loss of $400 = 100 x ($101-$97) plus any commission payable. If you did own the shares, then you would simply deliver them and possibly pay some commission or a delivery fee to your broker. Since you received $360 when you sold the option, your net loss would be $40 = $400-$360 plus any commission and fees payable to the broker. It is important to understand that in addition to these accounting items, short option positions carry with them a \"\"margin\"\" requirement. You will need to maintain a margin deposit to show \"\"good faith\"\" so long as the short option position is open. If the option you have sold moves against you, then you will be called upon to put up extra margin to cover any potential losses.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
34ca325a23bbb85208e810401f19add1
|
What happens to an options contract during an all stock acquisition?
|
[
{
"docid": "cf6bc069c51d479e8861c83b5980419f",
"text": "According to this article: With an all-stock merger, the number of shares covered by a call option is changed to adjust for the value of the buyout. The options on the bought-out company will change to options on the buyer stock at the same strike price, but for a different number of shares. Normally, one option is for 100 shares of the underlying stock. For example, company A buys company B, exchanging 1/2 share of A for each share of B. Options purchased on company B stock would change to options on company A, with 50 shares of stock delivered if the option is exercised. This outcome strongly suggests that, in general, holders of options should cash out once the takeover is announced, before the transactions takes place. Since the acquiring company will typically offer a significant premium, this will offer an opportunity for instant profits for call option holders while at the same time being a big negative for put option holders. However, it is possible in some cases where the nominal price of the two companies favours the SML company (ie. the share prices of SML is lower than that of BIG), the holder of a call option may wish to hold onto their options. (And, possibly, conversely for put option holders.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8099a97c02fab67bcfe613d07362cedd",
"text": "Depends on your contract, cash or shares delivered? If shares, then you get 5 BIG shares. Theres no longer any options. If you sell instantly, theoretically you will net the $10 difference + profit above strike. If cash, same thing just that you get cash $50 less strike. Applies to cash and stock deals Options are binary, never pro-rated. if converted, basically you end up with BIG shares.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "83ce1b5e977862952bf765e2bcea55ad",
"text": "\"In general there are two types of futures contract, a put and call. Both contract types have both common sides of a transaction, a buyer and a seller. You can sell a put contract, or sell a call contract also; you're just taking the other side of the agreement. If you're selling it would commonly be called a \"\"sell to open\"\" meaning you're opening your position by selling a contract which is different from simply selling an option that you currently own to close your position. A put contract gives the buyer the right to sell shares (or some asset/commodity) for a specified price on a specified date; the buyer of the contract gets to put the shares on someone else. A call contract gives the buyer the right to buy shares (or some asset/commodity) for a specified price on a specified date; the buyer of the contract gets to call on someone for shares. \"\"American\"\" options contracts allow the buyer can exercise their rights under the contract on or before the expiration date; while \"\"European\"\" type contracts can only be exercised on the expiration date. To address your example. Typically for stock an option contract involves 100 shares of a stock. The value of these contracts fluctuates the same way other assets do. Typically retail investors don't actually exercise their contracts, they just close a profitable position before the exercise deadline, and let unprofitable positions expire worthless. If you were to buy a single call contract with an exercise price of $100 with a maturity date of August 1 for $1 per share, the contract will have cost you $100. Let's say on August 1 the underlying shares are now available for $110 per share. You have two options: Option 1: On August 1, you can exercise your contract to buy 100 shares for $100 per share. You would exercise for $10,000 ($100 times 100 shares), then sell the shares for $10 profit per share; less the cost of the contract and transaction costs. Option 2: Your contract is now worth something closer to $10 per share, up from $1 per share when you bought it. You can just sell your contract without ever exercising it to someone with an account large enough to exercise and/or an actual desire to receive the asset or commodity.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a3098a35499b252d57dc59783b87d239",
"text": "If they own enough shares to vote to sell, you will be paid the offer price quoted to you. At that point if you do not wish to sell your only recourse will be to file a lawsuit. This is a common tactic for significant shareholders who have a minority stake and cannot block the sale because they have insufficient voting rights. What usually happens then is that they either settle the lawsuit out of court by paying a little more to the holdouts or the lawsuit is thrown out and they take the original offer from the buyer. Rarely does a lawsuit from a buyout go to trial.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3e77db7e9fa33441623e940265591ae1",
"text": "\"When you exercise your options, you come up with cash to buy the shares. This makes you an owner of the company for shares at the share price your options let you have. Ideally, your share price is at a significant discount to what the company is worth. Being a shareholder, you gain from any share price appreciation in a sale. The only thing the \"\"60-day window\"\" applies to is whether you come up with the cash to buy fast enough, or your shares get permanently deleted from the company finances, where everyone else potentially makes more, you make nothing. The sale of the company is based on whenever the sell finalizes, which is between your company and the acquiring company.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "596ccc6f83cb1004dfffd242654aa1da",
"text": "\"Investopedia explains how a stock split impacts the stock's options: Each option contract is typically in control of 100 shares of an underlying security at a predetermined strike price. To find the new coverage of the option, take the split ratio and multiply by the old coverage (normally 100 shares). To find the new strike price, take the old strike price and divide by the split ratio. Say, for example, you own a call for 100 shares of XYZ with a strike price of $75. Now, if XYZ had a stock split of 2 for 1, then the option would now be for 200 shares with a strike price of $37.50. If, on the other hand, the stock split was 3 for 2, then the option would be for 150 shares with a strike price of $50. So, yes, a 2 for 1 stock split would halve the option strike prices. Also, in case the Investopedia article isn't clear, after a split the options still control 100 shares per contract. Regarding how a dividend affects option prices, I found an article with a good explanation: As mentioned above, dividends payment could reduce the price of a stock due to reduction of the company's assets. It becomes intuitive to know that if a stock is expected to go down, its call options will drop in extrinsic value while its put options will gain in extrinsic value before it happens. Indeed, dividends deflate the extrinsic value of call options and inflate the extrinsic value of put options weeks or even months before an expected dividend payment. Extrinsic value of Call Options are deflated due to dividends not only because of an expected reduction in the price of the stock but also due to the fact that call options buyers do not get paid the dividends that the stock buyers do. This makes call options of dividend paying stocks less attractive to own than the stocks itself, thereby depressing its extrinsic value. How much the value of call options drop due to dividends is really a function of its moneyness. In the money call options with high delta would be expected to drop the most on ex-date while out of the money call options with lower delta would be least affected. If a stock is expected to drop by a certain amount, that drop would already have been priced into the extrinsic value of its put options way beforehand. This is what happens to put options of dividend paying stocks. This effect is again a function of options moneyness but this time, in the money put options raise in extrinsic value more than out of the money put options. This is because in the money put options with delta of close to -1 would gain almost dollar or dollar on the drop of a stock. As such, in the money put options would rise in extrinsic value almost as much as the dividend rate itself while out of the money put options may not experience any changes since the dividend effect may not be strong enough to bring the stock down to take those out of the money put options in the money. So, no, a dividend of $1 will not necessarily decrease an option's price by $1 on the ex-dividend date. It depends on whether it's a call or put option, and whether the option is \"\"in the money\"\" or \"\"out of the money\"\" and by how much.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "93c0dd8ea161a1275c9113b1fd75a006",
"text": "2 things may happen. Either your positions are closed by the broker and the loss or profit is credited to your account. Else it is carried over to the next day and you pay interest on the stocks lent to you. What happens will be decided by the agreement signed between you and your broker.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "18fffb30cf851552aecb3366f6b51409",
"text": "By buying the call option, you are getting the benefit of purchasing the underlying shares (that is, if the shares go up in value, you make money), but transferring the risk of the shares reducing in value. This is more apparent when you are using the option to offset an explicit risk that you hold. For example, if you have a short position, you are at unlimited risk of the position going up in value. You could decide you only want to take the risk that it might rise to $X. In that case, you could buy a call option with $X strike price. Then you have transferred the risk that the position goes over $X to the counterpart, since, even if the shares are trading at $X+$Y you can close out the short position by purchasing the shares at $X, while the option counterpart will lose $Y.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "3c289a96ce11b904b67bfafb42f5a1aa",
"text": "If the buyer exercises your option, you will have to give him the stock. If you already own the stock, the worst that can happen is you have to give him your stock, thus losing the money you spend to buy it. So the most you can lose is what you already spent to buy the stock (minus the price the buyer paid for your option). If you don't own the stock, you will have to buy it. But if the stock skyrockets in value, it will be very expensive to buy it. If for instance you buy the stock when it is worth $100, sell your covered call, and the next day the stock shoots to $1000, you will lose the $100 you got from the purchase of the stock. But if you had used a naked call, you would have to buy the stock at $1000, and you would lose $900. Since there is no limit to how high the stock can go, there is no limit to how much money you may lose.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "90ce3189b5431a3e5deccd34b726d818",
"text": "The original option writer (seller) can close his short position in the contracts he wrote by purchasing back matching contracts (i.e. contracts with the same terms: underlying, option type, strike price, expiration date) from any others who hold long positions, or else who write new matching contract instances. Rather than buyer and seller settling directly, options are settled through a central options clearing house, being the Options Clearing Corporation for exchange-listed options in the U.S. See also Wikipedia - Clearing house (finance). So, the original buyer of the put maintains his position (insurance) and the clearing process ensures he is matched up with somebody else holding a matching obligation, if he chooses to exercise his put. I also answered a similar question but in more detail, here.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "202d5276e7d82b2d954b6fef63b10874",
"text": "Clawback Provision. Stock grants and options were either canceled or forfeited if they'd already been paid out. None of the execs became destitute because of it but the action was significant. Does anybody know how this compares to other cases of clawback?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "94bc6ab37faff03c2d0469edd874382b",
"text": "\"I'm adding to @Dilip's basic answer, to cover the additional points in your question. I'll assume you are referring to publicly traded stock options, such as those found on the CBOE, and not an option contract entered into privately between two specific counterparties (e.g. as in an employer stock option plan). Since you are not obligated to exercise a call option you purchased on the market, you don't need to maintain funds on account for possible exercising. You could instead let the option expire, or resell the option, neither of which requires funds available for purchase of the underlying shares. However, should you actually choose to exercise the call option (and usually this is done close to expiration, if at all), you will be required to fund your account much like if you bought the underlying shares in the first place. Call your broker to determine the exact rules and timing for when they need the money for a call-option exercise. And to expand on the idea of \"\"cancelling\"\" an option you purchased: No, you cannot \"\"cancel\"\" an option contract, per se. But, you are permitted to sell the call option to somebody else willing to buy, via the market. When you sell your call option, you'll either make or lose money on the sale – depending on the price of the underlying shares at the time (are they in- or out- of the money?), volatility in the market, and remaining time value. Once you sell, you're back to \"\"no position\"\". That's not the same as \"\"cancelled\"\", but you are out of the trade, whether at profit or loss. Furthermore, the option writer (i.e. the seller who \"\"sold to open\"\" a position, in writing the call in the first place) is also not permitted to cancel the option he wrote. However, the option writer is permitted to close out the original short position by simply buying back a matching call option on the market. Again, this would occur at either profit or loss based on market prices at the time. This second kind of buy order – i.e. made by someone who initially wrote a call option – is called a \"\"buy to close\"\", meaning the purchase of an offsetting position. (The other kind of buy is the \"\"buy to open\"\".) Then, consider: Since an option buyer is free to re-sell the option purchased, and since an option writer (who \"\"sold to open\"\" the new contract) is also free to buy back an offsetting option, a process known as clearing is required to match remaining buyers exercising the call options held with the remaining option writers having open short positions for the contract. For CBOE options, this clearing is performed by the Options Clearing Corporation. Here's how it works (see here): What is the OCC? The Options Clearing Corporation is the sole issuer of all securities options listed at the CBOE, four other U.S. stock exchanges and the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (NASD), and is the entity through which all CBOE option transactions are ultimately cleared. As the issuer of all options, OCC essentially takes the opposite side of every option traded. Because OCC basically becomes the buyer for every seller and the seller for every buyer, it allows options traders to buy and sell in a secondary market without having to find the original opposite party. [...] [emphasis above is mine] When a call option writer must deliver shares to a call option buyer exercising a call, it's called assignment. (I have been assigned before, and it isn't pleasant to see a position called away that otherwise would have been very profitable if the call weren't written in the first place!) Also, re: \"\"I know my counter party cannot sell his shares\"\" ... that's not strictly true. You are thinking of a covered call. But, an option writer doesn't necessarily need to own the underlying shares. Look up Naked call (Wikipedia). Naked calls aren't frequently undertaken because a naked call \"\"is one of the riskiest options strategies because it carries unlimited risk\"\". The average individual trader isn't usually permitted by their broker to enter such an order, but there are market participants who can do such a trade. Finally, you can learn more about options at The Options Industry Council (OIC).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "94ca522ac3e692fc40a81e334445cace",
"text": "\"Many companies (particularly tech companies like Atlassian) grant their employees \"\"share options\"\" as part of their compensation. A share option is the right to buy a share in the company at a \"\"strike price\"\" specified when the option is granted. Typically these \"\"vest\"\" after 1-4 years so long as the employee stays with the company. Once they do vest, the employee can exercise them by paying the strike price - typically they'd do that if the shares are now more valuable. The amount they pay to exercise the option goes to the company and will show up in the $2.3 million quoted in the question.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1c7e127b0fa41389b4f06b9f16c85775",
"text": "It basically only affects the company's dealings with its own stock, not with operational concerns. If the company were to offer more stock for sale, it would get less cash. If it had a stock buy-back program, it could buy more shares for the same money. If it was to offer to acquire another company in exchange for its own stock, the terms would be less attractive to the other company's owners. Employee stock remuneration, stock options, and so forth would be affected, so there might be considerations and tax consequences for the company.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5e263b6f80d24c88b2569fd6c7986147",
"text": "\"To explain why you have to be 18: If you are not 18, then any contract that you sign can be voided (made invalid) by either you or your parents. So it would be completely legal for you to go to the bank, ask for a $1000 loan, and for the bank to give you the loan. But then you could spend the money, and tell the bank \"\"sorry, I changed my mind, I don't want that loan, and sorry again, but the money is gone\"\". At that point, there would be nothing the bank could do to get their money back. Obviously, banks don't like this, so they won't lend you money.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
a628fbe863ee2e6e49d2056cc93ee608
|
How to invest Rs.10k in India
|
[
{
"docid": "e3efb83cd148a46c46b206939dac5cb6",
"text": "Rs 10,000 is a small but good amount to begin with. I would suggest you start by investing in some good mutual funds. Do some research, a balance mutual fund is less risky less returns compared to a equity mutual fund. The other option is directly investing in stock market, however this needs some experience and you would need to open demat and trading accounts that would cost money to open and maintain.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "063b56709b74cc7a200263954736026b",
"text": "I am going to assume that this is going to be a long term investment and you don't need this money before 5-6years at the very least. My advise would be to invest in one of the following funds : IDFC Premier equity fund growth plan (Direct) (Only SIP allowed right now) ICICI Discovery fund growth plan (Direct) DSP microcap fund growth plan (Direct) In case you do not want to be invested in small and mid cap and want a little less volatility then my first choice for that would be : Quantum long term equity fund dividend plan Whatever you go for make sure you go directly with the fund house and not through a broker as you end up getting charged an extra .63% extra as opposed to going direct and you will also be paying for a demat account which can be avoided if you invest directly with a fund house. Out of the above mentioned funds Quantum has the lowest expense ratio of 1.25% and it is a huge benefit if you are talking 10+ years because it makes a lot of difference. Source : My own research and experience as an investor.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "b677b2d0d99879a1ad3cf2e40d13b37a",
"text": "Try this as a starter - my eBook served up as a blog (http://www.sspf.co.uk/blog/001/). Then read as much as possible about investing. Once you have money set aside for emergencies, then make some steps towards investing. I'd guide you towards low-fee 'tracker-style' funds to provide a bedrock to long-term investing. Your post suggests it will be investing over the long-term (ie. 5-10 years or more), perhaps even to middle-age/retirement? Read as much as you can about the types of investments: unit trusts, investment trusts, ETFs; fixed-interest (bonds/corporate bonds), equities (IPOs/shares/dividends), property (mortgages, buy-to-let, off-plan). Be conservative and start with simple products. If you don't understand enough to describe it to me in a lift in 60 seconds, stay away from it and learn more about it. Many of the items you think are good long-term investments will be available within any pension plans you encounter, so the learning has a double benefit. Work a plan. Learn all the time. Keep your day-to-day life quite conservative and be more risky in your long-term investing. And ask for advice on things here, from friends who aren't skint and professionals for specific tasks (IFAs, financial planners, personal finance coaches, accountants, mortgage brokers). The fact you're being proactive tells me you've the tools to do well. Best wishes to you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7d8bfa942a95dca04473e749992486d1",
"text": "\"Like Dheer said, the demand for shorter term money is greater than for longer term money, precisely because the banks don't want to have to pay big interest rates for long periods. Banks borrow short term and lend long term - so they take money from you for one year, and lend it away as a 20 year mortgage. After a year, they take money for another year. Since short term rates tend to be higher than longer term rates, they make money off the \"\"spread\"\" (or the different between the rate they lend and the rate they borrow). In this scenario, banks should pay higher for longer term deposits, but overall banks realize that interest rates will go up and down, and they don't want to lock the \"\"up\"\" for a longer term. Since banks believe that rates will come down in the 1-2 year period, they offer good rates only till the 1 year period and disincentivize longer term deposits by offering lower rates. If you look at the interbank or money markets, trading of very short term bulk money shows that for the 10-15 day periods, the interest rates being offered are 10% or so, while for one year it's just 9.5%. The market believes that interest rates will go down in the one year time frame - but you never really know since this is just a bunch of people that believe so. Eventually, if rates continue to go up, the demand at the longer term will also go up, because it will become obvious that the rate pressure continues to be strong. If you do want higher rates for the long term, check out State bank of India bonds that are currently trading on the NSE (you can buy them if you have a brokerage account) They are just about as safe as SBI Fixed Deposits, and the rate being offered is around 9.3%, for a 10-15 year term. Hope that helps!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e684c98f04db9a9885cad4ab7319e653",
"text": "DCA is not 10%/day over 10 days. If I read the objective correctly, I'd suggest about a 5 year plan. It's difficult to avoid the issue of market timing. And any observation I'd make about the relative valuation of the market would be opinion. By this I mean, some are saying that PE/10 which Nobel prize winner Robert Schiller made well known, if not popular, shows we are pretty high. Others are suggesting the current PE is appropriate given the near zero rate of borrowing. Your income puts long term gains at zero under current tax code. Short term are at your marginal rate. I would caution not to let the tax tail wag the investing dog. The fellow that makes too many buy/sell decisions based on his taxes is likely to lag he who followed his overall allocation goals.",
"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": "5a920cb7e7d5d27b8b43bfecb5f41516",
"text": "The 10K in savings and money market is equal to about 1.5 months of income for emergency funds. You should add additional funds to this account over the next few years to let that increase to 3 to 6 months of monthly expenses. This money should be kept secure so that it will be there when you need it. Growth is not the primary function for this account. Investment at this stage should be for retirement. This means take advantage of 401K matching if it is available. You will have to determine if Roth or regular makes the most sense for you. In general the lower your current tax bracket the more sense Roth makes for you. If you want an IRA again decide which type. Also remember that you have until the tax deadline to make a contribution so you can decide to use a refund to fund the IRA. IRAs and 401Ks are just account types with some rules attached. They can be invested in everything from CD's to individual stocks depending on how aggressive you want to be.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e0b0784f9fc25a8f78170f45e68b67e6",
"text": "There are more than a few ideas here. Assuming you are in the U.S., here are a few approaches: First, DRIPs: Dividend Reinvestment Plans. DRIP Investing: How To Actually Invest Only A Hundred Dollars Per Month notes: I have received many requests from readers that want to invest in individual stocks, but only have the available funds to put aside $50 to $100 into a particular company. For these investors, keeping costs to a minimum is absolutely crucial. I have often made allusions and references to DRIP Investing, but I have never offered an explanation as to how to logistically set up DRIP accounts. Today, I will attempt to do that. A second option, Sharebuilder, is a broker that will allow for fractional shares. A third option are mutual funds. Though, these often will have minimums but may be waived in some cases if you sign up with an automatic investment plan. List of mutual fund companies to research. Something else to consider here is what kind of account do you want to have? There can be accounts for specific purposes like education, e.g. a college or university fund, or a retirement plan. 529 Plans exist for college savings that may be worth noting so be aware of which kinds of accounts may make sense for what you want here.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1cc9fda9a30d5e545deb8607f0ed6bc2",
"text": "I would suggest you to put your money in an FD for a year, and as soon as you get paid the interest, start investing that interest in a SIP(Systematic investment plan). This is your safest option but it will not give you a lot of returns. But I can guarantee that you will not lose your capital(Unless the economy fails as a whole, which is unlikely). For example: - you have 500000 rupees. If you put it in a fixed deposit for 1 year, you earn 46500 in interest(At 9% compounded quarterly). With this interest you can invest Rs.3875(46500/12) every month in an SIP for 12 months and also renew your FD, so that you can keep earning that interest.So at the end of 10 years, you will have 5 lacs in your FD and Rs. 4,18,500 in your SIP(Good funds usually make 13-16 % a year). Assuming your fund gives you 14%, you make: - 1.) 46500 at 14% for 9 years - 1,51,215 2.)8 years - 1,32,645 3.) 7 years - 1,16,355 4.) 6 years - 1,02,066 5.) 5 years - 89,531 6.) 4 years - 78,536 7.) 3 years - 68891 8.) 2 years 60,431 9.) 1 year - 53010 Total Maturity Value on SIP = Rs, 8,52,680 Principal on FD = Rs 5,00,000 Interest earned on 10th year = Rs. 46,500 Total = Rs. 13,99,180(14 lacs). Please note: - Interest rates and rate of return on funds may vary. This figure can only be assumed if these rates stay the same.:). Cheers!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d5b1c411ac0912893cb09fe44fe2823a",
"text": "Currently, in the US, you won't be able to get 4% return on a risk free investment (savings account, CDs, treasury bonds). If the banking system in India guarantees your money and the cost of transferring them to India is not prohibitive, that's the safest option. Buying a house usually is only worth it if you plan to live in it for a while, 5 years or more being the commonly cited figure. Every case is different, if you rent is very high, it might be worth to buy. I suggest posting another question specifically about that with more details about your situation. If you can tolerate a bit more risk, you might want to talk to a financial adviser and invest in the stock market.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ebb20a00f7a59b2682b77987bd4151f6",
"text": "The steps you outlined are fine by themselves. Step 5, seeking criticism can be less helpful than one may think. See stocktwits.com There are a lot of opposing opinions all of which can be correct over different time-frames. Try and quantify your confidence and develop different strategies for different confidence levels. I was never smart enough or patient with follow through to be a successful value investor. It was very frustrating to watch stocks trade sideways for years before the company's intrinsic value was better reflected in the market. Also, you could make an excellent pick, but a macro change and slump could set you back a year and raise doubts. In my experience portfolio management techniques like asset allocation and dollar-cost-averaging is what made my version of value investing work. Your interest in 10k/10q is something to applaud. Is there something specific about 10k/10q that you do not understand? Context is key, these types of reports are more relevant and understandable when compared to competitors in the same sector. It is good to assess over confidence! It is also good to diversify your knowledge and the effort put into Securities Analysis 6th edition will help with other books in the field. I see a bit of myself in your post, and if you are like me, than subsequent readings, and full mastery of the concepts in 'Securities & Analysis 6th ed.' will lead to over confidence, or a false understanding as there are many factors at play in the market. So many, that even the most scientific approaches to investing can just as equally be described as an 'art'. I'm not aware of the details of your situation, but in general, for you to fully realize the benefits from applying the principals of value investing shared by Graham and more recently Warren Buffett, you must invest on the level that requires use of the consolidation or equity method of accounting, e.g. > 20% ownership. Sure, the same principals used by Buffett can work on a smaller scale, but a small scale investor is best served by wealth accumulation, which can take many forms. Not the addition of instant equity via acquisitions to their consolidated financials. Lastly, to test what you have learned about value investing, and order execution, try the inverse. At least on paper. Short a stock with low value and a high P/E. TWTR may be a good example? Learn what it is like to have your resources at stake, and the anguish of market and security volatility. It would be a lot easier to wait it out as a long-term value investor from a beach house in Santa Barbara :)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0dbe36e7d333c6d096f12c3665f9261e",
"text": "I think I have a better answer for this since I have been an investor in the stock markets since a decade and most of my money is either made through investing or trading the financial markets. Yes you can start investing with as low as 50 GBP or even less. If you are talking about stocks there is no restriction on the amount of shares you can purchase the price of which can be as low as a penny. I stared investing in stocks when I was 18. With the money saved from my pocket money which was not much. But I made investments on a regular period no matter how less I could but I would make regular investments on a long term. Remember one thing, never trade stock markets always invest in it on a long term. The stock markets will give you the best return on a long term as shown on the graph below and will also save you money on commission the broker charge on every transaction. The brokers to make money for themselves will ask you to trade stocks on short term but stock market were always made to invest on a long term as Warren Buffet rightly says. And if you want to trade try commodities or forex. Forex brokers will offer you accounts with as low as 25 USD with no commissions. The commission here are all inclusive in spreads. Is this true? Can the average Joe become involved? Yes anyone who wants has an interest in the financial markets can get involved. Knowledge is the key not money. Is it worth investing £50 here and there? Or is that a laughable idea? 50 GBP is a lot. I started with a few Indian Rupees. If people laugh let them laugh. Only morons who don't understand the true concept of financial markets laugh. There are fees/rules involved, is it worth the effort if you just want to see? The problem with today's generation of people is that they fear a lot. Unless you crawl you dont walk. Unless you try something you dont learn. The only difference between a successful person and a not successful person is his ability to try, fail/fall, get back on feet, again try untill he succeeds. I know its not instant money, but I'd like to get a few shares here and there, to follow the news and see how companies do. I hear that BRIC (brasil, russia, india and china) is a good share to invest in Brazil India the good thing is share prices are relatively low even the commissions. Mostly ROI (return on investment) on a long term would almost be the same. Can anyone share their experiences? (maybe best for community wiki?) Always up for sharing. Please ask questions no matter how stupid they are. I love people who ask for when I started I asked and people were generous enough to answer and so would I be.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dc13b77121e726d4bd44e842f8bf0db8",
"text": "ChrisW's comment may appear flippant, but it illustrates (albeit too briefly) an important fact - there are aspects of investing that begin to look exactly like gambling. In fact, there are expressions which overlap - Game Theory, often used to describe investing behavior, Monte Carlo Simulation, a way of convincing ourselves we can produce a set of possible outcomes for future returns, etc. You should first invest time. 100 hours reading is a good start. 1000 pounds, Euros, or dollars is a small sum to invest in individual stocks. A round lot is considered 100 shares, so you'd either need to find a stock trading less than 10 pounds, or buy fewer shares. There are a number of reasons a new investor should be steered toward index funds, in the States, ETFs (exchange traded funds) reflect the value of an entire index of stocks. If you feel compelled to get into the market this is the way to go, whether a market near you of a foreign fund, US, or other.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "de18fec08e2cf256ee9a77dc22541ab7",
"text": "If your requirements are hard (must have $1000/month, must have the same or bigger in capital at the end), stocks are a poor choice of investment. However, in many cases, people are willing to tolerate some level of risk to achieve the expected returns. You also do not mention inflation, which can take quite a lot out of your portfolio over the course of ten years. If we make some simplifying assumptions, you want to generate $12,000 a year. You can realistically expect the (whole) stock market, long term (i.e. over time periods substantially longer than 10 years), to return approximately 4 - 5% after factoring in inflation. That means an investment of $240,000 - $300,000 (the math is simplified somewhat here). If you don't care about inflation, you can up the percentage rather somewhat. According to this article, the S&P 500 returned an average of 11.31% from 1928 through 2010 (not factoring in inflation), which would require an investment of approximately $106,100. But! This opens you up to substantial risk. The stock market may go down 30% this year! According to the above article, the S&P returned only 3.54% from 2001 to 2010. Long-term, it goes up, but your investment case is really unsuited to investing in an index to the entire stock market given your requirements. You may be better suited investing primarily in stable bonds, or perhaps a mix of bonds and stocks. Alternatively, you may want to consider even more stable investments such as treasury notes. Treasury notes are all but guaranteed, but with a lousy rate of return. Heck, you could consider a GIC (that may be Canada-only) or even a savings account. There's also the possibility of purchasing an annuity, though almost everyone will advise against such. Personally, I'd go for a mutual fund which invested approximately 70% bonds and the rest in stocks over such a time period. Something like ING Direct's Streetwise Balanced Income Portfolio, if you were in Canada. It substantially lowers your expected return but also lowers your risk. I can't honestly say what the expected return there is; at this point, it's returned 4% per year (before inflation), but has been around only since the beginning of 2008. And to be clear, this is absolutely not free of risk.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f438b208b5a03c5a2b060e3b1ec50e4c",
"text": "If the intention is after maturing to convert back the Rupees into Euro, its not a good idea. Generally the interest rate in Euro and the interest rate in Rupee are offset by the predicted exchange rate. i.e. the Rupee will fall compared to Euro by similar rate. The point at Step 5 is generally what is expected to happen. At times this can be less or more depending on the local / global factors. So on average you will not make money, some times you will loose and sometimes you will gain. Plus I have shown flat conversion rates, typically there is a Buy Rate and a Sell Rate for a pair of currencies. There is a difference / spread that is the margins of Bank. Typically in the range of 2 to 4% depending on the currency pairs.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "92c9301f6148be2b3f14b088581243d3",
"text": "Just to clarify Short Team Goals & Long Term Goals... Long Term goals are for something in future, your retirement fund, Children’s education etc. Short Term goals are something in the near future, your down payment for car, house, and holiday being planned. First have both the long and short terms goals defined. Of Couse you would need to review both these goals on a ongoing basis... To meet the short term goals you would need to make short term investments. Having arrived at a short term goal value, you would now need to make a decision as to how much risk you are willing [also how much is required to take] to take in order to meet your goal. For example if you goal is to save Rs 100,000 by yearend for the car, and you can easily set aside Rs 8,000 every month, you don't really need to take a risk. A simple Term / Fixed Deposit would suffice you to meet your goal. On the other hand if you can only save Rs 6,000 a year, then you would need to invest this into something that would return you around 35%. You would now need to take a risk. Stocks market is one option, there are multiple types of trades [day trades, shorts, options, regular trades] that one can do ... however the risk can wipe out even your capital. As you don't know these types of investments, suggest you start with dummy investing using quite a few free websites, MoneyControl is one such site, you get pseudo money and can buy sell and see how things actually move. This should teach you something about making quick gains or losses without actually gaining or loosing real money. Once you reach some confidence level, you can start trading using real money by opening a trading account almost every other bank in India offers online trading linked to bank account. Never lose sight of risk appetite, and revise if every now and then. When you don't have dependents, you can easily risk money for potential bumper, however after you have other commitments, you may want to tone down... Edit: http://moneybhai.moneycontrol.com/moneybhai-rules.html is one such site, there are quite a few others as well that offer you to trade on virtual money. Try this for few months and you will understand whether you are making right decissions or not.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ebffd8bf1e0ea4a10737467e7d7903a0",
"text": "A quick Excel calculation tells me that, if you are earning a guaranteed post-tax return of 12% in a liquid investment, then it doesn't matter which one you pick. According to the following Excel formula: You would be able to invest ₹2,124 now at 12% interest, and you could withdraw ₹100 every month for 24 months. Which means that the ₹100/month option and the ₹2100/biennium option are essentially the same. This, of course, is depending on that 12% guaranteed return. Where I come from, this type of investment is unheard of. If I was sure I'd still be using the same service two years from now, I would choose the biennial payment option. You asked in the comments how to change the formula to account for risk in the investment. Risk is a hard thing to quantify. However, if you are certain that you will be using this service in two years from now, you are essentially achieving 13% in a guaranteed return by pre-paying your fee. In my experience, a 13% guaranteed return is worth taking. Trying to achieve any more than that in an investment is simply a gamble. That having been said, at the amount we are talking about, each percent difference in return is only about ₹22. The biggest risk here is the fact that you might want to change services before your term is up. If these amounts are relatively small for you, then if there is any chance at all that you will want to drop the service before the 2 years is up, just pay the monthly fee.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
a09163f487829f92257ec570e719dd18
|
Will I get a tax form for sale of direct purchased stock (US)?
|
[
{
"docid": "d581f5da4cbbd3a23e4b057cf1e03f0d",
"text": "\"I think I found the answer, at least in my specific case. From the heading \"\"Questar/Dominion Resources Merger\"\" in this linked website: Q: When will I receive tax forms showing the stock and dividend payments? A: You can expect a Form 1099-B in early February 2017 showing the amount associated with payment of your shares. You also will receive a Form 1099-DIV by Jan. 31, 2017, with your 2016 dividends earned.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "cecb611496cca6b62da8005849636d21",
"text": "You need to track every buy and sell to track your gains, or more likely, losses. Yes, you report each and every transactions. Pages of schedule D.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1e56ffd6f02629cb5c5f4666c42ba8a9",
"text": "When you get into reading Revenue Rulings and Treasury Regulations - I'd suggest hiring a professional to do that for you. Especially since you also need to assure that the new stock does indeed qualify as QSBS. However, from the revenue ruling you quoted it doesn't sound like there's any other requirement other than reporting the subsequent purchase as a loss on your schedule D. I wouldn't know, however, if there are subsequent/superseding revenue rulings on the matter since 1998. Professional tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) would have the means and the ability to research this and give you a proper advice.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2344c287634cb6e22a4b35f37aee3997",
"text": "Sale of a stock creates a capital gain. It can be offset with losses, up to $3000 more than the gains. It can be deferred when held within a retirement account. When you gift appreciated stock, the basis follows. So when I gifted my daughter's trust shares, there was still tax due upon sale. The kiddy tax helped reduce but not eliminate it. And there was no quotes around ownership. The money is gone, her account is for college. No 1031 exchange exists for stock.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6210d2897e4211bf4057a4113912c180",
"text": "The question seems to be from the point of view actual sales and not its impact on one's taxation. In case you just want to sell, why brokers will respond differently each times. Either there may be issues with ownership and/or the company whose shares it is? In case you feel that the issues lies with brok",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "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": "494c34a83089d0334a2aadf6ea57f290",
"text": "You can keep the cash in your account as long as you want, but you have to pay a tax on what's called capital gains. To quote from Wikipedia: A capital gain is a profit that results from investments into a capital asset, such as stocks, bonds or real estate, which exceeds the purchase price. It is the difference between a higher selling price and a lower purchase price, resulting in a financial gain for the investor.[1] Conversely, a capital loss arises if the proceeds from the sale of a capital asset are less than the purchase price. Thus, buying/selling stock counts as investment income which would be a capital gain/loss. When you are filing taxes, you have to report net capital gain/loss. So you don't pay taxes on an individual stock sale or purchase - you pay tax on the sum of all your transactions. Note: You do not pay any tax if you have a net capital loss. Taxes are only on capital gains. The amount you are taxed depends on your tax bracket and your holding period. A short term capital gain is gain on an investment held for less than one year. These gains are taxed at your ordinary income tax rate. A long term capital gain is gain on an investment held for more than one year. These gains are taxed at a special rate: If your income tax rate is 10 or 15%, then long term gains are taxed at 0% i.e. no tax, otherwise the tax rate is 15%. So you're not taxed on specific stock sales - you're taxed on your total gain. There is no tax for a capital loss, and investors sometimes take profits from good investments and take losses from bad investments to lower their total capital gain so they won't be taxed as much. The tax rate is expected to change in 2013, but the current ratios could be extended. Until then, however, the rate is as is. Of course, this all applies if you live in the United States. Other countries have different measures. Hope it helps! Wikipedia has a great chart to refer to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax_in_the_United_States.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "53720fddbf0df8c29e3e5b29b5020ce1",
"text": "Is selling Vested RSU is the same as selling a regular stock? Yes. Your basis (to calculate the gain) is what you've been taxed on when the RSUs vested. Check your payslips/W2 for that period, and the employer should probably have sent you detailed information about that. I'm not a US citizen, my account is in ETrade and my stocks are of a US company, what pre arrangements I need to take to avoid tax issues? You will pay capital gains taxes on the sale in Israel. Depending on where you were when you earned the stocks and what taxes you paid then - it may open additional issues with the Israeli tax authority. Check with an Israeli tax adviser/accountant.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f7058c5586ad44d8fd12dd70c1f65ccc",
"text": "Now a days, your stocks can be seen virtually through a brokerage account. Back in the days, a stock certificate was the only way to authenticate stock ownership. You can still request them though from the corporation you have shares in or your brokerage. It will have your name, corporation name and number of shares you have. You have to buy shares of a stock either through a brokerage or the corporation itself. Most stock brokerages are legit and are FDIC or SIPC insured. But your risks are your own loses. The $10 you are referring to is the trade commission fee the brokerage charges. When you place an order to buy or sell a stock the brokerage will charge you $10. So for example if you bought 1 share of a $20 stock. The total transaction cost will be $30. Depending on the state you live in, you can basically starting trading stocks at either 18 or 21. You can donate/gift your shares to virtually anyone. When you sell a stock and experience a profit, you will be charged a capital gains tax. If you buy a stock and sell it for a gain within 1 year, you will taxed up to 35% or your tax bracket but if you hold it for more than a year, you will taxed only 15% or your tax bracket.",
"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": "4d7824e28da94256bd9c4b118c6fa7ff",
"text": "Shares used to be paper documents, but these days they are more commonly held electronically instead, although this partly depends on what country you're in. But it doesn't make any significant practical difference. Regardless of their physical form, a share simply signifies that you own a certain proportion of a company, and are thus entitled to receive any dividends that may be paid to the shareholders. To sell your shares, you need a broker -- there are scores of online ones who will sell them for a modest fee. Your tax forms are entirely dependent on the jurisdiction(s) that tax you, and since you've not told us where you are, no one can answer that.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "915ee91396f3b08a0d4af728c8f3d5da",
"text": "\"According to the IRS, you must have written confirmation from your broker \"\"or other agent\"\" whenever you sell shares using a method other than FIFO: Specific share identification. If you adequately identify the shares you sold, you can use the adjusted basis of those particular shares to figure your gain or loss. You will adequately identify your mutual fund shares, even if you bought the shares in different lots at various prices and times, if you: Specify to your broker or other agent the particular shares to be sold or transferred at the time of the sale or transfer, and Receive confirmation in writing from your broker or other agent within a reasonable time of your specification of the particular shares sold or transferred. If you don't have a stockbroker, I'm not sure how you even got the shares. If you have an actual stock certificate, then you are selling very specific shares and the purchase date corresponds to the purchase date of those shares represented on the certificate.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "b56a85f57234547f3c59a0a0c730b0b9",
"text": "Yes. As long as the stock is in a taxable account (i.e. not a tax deferred retirement account) you'll pay gain on the profit regardless of subsequent purchases. If the sale is a loss, however, you'll risk delaying the claim for the loss if you repurchase identical shares within 30 days of that sale. This is called a wash sale.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c11fe5f13315fd4fb806ae0e7b291386",
"text": "\"As far as I know, the answer to this is generally \"\"no.\"\" The closest thing would be to identify the stock transfer company representing the company that you want to hold and buy through them. (I have held this way, but I don't know if it's available on all stocks.) This eliminates the broker, but there's still a \"\"middle man\"\" in the transfer company. Note this section from the Stock transfer agent Wikipedia article: A public company usually only designates one company to transfer its stock. Stock transfer agents also run annual meetings as inspector of elections, proxy voting, and special meetings of shareholders. They are considered the official keeper of the corporate shareholder records. The decision to have a single transfer company is a practical one, ensuring that there is one entity responsible for recording this data - Hence even if you could buy stock \"\"directly\"\" from the company that you want to own, it would likely still get routed through the transfer company for recording.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
f8cab0fd3e7ae111366daf7dc3e0071a
|
Low risk hybrid investment strategy
|
[
{
"docid": "2d1c127a3e9e3982f880d91565d518c2",
"text": "I recall similar strategies when (in the US) interest rates were quite a bit higher than now. The investment company put 75% or so into into a 5 year guaranteed bond, the rest was placed in stock index options. In effect, one had a guaranteed return (less inflation, of course) of principal, and a chance for some market gains especially if it went a lot higher over the next 5 years. The concept is sound if executed correctly.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c849f182aee1eb0b098b8e7111a4a1b7",
"text": "I think you may be confused on terminology here. Financial leverage is debt that you have taken on, in order to invest. It increases your returns, because it allows you to invest with more money than what you actually own. Example: If a $1,000 mutual fund investment returns $60 [6%], then you could also take on $1,000 of debt at 3% interest, and earn $120 from both mutual fund investments, paying $30 in interest, leaving you with a net $90 [9% of your initial $1,000]. However, if the mutual fund 'takes a nose dive', and loses money, you still need to pay the $30 interest. In this way, using financial leverage actually increases your risk. It may provide higher returns, but you have the risk of losing more than just your initial principle amount. In the example above, imagine if the mutual fund you owned collapsed, and was worth nothing. Now, you would have lost $1,000 from the money you invested in the first place, and you would also still owe $1,000 to the bank. The key take away is that 'no risk' and 'high returns' do not go together. Safe returns right now are hovering around 0% interest rates. If you ever feel you have concocted a mix of options that leaves you with no risk and high returns, check your math again. As an addendum, if instead what you plan on doing is investing, say, 90% of your money in safe(r) money-market type funds, and 10% in the stock market, then this is a good way to reduce your risk. However, it also reduces your returns, as only a small portion of your portfolio will realize the (typically higher) gains of the stock market. Once again, being safer with your investments leads to less return. That is not necessarily a bad thing; in fact investing some part of your portfolio in interest-earning low risk investments is often advised. 99% is basically the same as 100%, however, so you almost don't benefit at all by investing that 1% in the stock market.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f8e0ed3544ccf5ed13de0dec8368e9ac",
"text": "\"There are a number of strategies using options and shares together. One that sells large potential upside gains to assure more consistent medium returns is to \"\"write covered calls\"\". This fairly conservative and is a reasonable entry point into options for an individual investor. Deeper dive into covered calls\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "ee81a90148d0f963fa707fa0e5631b6c",
"text": "\"The standard low-risk/gain very-short-term parking spot these days tends to be a money market account. However, you have only mentioned stock. For good balance, your portfolio should consider the bond market too. Consider adding a bond index fund to diversify the basic mix, taking up much of that 40%. This will also help stabilize your risk since bonds tend to move opposite stocks (prperhaps just because everyone else is also using them as the main alternative, though there are theoretical arguments why this should be so.) Eventually you may want to add a small amount of REIT fund to be mix, but that's back on the higher risk side. (By the way: Trying to guess when the next correction will occur is usually not a winning strategy; guesses tend to go wrong as often as they go right, even for pros. Rather than attempting to \"\"time the market\"\", pick a strategic mix of investments and rebalance periodically to maintain those ratios. There has been debate here about \"\"dollar-cost averaging\"\" -- see other answers -- but that idea may argue for investing and rebalancing in more small chunks rather than a few large ones. I generally actively rebalance once a year or so, and between those times let maintainng the balance suggest which fund(s) new money should go into -- minimal effort and it has worked quite well enough.,)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "66dbe5aa78abf16b575a49b7483f9b3b",
"text": "Yes it is viable but uncommon. As with everything to do with investment, you have to know what you are doing and must have a plan. I have been successful with long term trading of CFDs for about 4 years now. It is true that the cost of financing to hold positions long term cuts into profits but so do the spreads when you trade frequently. What I have found works well for me is maintaining a portfolio that is low volatility, (e.g. picking a mix of positions that are negatively correlated) has a good sharpe ratio, sound fundamentals (i.e. co-integrated assets - or at least fairly stable correlations) then leveraging a modest amount.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d6bf11b0627d73cbea9659cfedae9210",
"text": "\"The calculation and theory are explained in the other answers, but it should be pointed out that the video is the equivalent of watching a magic trick. The secret is: \"\"Stock A and B are perfectly negatively correlated.\"\" The video glasses over that fact that without that fact the risk doesn't drop to zero. The rule is that true diversification does decrease risk. That is why you are advised to spread year investments across small-cap, large-cap, bonds, international, commodities, real estate. Getting two S&P 500 indexes isn't diversification. Your mix of investments will still have risk, because return and risk are backward calculations, not a guarantee of future performance. Changes that were not anticipated will change future performance. What kind of changes: technology, outsourcing, currency, political, scandal.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "050c767b77c61494380662aa4b300d36",
"text": "\"Investing is always a matter of balancing risk vs reward, with the two being fairly strongly linked. Risk-free assets generally keep up with inflation, if that; these days advice is that even in retirement you're going to want something with better eturns for at least part of your portfolio. A \"\"whole market\"\" strategy is a reasonable idea, but not well defined. You need to decide wheher/how to weight stocks vs bonds, for example, and short/long term. And you may want international or REIT in the mix; again the question is how much. Again, the tradeoff is trying to decide how much volatility and risk you are comfortable with and picking a mix which comes in somewhere around that point -- and noting which assets tend to move out of synch with each other (stock/bond is the classic example) to help tune that. The recommendation for higher risk/return when you have a longer horizon before you need the money comes from being able to tolerate more volatility early on when you have less at risk and more time to let the market recover. That lets you take a more aggressive position and, on average, ger higher returns. Over time, you generally want to dial that back (in the direction of lower-risk if not risk free) so a late blip doesn't cause you to lose too much of what you've already gained... but see above re \"\"risk free\"\". That's the theoretical answer. The practical answer is that running various strategies against both historical data and statistical simulations of what the market might do in the future suggests some specific distributions among the categories I've mentioned do seem to work better than others. (The mix I use -- which is basically a whole-market with weighting factors for the categories mentioned above -- was the result of starting with a general mix appropriate to my risk tolerance based on historical data, then checking it by running about 100 monte-carlo simulations of the market for the next 50 years.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1aa8e87a1881bf344bdfee7c4c4e4eb5",
"text": "For a time period as short as a matter of months, commercial paper or bonds about to mature are the highest returning investments, as defined by Benjamin Graham: An investment operation is one which, upon thorough analysis, promises safety of principal and a satisfactory return. Operations not meeting these requirements are speculative. There are no well-known methods that can be applied to cryptocurrencies or forex for such short time periods to promise safety of principal. The problem is that with $1,500, it will be impossible to buy any worthy credit directly and hold to maturity; besides, the need for liquidity eats up the return, risk-adjusted. The only alternative is a bond ETF which has a high probability of getting crushed as interest rates continue to rise, so that fails the above criteria. The only alternative for investment now is a short term deposit with a bank. For speculation, anything goes... The best strategy is to take the money and continue to build up a financial structure: saving for risk-adjusted and time-discounted future annual cash flows. After the average unemployment cycle is funded, approximately six or so years, then long-term investments should be accumulated, internationally diversified equities.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4e12ed80eefb5bca7e5891e488a49432",
"text": "This is a very interesting question. I'm going to attempt to answer it. Use debt to leverage investment. Historically, stock markets have returned 10% p.a., so today when interest rates are very low, and depending on which country you live in, you could theoretically borrow money at a very low interest rate and earn 10% p.a., pocketing the difference. This can be done through an ETF, mutual funds and other investment instruments. Make sure you have enough cash flow to cover the interest payments! Similar to the concept of acid ratio for companies, you should have slightly more than enough liquid funds to meet the monthly payments. Naturally, this strategy only works when interest rates are low. After that, you'll have to think of other ideas. However, IMO the Fed seems to be heading towards QE3 so we might be seeing a prolonged period of low interest rates, so borrowing seems like a sensible option now. Since the movements of interest rates are political in nature, monitoring this should be quite simple. It depends on you. Since interest rates are the opportunity cost of spending money, the lower the interest rates, the lower the opportunity costs of using money now and repaying it later. Interest rates are a market mechanism so that people who prefer to spend later can lend to people who prefer to spend now for the price of interest. *Disclaimer: Historically stocks have returned 10% p.a., but that doesn't mean this trend will continue indefinitely as we have seen fixed income outperform stocks in the recent past.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "52240b1b1ddd4e13e6d3fab812b0d397",
"text": "Oh, ok. You have $3.8m cash to work with in creating a low-risk investment portfolio. All you need to do is pick investment options that stick to the three objectives of the fund. You may assume all the capital is available for immediate investment ($200k out of the $4m is set aside for scholarships so it must stay liquid).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2f7341b2266571f2063751a1c13c6bb9",
"text": "You're trying to mitigate the risk of having your investments wiped out by fraud committed by your broker by using margin loans to buy stock secured by other, non-cash assets in your account. The solution that you are proposing does not make any sense at all. You mitigate a very low probability/high impact risk by doing something that comes with a high probability/medium impact risk. In addition to interest costs, holding stocks on margin subjects you to the very real risk of being forced to sell assets at inopportune times to meet margin calls. Given the volatility that the markets are experiencing in 2011, there is a high risk that some irrational decision in Greece could wipe you out. If I were worried about this, I would: If you have enough money that SIPC protection limits are an issue, you desperately need a financial adviser. Do not implement any strategy involving margin loans until you talk to a qualified adviser.",
"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": "661faa4d48f96d63ec1a4467fefc9842",
"text": "The catch is that you're doing a form of leveraged investing. In other words, you're gambling on the stock market using money that you've borrowed. While it's not as dangerous as say, getting money from a loan shark to play blackjack in Vegas, there is always the chance that markets can collapse and your investment's value will drop rapidly. The amount of risk really depends on what specific investments you choose and how diversified they are - if you buy only Canadian stocks then you're at risk of losing a lot if something happened to our economy. But if your Canadian equities only amount to 3.6% of your total (which is Canada's share of the world market), and you're holding stocks in many different countries then the diversification will reduce your overall risk. The reason I mention that is because many people using the Smith Maneuver are only buying Canadian high-yield dividend stocks, so that they can use the dividends to accelerate the Smith Maneuver process (use the dividends to pay down the mortgage, then borrow more and invest it). They prefer Canadian equities because of preferential tax treatment of the dividend income (in non-registered accounts). But if something happened to those Canadian companies, they stand to lose much of the investment value and suddenly they have the extra debt (the amount borrowed from a HELOC, or from a re-advanceable mortgage) without enough value in the investments to offset it. This could mean that they will not be able to pay off the mortgage by the time they retire!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dd0cdb33bb16c2cd9885660a2f39574d",
"text": "The article links to William Bernstein’s plan that he outlined for Business Insider, which says: Modelling this investment strategy Picking three funds from Google and running some numbers. The international stock index only goes back to April 29th 1996, so a run of 21 years was modelled. Based on 15% of a salary of $550 per month with various annual raises: Broadly speaking, this investment doubles the value of the contributions over two decades. Note: Rebalancing fees are not included in the simulation. Below is the code used to run the simulation. If you have Mathematica you can try with different funds. Notice above how the bond index (VBMFX) preserves value during the 2008 crash. This illustrates the rationale for diversifying across different fund types.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cab8a85705f3c03341cab69c7efa553e",
"text": "If you look at history, it shows that the more people predict corrections the less was the chance they came. That doesn't prove it stays so, though. 2017 is not any different than other years in the future: Independent of this, with less than ten years remaining until you need to draw from your money, it is a good idea to move away from high risk (and high gain); you will not have enough time to recover if it goes awry. There are different approaches, but you should slowly and continuously migrate your capital to less risky investments. Pick some good days and move 10% or 20% each time to low-risk, so that towards the end of the remaining time 90 or 100% are low or zero risk investments. Many investment banks and retirement funds offer dedicated funds for that, they are called 'Retirement 2020' or 'Retirement 2030'; they do exactly this 'slow and continuous moving over' for you; just pick the right one.",
"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": "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": "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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
6317e9528fd36ebf2b9033cfa5e889e7
|
Foreign currency losing value — can I report this as a loss for tax purposes?
|
[
{
"docid": "937e178303c71f9a48e8980a920490ce",
"text": "This loss would be unrealized and, assuming you're a cash-basis tax-payer, you would not be able to take a loss on your 2014 tax return. This is similar to if you held a stock that lost 50% of its value. You wouldn't be able to claim this loss until you finally sold it. The link that User58220 posted may come into play if you converted your UAH back to USD.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "e042e3439f9834513f29dee86999b6e3",
"text": "Just a thought because this is a really good question: Would the buying and selling of blockchain based digital currency, using other blockchain based digital currencies, be subject to like kind treatment and exempt from capital gains until exchanged for a non-blockchain based good or service (or national currency) Suppose someone sells 1 bitcoin to buy 100 monero. Monero's price and bitcoin's price then change to where the 100 monero are 3 bitcoins. The person gets their bitcoin back and has 66.67 monero remaining. This scenario could be: Suppose someone sells 1 bitcoin at $1000 to buy 100 monero at $10. Bitcoin crashes 80% to $200 while monero crashes to only $6 per monero. $6 times 100 is $600 and if the person gets their bitcoin back (at $200 per bitcoi), they still lost money when measured in US Dollars if they move that bitcoin back to US dollars. In reading the IRS on bitcoin, they only care about the US dollar value of bitcoin or monero and in this example, the US dollar value is less. The person may have more bitcoins, but they still lost money if they sell.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3d2aa8a4521aa7f29a2be50ecb07d790",
"text": "\"In most countries, you are deemed to dispose of all your assets at the fair value at that time, at the moment you are considered no longer a resident. ie: on the day your friend leaves Brazil, Brazil will likely consider him to have sold his BTC for $1M. The Brazilian government will then likely want him to calculate how much it cost him to mine/buy it, so that they can tax him on the gain. No argument about how BTC isn't \"\"Fiat money\"\" matters here; tax laws will typically apply to all investments in a way similar to stocks etc.. The US will likely be very suspicious of such a large amount of money without some level of traceability including that he paid taxes on any relevant gains in other countries. By showing the US that he paid appropriate 'expatriate taxes' in Brazil (if they exist; I am speaking generally and have no knowledge of Brazilian taxes), he is helping to prove that he does not need to pay any taxes on that money in the US. Typically the BTC then is valued for US tax purposes as the $1M it was worth when he entered the US becoming a resident there [This may require tax planning prior to entering the US] [see additional answer here: https://money.stackexchange.com/a/48031/44232]. Any attempt to bring the BTC into the US without paying appropriate Brazilian / US taxes [as applicable, I'm not 100% on either; check with a tax lawyer knowledgeable on both US & Brazilian tax law, because the amount of money is material] will likely be considered fraud. 'How to commit fraud' is not entertained as valid subject matter on this site.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c1f72824ef2b3072f154a0d2fa565ef4",
"text": "Depending on what software you use. It has to be reported as a foreign income and you can claim foreign tax paid as a foreign tax credit.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "31dd8c969c8a715cae3a09966b339ea4",
"text": "\"Believe it or not, unless you directly contact an accountant with experience in this field or a lawyer, you may have a tough time getting a direct answer from a reputable source. The reason is two fold. First, legally defining in-game assets is exceptionally difficult from a legal/taxation stand point. Who really owns this data? You or the company that has built the MMO and manages the servers containing all of the data? You can buy-and-sell what is effectively \"\"data\"\" on their servers but the truth is, they own the code, the servers, the data, your access rights, etc. and at any point in time could terminate everything within their systems. This would render the value of your accounts worthless! As such, most countries have overwhelmingly avoided the taxation of in-game \"\"inventory\"\" because it's not really definable. Instead, in game goods are only taxed when they are exchanged for local currency. This is considered a general sale. There may be tax codes in your region for the sale of \"\"digital goods\"\". Otherwise, it should be taxed as sale a standard good with no special stipulations. The bottom line is that you shouldn't expect to find much reliable information on this topic, on the internet. Law's haven't been welled defined, regarding in-game content worth and taxing of sales and if you want to know how you should pay your taxes on these transactions, you need to talk to a good accountant, a lawyer or both.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c12bc3175fa0e13e7583371e1891a8ba",
"text": "In theory, when you obtained ownership of your USD cash as a Canadian resident [*resident for tax purposes, which is generally a quicker timeline than being resident for immigration purposes], it is considered to have been obtained by you for the CAD equivalent on that date. For example if you immigrated on Dec 31, 2016 and carried $10k USD with you, when the rate was ~1.35, then Canada deems you to have arrived with $13.5k CAD. If you converted that CAD to USD when the rate was 1.39, you would have received 13.9k CAD, [a gain of $400 to show as income on your tax return]. Receiving the foreign inheritances is a little more complex; those items when received may or may not have been taxable on that day. However whether or not they were taxable, you would calculate a further gain as above, if the fx rate gave you more CAD when you ultimately converted it. If the rate went the other way and you lost CAD-value, you may or may not be able to claim a loss. If it was a small loss, I wouldn't bother trying to claim it due to hassle. If it's a large loss, I would be very sure to research thoroughly before claiming, because something like that probably has a high chance of being audited.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "13c6e94a7933c05cce2b1ea8ad994e59",
"text": "\"Buying a piece of equipment is not a capital loss. You now have an asset that you can sell for some percentage of the original price. For most assets, that value decreases over time, and you can \"\"write off\"\" the depreciation of the value each year. So you can deduct the depreciation of the asset from your business's income, which would then get passed on to your personal taxes (reducing the profit from your business). If you don't plan to use the equipment for some time, you might be able to depreciate the equipment based on the amount of usage, but I'd check with a CPA in your area to be sure.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "72b452624646db70ff1533aa27000710",
"text": "I haven't seen this answer, and I do not know the legality of it, as it could raise red flags as to money laundering, but about the only way to get around the exchange rate spreads and fees is to enter into transactions with a private acquaintance who has Euros and needs Dollars. The problem here is that you are taking on the settlement risk in the sense that you have to trust that they will deposit the euros into your French account when you deposit dollars into their US account. If you work this out with a relative or very close friend, then the risk should be minimal, however a more casual acquaintance may be more apt to walk away from the transaction and disappear with your Euros and your Dollars. Really the only other option would be to be compensated for services rendered in Euros, but that would have tax implications and the fees of an international tax attorney would probably outstrip any savings from Forex spreads and fees not paid.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1a5261fd35e60a67b52827496240db6b",
"text": "\"Like Jeremy T said above, silver is a value store and is to be used as a hedge against sovereign currency revaluations. Since every single currency in the world right now is a free-floating fiat currency, you need silver (or some other firm, easily store-able, protect-able, transportable asset class; e.g. gold, platinum, ... whatever...) in order to protect yourself against government currency devaluations, since the metal will hold its value regardless of the valuation of the currency which you are denominating it in (Euro, in your case). Since the ECB has been hesitant to \"\"print\"\" large amounts of currency (which causes other problems unrelated to precious metals), the necessity of hedging against a plummeting currency exchange rate is less important and should accordingly take a lower percentage in your diversification strategy. However, if you were in.. say... Argentina, for example, you would want to have a much larger percentage of your assets in precious metals. The EU has a lot of issues, and depreciation of hard assets courtesy of a lack of fluid currency/capital (and overspending on a lot of EU governments' parts in the past), in my opinion, lessens the preservative value of holding precious metals. You want to diversify more heavily into precious metals just prior to government sovereign currency devaluations, whether by \"\"printing\"\" (by the ECB in your case) or by hot capital flows into/out of your country. Since Eurozone is not an emerging market, and the current trend seems to be capital flowing back into the developed economies, I think that diversifying away from silver (at least in overall % of your portfolio) is the order of the day. That said, do I have silver/gold in my retirement portfolio? Absolutely. Is it a huge percentage of my portfolio? Not right now. However, if the U.S. government fails to resolve the next budget crisis and forces the Federal Reserve to \"\"print\"\" money to creatively fund their expenses, then I will be trading out of soft assets classes and into precious metals in order to preserve the \"\"real value\"\" of my portfolio in the face of a depreciating USD. As for what to diversify into? Like the folks above say: ETFs(NOT precious metal ETFs and read all of the fine print, since a number of ETFs cheat), Indexes, Dividend-paying stocks (a favorite of mine, assuming they maintain the dividend), or bonds (after they raise the interest rates). Once you have your diversification percentages decided, then you just adjust that based on macro-economic trends, in order to avoid pitfalls. If you want to know more, look through: http://www.mauldineconomics.com/ < Austrian-type economist/investor http://pragcap.com/ < Neo-Keynsian economist/investor with huge focus on fiat currency effects\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d8d1a7ed650bccb30e84e1f254b57628",
"text": "\"Currencies that are pegged or fixed require that foreign currencies are held by the central issuer at a proportional amount. This is analogous to having a portfolio of currencies that the central bank issues shares from - in the form of its own currency. We will continue with this analogy, if the central bank says these \"\"shares\"\" are worth $1, but the underlying components of the portfolio are worth $0.80 and decreasing, then it is expensive for the central bank to maintain its peg, and eventually they will have to disregard the peg as people start questioning the central bank's solvency. (People will know the $1 they hold is not really worth what the central bank says it is, because of the price changes people experience in buying goods and services, especially when it comes to imports. Shadow economies will also trade using a currency more reflective of labor, which happens no matter what the government's punishments are for doing so). Swiss National Bank (central bank) did this in early 2015, as it experienced volatility in the Euro which it had previously been trying to keep it's currency pegged to. It became too expensive for it to keep this peg on its own. The central bank can devalue its currency by adjusting the proportions of the reserve, such as selling a lot of foreign currency X, buying more of currency Y. They can and do take losses doing this. (Swiss National Bank is maintaining a large loss) They can also flood their economy with more of their currency, diluting the value of each individual 1 dollar equivalent. This is done by issuing bonds or monetizing goods and services from the private sector in exchange for bonds. People colloquially call this \"\"printing money\"\" but it is a misnomer in this day and age where printers are not relevant tools. The good and service goes onto the central bank's balance book, and the company/entity that provided the service now has a bond on its book which can be immediately sold to someone else for cash (another reading is that the bond is as good as cash). The bond didn't previously exist until the central bank said it did, and central banks can infinitely exchange goods and services for bonds. Bond monetization (also called Quantitative Easing) is practiced by the Federal Reserve in the United States, Bank of Japan, European Central Bank and now the Central Bank of the Republic of China\"",
"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": "998c6bb64e219b1c2a9fa3c93102ef7f",
"text": "If you were a business, all your assets would have a dollar value, so when you sold them you'd decrease the amount of assets by that amount and increase in cash, and if there was a profit on the sale it would go in as income, if there was loss it would count as a cost (or a loss)... so if there was a profit it would increase Equity, a loss then it would decrease Equity. Since it's not really worthwhile doing a estimated cost for everything that you have, I'd just report it as income like you are doing and let the amount of equity increase proportionately. So, implicitly you always had roughly that amount of equity, but some of it was in the form of assets, and now you're liquidating those assets so the amount shows up in GnuCash. When you buy new things you might sell later, you could consider adding them as assets to keep track of this explicitly (but even then you have problems-- the price of things changes with time and you might not want to keep up with those price changes, it's a lot of extra work for a family budget) -- for stuff you already have it's better to treat things as you are doing and just treat the money as income-- it's easier and doesn't really change anything-- you always had that in equity, some of it was just off the books and now you are bringing it into the books.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6c0df851efe623fcfdb9365e8c473819",
"text": "As mentioned in the comments, the problem stems with converting your U.S. Dollars to Indian Rupees so as to be able to purchase an Indian fixed deposit. At the time of writing this, 1 U.S. Dollar = 64 Indian Rupees. Consider the following economic factors: Both of the above factors are not definitive but are worth considering. You might be thinking- what if I never intend to convert my rupees back to dollars? If it is the case that money converted to rupees would stay that way, that then eliminates the risk of foreign exchange losses mentioned above. However, you must still keep in mind that part of the reason interest rates on fixed deposits is as high in India is because inflation is high. A 9% return must be looked at after adjusting for inflation. Inflation is somewhere between 5%-6% at the time of writing which then reduces your real return to about 4% (pre-tax).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "25ae5486b8a65b1b44e753ea7aba523b",
"text": "\"Summary of accepted answer: Your \"\"loss\"\" will not count as a loss (to the IRS). Which means no tax deduction for a \"\"short-term capital loss\"\" (on that sale). Instead, the IRS simply pretends like you had paid less for the stock to begin with.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6943459f57d8925a7059538826bd4a73",
"text": "If you hold this money in USD and spend it in the US as USD, then there is no tax liability or reporting requirement at all. You are not subject to any tax on foreign exchange gains and losses because you have not performed any foreign exchange. CRA says a foreign exchange gain or loss happens when the fx transaction occurs—not as the currency’s value fluctuates while on deposit - and since you are never performing an fx transaction, no such issues will arise. The CRA is not interested in how you spend your money, only the money that you earn. The only possible tax liability that would arise in the circumstances that you describe would be the tax liability arising from interest earned while the cash in on deposit. If this interest exceeds the threshold of reportability, then your bank will issue you with a T-slip to be included in your tax return.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
ca4c98d9ba1fcc6ddaf6aeceebf0e8c5
|
Do Options take Dividend into account?
|
[
{
"docid": "b65e7adf998fd14c5d361657d728e68f",
"text": "No can't make quick bucks. It depends very much on what the strike price was. Dividends which are below 10% of the market value of the underlying stock, would be deemed to be ordinary dividends and no adjustment in the Strike Price would be made for ordinary dividends. For extra-ordinary dividends, above 10% of the market value of the underlying security, the Strike Price would be adjusted. Refer more at NSE India Edit: The Nifty consists of 50 stocks. The largest one has weight of around 8%. So 10% on this will only translate to .8% on index.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "06c1e18ad6b65885137491764fa1b147",
"text": "The CBOE had a great article on this. I will search for it and edit. The normal dividends are not adjusted. Which is why you see early exercise of just out of the money options sometimes. To get that dividend. A special dividend, say a $50 stock with $1/yr dividend but now has a $3 one time dividend would likely result in an option strike adjustment.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "acb69647e0fc0d0aae8bd5df389f1bbb",
"text": "Your broker should make you whole by adjusting the quantity of the underlying (see: http://www.schaeffersresearch.com/education/options-basics/key-option-concepts/dividends-stock-splits-and-other-option-contract-adjustments) but I would check with them that this will happen. You will then have an option on 4 times the underlying for each option. Unless the price has risen in the interim or you bought them after the split was announced you should not make a loss.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "edc7ef593efc8e63c3943b0bccda0122",
"text": "Instead of giving part of their profits back as dividends, management puts it back into the company so the company can grow and produce higher profits. When these companies do well, there is high demand for them as in the long term higher profits equates to a higher share price. So if a company invests in itself to grow its profits higher and higher, one of the main reasons investors will buy the shares, is in the expectation of future capital gains. In fact just because a company pays a dividend, would you still buy it if the share price kept decreasing year after year? Lets put it this way: Company A makes record profits year after year, continually keeps beating market expectations, its share price keeps going up, but it pays no dividend instead reinvests its profits to continually grow the business. Company B pays a dividend instead of reinvesting to grow the business, it has been surprising the market on the downside for a few years now, it has had some profit warnings lately and its share price has consistently been dropping for over a year. Which company would you be interested in buying out of the two? I know I would be interested in buying Company A, and I would definitely stay away from Company B. Company A may or may not pay dividends in the future, but if Company B continues on this path it will soon run out of money to pay dividends. Most market gains are made through capital gains rather than dividends, and most people invest in the hope the shares they buy go up in price over time. Dividends can be one attractant to investors but they are not the only one.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ff50e7e67484be10ab8fad0cdd25241d",
"text": "I wouldn't focus too much on dividends itself; at the end of the day what matters is total gain, because you can convert capital gain into income by selling your assets (they have different tax implications, but generally capital gains tend to be more tax efficient). I think the more important question is how much volatility you can tolerate. Since your investment horizon is short & your risk tolerance is low (as in if you suddenly get much lower income than you planned from your investment you'll be in trouble), you probably want assets that have low volatility. To achieve that, I'd consider the following if I were you: tl;dr If I were you I'd just hold a general investment portfolio with a lower risk profile rather than focusing on dividend generating assets.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "34e9eb559c461f6104848e1b2cd80ba7",
"text": "Indices such as SP500 are typically including dividends - the payment of dividends doesn't impact the value of the index. Where can I find data on these dividends? I found data on dividend yields, but these give me access only to the sum of dividends over the last year. This in turn can change either because there are new dividends being paid, or because you stop counting last year's dividends...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6b197fde811ce81c3d417db1ae47b52d",
"text": "Depends on if the stock pays a dividend or not. Some companies in their early years may choose to not pay dividends. Your calculations are off as the dividend stated is annual that you'd have to divide by 4 to get what the quarterly amount would be and there can be variances as Ellison's compensation package may well include options so that the number of shares he owns could fluctuate over the course of a year.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8a8c4a856d3e41d819f65e69170148d0",
"text": "It depends how deep in the money it is, compared to the dividend. Even an in the money call has some time premium. As the call holder, if I exercise instead of selling the call, I am trading the potential for a dividend, which I won't receive, for getting that time premium back by selling. Given the above, you'll notice a slight distortion in options pricing as a dividend date approaches, as the option will reflect not just the time premium, but the fact that exercising with grab the dividend. Edit to address your comment - $10 stock, $9 strike, 50 cent div. If the option price is high, say $2, because there's a year till expiration, exercising makes no sense. If it's just $1.10, I gain 40 cents by exercising and selling after the dividend.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "51a19c3ec2b20ff8db1f6607bf091252",
"text": "I would say that the answer is yes. Investors may move on purchasing a stock as a result of news that a stock is set to pay out their dividend. It would be interesting to analyze the trend based on a company's dividend payouts over 10 or so years to see what/how this impacts the market value of a given company.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c8a432fd7f79bf4b261ed5115cd9b48f",
"text": "No, dividends are not included in earnings. Companies with no earnings sometimes choose to pay dividends. Paying the dividend does not decrease earnings. It does of course decrease cash and shows up on the balance sheet. Many companies choose to keep the dividend at a fixed rate even while the business goes through cycles of increased and decreased earnings.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aa908a8d6e858642e3071789fcc63f55",
"text": "This is a great question for understanding how futures work, first let's start with your assumptions The most interesting thing here is that neither of these things really matters for the price of the futures. This may seem odd as a futures contract sounds like you are betting on the future price of the index, but remember that the current price already includes the expectations of future earnings as well! There is actually a fairly simple formula for the price of a futures contract (note the link is for forward contracts which are very similar but slightly more simple to understand). Note, that if you are given the current price of the underlying the futures price depends essentially only on the interest rate and the dividends paid during the length of the futures contract. In this case the dividend rate for the S&P500 is higher than the prevailing interest rate so the futures price is lower than the current price. It is slightly more complicated than this as you can see from the formula, but that is essentially how it works. Note, this is why people use futures contracts to mimic other exposures. As the price of the future moves (pretty much) in lockstep with the underlying and sometimes using futures to hedge exposures can be cheaper than buying etfs or using swaps. Edit: Example of the effect of dividends on futures prices For simplicity, let's imagine we are looking at a futures position on a stock that has only one dividend (D) in the near term and that this dividend happens to be scheduled for the day before the futures' delivery date. To make it even more simple lets say the price of the stock is fairly constant around a price P and interest rates are near zero. After the dividend, we would expect the price of the stock to be P' ~ P - D as if you buy the stock after the dividend you wouldn't get that dividend but you still expect to get the rest of the value from additional future cash flows of the company. However, if we buy the futures contract we will eventually own the stock but only after the dividend happens. Since we don't get that dividend cash that the owners of the stock will get we certainly wouldn't want to pay as much as we would pay for the stock (P). We should instead pay about P' the (expected) value of owning the stock after that date. So, in the end, we expect the stock price in the future (P') to be the futures' price today (P') and that should make us feel a lot more comfortable about what we our buying. Neither owning the stock or future is really necessarily favorable in the end you are just buying slightly different future expected cash flows and should expect to pay slightly different prices.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f202937ec26c18b06aa1ba3356b006ad",
"text": "Yes, somebody could buy the shares, receive the dividend, and then sell the shares back. However, the price he would get when he sells the shares back is, ignoring other reasons for the price to change, exactly the amount he paid minus the dividend.",
"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": "971fa0f2e0225a6fc471fc34d6c4f1e7",
"text": "I can't speak for all brokerages but the one I use requires cash accounts to have cash available to purchase the stock in this situation. With the cash available you would be able to purchase the stock if the option was exercised. Hope this helps",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f62a9c3ee1993096a454a0ac9195c842",
"text": "\"Different stocks balance dividend versus growth differently. Some have relatively flat value but pay a strong dividend -- utility stocks used to be examples of that model, and bonds are in some sense an extreme version of this. Some, especially startups, pay virtually no dividends and aim for growth in the value of the stock. And you can probably find a stock that hits any point between these. This is the \"\"growth versus income\"\" spectrum you may have heard mentioned. In the past, investors took more of their return on investment as dividends -- conceptually, a share of the company's net profits for the year reflecting the share's status as partial ownership. If you wanted to do so, you could use the dividend to purchase more shares (via a dividend reinvestment plan or not), but that was up to you. These days, with growth having been strongly hyped, many companies have shifted much more to the growth model and dividends are often relatively wimpy. Essentially, this assumes that everyone wants the money reinvested and will take their profit by having that increase the value of their shares. Of course that's partly because some percentage of stockholders have been demanding growth at all costs, not always realistically. To address your specific case: No, you probably aren't buying Microsoft because you like its dividend rate; you're buying it in the hope it continues to grow in stock value. But the dividend is a bit of additional return on your investment. And with other companies the tradeoff will be different. That's one of the things, along with how much you believe in the company, that would affect your decision when buying shares in specific companies. (Personally I mostly ignore the whole issue, since I'm in index funds rather than individual stocks. Picking the fund sets my overall preference in terms of growth versus income; after that it's their problem to maintain that balance.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "71e70c6c3d426e2f03e616d2b9f7092d",
"text": "\"Let me provide a general answer, that might be helpful to others, without addressing those specific stocks. Dividends are simply corporate payouts made to the shareholders of the company. A company often decides to pay dividends because they have excess cash on hand and choose to return it to shareholders by quarterly payouts instead of stock buy backs or using the money to invest in new projects. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by \"\"dividend yield traps.\"\" If a company has declared an dividend for the upcoming quarter they will almost always pay. There are exceptions, like what happened with BP, but these exceptions are rare. Just because a company promises to pay a dividend in the approaching quarter does not mean that it will continue to pay a dividend in the future. If the company continues to pay a dividend in the future, it may be at a (significantly) different amount. Some companies are structured where nearly all of there corporate profits flow through to shareholders via dividends. These companies may have \"\"unusually\"\" high dividends, but this is simply a result of the corporate structure. Let me provide a quick example: Certain ETFs that track bonds pay a dividend as a way to pass through interest payments from the underlying bonds back to the shareholder of the ETF. There is no company that will continue to pay their dividend at the present rate with 100% certainty. Even large companies like General Electric slashed its dividend during the most recent financial crisis. So, to evaluate whether a company will keep paying a dividend you should look at the following: Update: In regards to one the first stock you mentioned, this sentence from the companies of Yahoo! finance explains the \"\"unusually\"\" dividend: The company has elected to be treated as a REIT for federal income tax purposes and would not be subject to income tax, if it distributes at least 90% of its REIT taxable income to its share holders.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
8a58f43231ff9fa177865d5c4280ab5d
|
Equity As Part of Compensation
|
[
{
"docid": "a2569304fbab4b2df0d16e3d0e3223be",
"text": "With LLCs, the operation agreement can define different shares for different kinds of income or equity, and different partners may be treated differently. In essence, you can end up with a different stock class for each partner/member. So you need to read the grant document and the OA really carefully to know what you're getting. You may want to have a lawyer read through it for you. This may be way more complicated than classes of shares in a corporation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "93776e97161db6adb6be392a79bbf102",
"text": "At the most basic level, the employee is getting a share of ownership in the company and would get a percentage of the sales price. That said, as littleadv alluded to, different share classes have different priorities and get paid in different orders. In a bankruptcy, for example, some classes almost never get paid in practice because they are so far down the ladder of priority. The first step you should take would be to try to clarify what you are getting with the company itself. Failing that, contact a financial professional or an attorney in your area who can read the terms and give you a better understanding of the contract before you sign.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "18ce58c8902a64eca070d530a060fd2a",
"text": "From my understanding, only A and B are shareholders, and M is a managing entity that takes commission on the profit. Assuming that's true. At the start of the project, A contributes $500,000. At this point, A is the sole shareholder, owning 100% of the project that's valued at $500,000. The real question is, did the value of the project change when B contributed 3 month later. If the value didn't change, then A owns 33.33%, and B owns 66.66%. Assuming both A and B wants to pay themselves with the $800,000 profit, then A gets a third of that, and B gets the rest. However, if at the time of B's contribution, both parties agreed that the pre-money of the project has changed to $1 million, then B owns half the project valued at 2 million post-money. Then the profit would be split half way.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1b1be8a20c48f46e7b07478e4b4f44e8",
"text": "This is an old question that has an accepted answer, but it has gotten bumped due to an edit and the answers given are incorrect. I am assuming this means that every other Friday, the company is going into the open public market, buying those shares and then giving it out to the employees. No. Companies will internally hold shares that it intends to offer employees as additional compensation. There are no open market transactions, so the market price of the stock does not change (at least not due to buying pressure). The only net effect is an equivalent expense for the compensation, but that should already be accounted for in the share price as normal operating expenses. These share may come through an initial buyback from the market, but more common is that when companies issue new shares they keep some internally for exactly this situation. If they issued new shares every pay period, it would dilute the existing shares several times a quarter which would be difficult to account for.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a1931fcfb31aace0fe69344184134370",
"text": "\"Simply paying him back the 50K to reduce \"\"his equity\"\" back to 30% doesn't necessarily mean that he still doesn't have a higher liq pref upon a liquidation event. You don't need the legal language to know...I deal with term sheets all the time, I don't deal in the legal language, we cut the deal with the term sheet and leave the legal language to the lawyers.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c8ea35706b4e844f515d4c3bf0cadab8",
"text": "\"From Wikipedia - Stock: The stock (also capital stock) of a corporation constitutes the equity stake of its owners. It represents the residual assets of the company that would be due to stockholders after discharge of all senior claims such as secured and unsecured debt. Stockholders' equity cannot be withdrawn from the company in a way that is intended to be detrimental to the company's creditors Wikipedia - Dividend: A dividend is a payment made by a corporation to its shareholders, usually as a distribution of profits. When a corporation earns a profit or surplus, it can re-invest it in the business (called retained earnings), and pay a fraction of this reinvestment as a dividend to shareholders. Distribution to shareholders can be in cash (usually a deposit into a bank account) or, if the corporation has a dividend reinvestment plan, the amount can be paid by the issue of further shares or share repurchase. Wikipedia - Bond: In finance, a bond is an instrument of indebtedness of the bond issuer to the holders. It is a debt security, under which the issuer owes the holders a debt and, depending on the terms of the bond, is obliged to pay them interest (the coupon) and/or to repay the principal at a later date, termed the maturity date. Interest is usually payable at fixed intervals (semiannual, annual, sometimes monthly). Very often the bond is negotiable, i.e. the ownership of the instrument can be transferred in the secondary market. This means that once the transfer agents at the bank medallion stamp the bond, it is highly liquid on the second market. Thus, stock is about ownership in the company, dividends are the payments those owners receive, which may be additional shares or cash usually, and bonds are about lending money. Stocks are usually bought through brokers on various stock exchanges generally. An exception can be made under \"\"Employee Stock Purchase Plans\"\" and other special cases where an employee may be given stock or options that allow the purchase of shares in the company through various plans. This would apply for Canada and the US where I have experience just as a parting note. This is without getting into Convertible Bond that also exists: In finance, a convertible bond or convertible note or convertible debt (or a convertible debenture if it has a maturity of greater than 10 years) is a type of bond that the holder can convert into a specified number of shares of common stock in the issuing company or cash of equal value. It is a hybrid security with debt- and equity-like features. It originated in the mid-19th century, and was used by early speculators such as Jacob Little and Daniel Drew to counter market cornering. Convertible bonds are most often issued by companies with a low credit rating and high growth potential.\"",
"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": "65341cfd9b4397498cdd8102ad2dbd20",
"text": "No. Share are equity in companies that usually have revenue streams and/or potential for creating them. That revenue can be used to pay out dividends to the shareholders or to grow the company and increase its value. Most companies get their revenue from their customers, and customers rarely give their money to a company without getting some good or service in exchange.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "10146422146a526d61bd87b628390865",
"text": "The word equity always refers to the ownership of something, whether it be a company or a home. The wikipedia article is differentiating companies by how they raised money for operations. Equity companies, by their definition are those that sold an interest in the company in exchange for capital. Debt based companies, again by their definition, are those that borrow money from investors, but instead of an ownership stake they promise to pay back the money presumably with interest.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "82e4a219be65afcddb94527e7ceb52fb",
"text": "\"What is a 403b? A 403(b) plan is a tax-advantaged retirement savings plan available for public education organizations, some non-profit employers (only US Tax Code 501(c)(3) organizations), cooperative hospital service organizations and self-employed ministers in the United States. Kind of a rare thing. A bit more here: http://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/teacheroptions.htm under investment options Equity Indexed Annuities are a special type of contract between you and an insurance company. During the accumulation period — when you make either a lump sum payment or a series of payments — the insurance company credits you with a return that is based on changes in an equity index, such as the S&P 500 Composite Stock Price Index. The insurance company typically guarantees a minimum return. Guaranteed minimum return rates vary. After the accumulation period, the insurance company will make periodic payments to you under the terms of your contract, unless you choose to receive your contract value in a lump sum. For more information, please see our \"\"Fast Answer\"\" on Equity Indexed Annuities, and read FINRA's investor alert entitled Equity-Indexed Annuitiies — A Complex Choice. So perhaps \"\"equity indexed annuities\"\" is the more correct thing to search for and not \"\"insurance funds\"\"?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b7deba6712b7fb28aabe4197b393aa59",
"text": "Assuming you are saying that the company issues 20,000 additional shares of its own stock and sells them for $8 each: The money from the sale is not income and not part of earnings. It is capital and appears on the balance sheet as part of shareholder's equity. With no other transactions, yes, the total of shares outstanding is increased by 20,000 to 100,000.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5883594212907d5df467c9d29e54bb54",
"text": "\"Absolutely terrible idea(s) on many fronts. Firstly, why are you giving away equity at all? usually it's to attract people you otherwise wouldn't be able to hire (like extremely talented coders or business development managers) but normal employees? Bad idea. If you really want to give up equity, then make sure it's only realized (valued) once certain targets are met (i.e. sales/revenue/share price/investment etc). As for the nomenclature, they're not \"\"Co-Founders\"\" - that's typically reserved for the people that foundned the company, not just people who happened to be working for the company it started trading. Call them \"\"founding employee\"\" if you must, but they're certainly not founders. Why does this matter? If the company ever takes iff or you get investment, or you fire one of them or one just gets the idea to sue you, their position name suddenly REALLY matters, and by not being careful, they could win a substantial cut of your company in a lawsuit. there's even stories of employees ganging up on their bosses and they end up owning the company. I know someone that's been involved in high 8 figure suit for 7 years for exactly the same reason. So unless they're putting in startup capital or they're taking a serious hit on their salary in return for compensation in the form of equity, don't give anyone equity.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f0656add052a98a8db4a16389833068c",
"text": "Source, see if you have access to it Convertible notes are often used by angel investors who wish to fund businesses without establishing an explicit valuation of the company in which they are investing. When an investor purchases equity in a startup, the purchase price of the equity implies a company valuation. For example, if an investor purchases a 10 per cent ownership stake in a company, and pay $1m for that stake, this implies that the company is worth $10m. Some early stage investors may wish to avoid placing a value on the company in this way, because this in turn will affect the terms under which later-stage investors will invest in the company. Convertible notes are structured as loans at the time the investment is made. The outstanding balance of the loan is automatically converted to equity when a later equity investor appears, under terms that are governed by the terms set by the later-stage equity investor. An equity investor is someone who purchases equity in a company. Example:- Suppose an angel investor invests $100,000 using a convertible note. Later, an equity investor invests $1m and receives 10% of the company's shares. In the simplest possible case, the initial angel investor's convertible note would convert to 1/10th of the equity investor's claim. Depending on the exact structure of the convertible note, however, the angel investor may also receive extra shares to compensate them for the additional risk associated with being an earlier investor The worst-case scenario would be if the issuing company initially performed well, meaning that the debt would be converted into shares, and subsequently went bankrupt. The converted shares would become worthless, but the holder of the note would no longer have any recourse. Will twitter have to sell their offices and liquidate staff to close this debt? This depends on the seniority(priority) of the debt. Debt is serviced according to seniority. The higher seniority debts will be paid off first and then only the lower seniority debts be serviced. This will all be in the agreements when you enter into a transaction. When you say liquidate staff you mean sell off their assets and not sell their staff into slavery.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1ca3c5ec07188a8c92c46fb578d192c7",
"text": "Converting the comment from @MD-Tech into answer How or where could I find info about publicly traded companies about how stock owner friendly their compensation schemes are for their board and officers? This should be available in the annual report, probably in a directors' remunerations section for most companies",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ea751480073d65d4e870329fddcd427f",
"text": "\"IANAL, but I had heard (and would appreciate someone more qualified commenting on this) that one reason these things were often found unenforceable is that there is no consideration. The contract is to bind you for your work each day, but once you stop working, they allege you have a continued obligation that transcends your time at the company. Claiming that your day-to-day compensation covers this is as if to say some part of that compensation is not for your work but to pay you for not going elsewhere. It would be nice to see at minimum a requirement to separate these two concepts into separate contracts as bundling them creates a blur, and most importantly doesn't allow you to negotiate or walk away from the terms of one part without the other. At the heart of any \"\"market\"\", which the job market purports to be, is a sense that a fair price is reached when both parties can walk away from a bad deal. This is not so in the case of employment because, as Adlai Stevenson said, \"\"a hungry man is not a free man\"\", so someone who needs to eat (or feed a family) has a need to take an offer that is already biasing their acceptance of work, and this quasi-duress is compounded when a company can attach additional pressures that work agains that person's ability to fairly negotiate possible improvements of what may already have been a bad situation. I'm of the impression that duress itself has been argued to be a reason to hold a contract invalid. But more abstractly and generally, any time two parties are bargaining asymmetrically (I'm not sure the legal definition, but intuitively I'd say where one party has the ability to force a contract change and the other party is not), then those terms have to be suspect. Also, for the special case the pay is anything near minimum wage, I would suggest asking the question of whether the part of the compensation that is salary, not \"\"keeping you from working for the competition\"\", is the wage paid consistent with minimum wage, or does it have to draw from the pool of money that is not about wage but is about incentivizing you to not move. And, finally, if they stop paying you, and each day you've been paid a little to work and a little to incentivize you to leave, then are you getting a continued revenue stream to continue to incentivize you not to work for the competition? If not, there would seem again not to be consideration. As I said, I'm not an expert in this. I just follow such matters sometimes in the news. But I don't see these issues getting discussed here and I hope we'll see some useful responses from the crowd here, and also the smart folks at reddit can help through their discussions to form some useful political and legal defenses to help individuals overcome what is really a moral outrage on this matter. Capitalism is an often cruel engine. I worked at a company where one of the bosses said to me, after contributing really great things that added structurally in fundamental ways to the company, \"\"don't tell me what you've done, tell me what you've done lately\"\". Capitalism makes people scrap every day to prove their worth. So it's morally an outrage to see it also trying even as it beats down the price of someone and tells them they aren't entitled to better, to tell them that they may not go somewhere else that thinks they are better. That is not competition and it is not fair. Indentured servitude, not slavery, is more technically correct. And yet it is a push to treat people like capital, so slavery is not inappropriate metaphorically. The topic is non-competes, but really it's about businesses not wanting to have to compete for employees; that is, about businesses not wanting capitalism to prevail in hiring. Sorry for the length.\"",
"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": "168c75be45ba473b7391fb8a0554acb8",
"text": "Not if the bonuses are also on a grid. At my work it's the same way -- you get paid a certain amount for every year of tenure you have at the company (outside experience generally doesn't count) and then the bonus varies depending on how your performance rating goes. Everybody knows what the bonus levels are.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
de99821344e838b2d74ac09d75a0a09a
|
If I put in a limit order for the same price and size as someone else, which order goes through?
|
[
{
"docid": "6ad772daa2134a1fcd7ebaee7cdc0945",
"text": "The one whose order gets to the exchange first. The exchange receives the orders and arranges them in First-In-First-Out order, by which they're then executed. At some point it is synchronized and put into a list. Whoever gets to that point first - gets the deal.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "259c8223c6c0b1c55d7d5698a49850fa",
"text": "While littleadv's answer is true for many exchanges (in particular the stock market, it's called FIFO matching) you should also know that some markets trade pro rata. That is, for a match at some price level everyone at that level gets a chunk of the deal proportional to their input (i.e. order size). E.g. match for quantity X at a price level and passive side orders y1, y2; the order y1 would get y1 / (y1 + y2) of X and y2 would get y2 / (y1 + y2) (for X = min(X, y1 + y2)).",
"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": "6b4b297233e4a9ae8bad770474442913",
"text": "Limit orders are generally safer than market orders. Market orders take whatever most-favorable price is being offered. This can be especially dangerous in highly volatile stocks which have a significant spread between the bid and ask. That being said, you want to be very careful that you enter the price you intend into a limit order. It is better to be a bit slower at entering your orders than it is to make a terrible mistake like the one you mention in your question.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "060692078121fc35ffa4173600cbe2ae",
"text": "\"I assert that it's simply not possible for them to place an order that gets ahead of yours (the first step in \"\"sell it back to you at a higher price\"\"). They only know your order was placed after it reaches the exchange and gets filled.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9ca579a1d52fc5a986c5132394e6ff7b",
"text": "It depends on how you place your stop order and the type of stop orders available from your broker. If you place a stop market order and the following day the stock opens below your stop your stock will be stopped out at or around the opening price, meaning you can potentially end up with quite a large gap. If you place a stop limit order, say you place your stop at $10.00 with a limit price of $9.90, and if the price opens below $9.90, say at $9.50, your limit sell order of $9.90 will be placed onto the market but it will not be executed until the price goes back up to $9.90 or above. The third option is to place a Guaranteed Stop Loss, and as specified you are guaranteed your stop price even if the price gaps down below your stop price. You will be paying an extra fee for the Guaranteed Stop Loss Order, and they are usually mainly available with CFD Brokers (so if you are in the USA you might be out of luck).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4b24f69f03b345cf34ce1a673683d9fb",
"text": "If you are buying your order will be placed in Bid list. If you are selling your order will be placed in the Ask list. The highest Bid price will be placed at the top of the Bid list and the lowest Ask price will be placed at the top of the Ask list. When a Bid and Ask price are matched a transaction will take place and it will the last traded price. If you are looking to buy at a lower price, say $155.01, your Bid price will be placed 3rd in the Bid list, and unless the Ask prices fall to that level, your order will remain in the list until it trades, it expires or you cancel it. If prices don't fall to you Bid price you will not get a trade. If you wanted your trade to go through you could either place a limit buy order closer to the lowest Ask price (however this is still not a certainty), or to be certain place a market buy order which will trade at the lowest Ask price.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1a70251321da7fdcb59ab8b5a8d62bf4",
"text": "Yes, orders like this are very possible. There are nearly endless possibilities for structuring a trade. It all comes down to whether you have the money to make the trade at the find you find a counterparty. If you don't, the order is cancelled. Trades like this happen all day long at Goldman, BAML, Merril, UBS, etc. And on eBay.",
"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": "62af35c4ecb114423187a3a55c8bba0d",
"text": "I normally just do a buy limit at the price I want to buy it at. Then it executes when it's that price or lower, but there's still a chance you might purchase some shares at a larger price. But since we're small fry and using brokerages, there's not much we can do about it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9acd1c0fa638544a342b47e02511496c",
"text": "Yes for every order there is a buyer and seller. But overall there are multiple buyers and multiple sellers. So every trade is at a different price and this price is agreed by both buyer and seller. Related question will help you understand this better. How do exchanges match limit orders?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "0107650b5b3111aac34a28d5ddc94c73",
"text": "The Limit Order are matched based on amount and time. The orders are listed Highest to Lowest on the Buy Side. The orders are listed Lowest to Highest on the Sell Side. If there are 2 Sell orders for same amount the order which is first in time [fractions of milliseconds] is first. The about is the example as to how the orders would look like on any exchange. Now the highest price the buyer is ready to pay is 20.21 and the lowest price a seller is ready to sell for is 20.25. Hence there is no trade. Now if a new Buy order comes in at 20.25, it matches with the sell and the deal is made. If a new Buy order comes in at 20.30, it still matches at 20.25. Similarly if a Sell order come in at 20.21, it matches and a deal is made. If a Sell order come in at 20.11, it still matches 20.21. Incase of market order, with the above example if there is a Buy order, it would match with the lowest sell order at 20.25, if there is not enough quantity , it would match the remaining quantity to the next highest at 20.31 and continue down. Similarly if there is a Sell market order, the it would match to the maximum a seller is ready to buy, ie 20.21, if there is not sufficient buy quantity at 20.21, it will match with next for 20.19 If say there are new buy order at 20.22 and sell orders at 20.24, these will sit first the the above queue to be matched. In your above example the Lowest Sell order was at 20.10 at time t1 and hence any buy order after time t1 for amount 20.10 or greater would match to this and the price would be 20.10. However if the Buy order was first ie at t1 there was a buy order for 20.21 and then at time later than t1, there is a sell order for say 20.10 [amount less than or equal to 20.21] it would match for 20.21. Essentially the market looks at who was the first to sell at lower price or who was the first to buy at higher price and then decide the trade. Edit [To Clarify xyz]: Say if there is an Sell order at $10 Qty 100. There is a buyer who is willing to pay Max $20 and is looking for Qty 500. Your key assumption that the Buyer does not know the current SELL price of $10 is incorrect. Now there are multiple things, the Buyer knows the lowest Sell order is at $10, he can put a matching Buy order at $10 Qty 100, and say $11 Qty 100 etc. This is painful. Second, lets say he puts a Buy order at $10 Qty 100, by the time the order hits the system someone else has put the trade at $10 and his order is fulfilled. So this buyer has to keep looking at booking and keep making adjustments, if its a large order, it would be extremely difficult and frustrating for this Buyer. Hence the logic of giving preference. The later Buy order says ... The Max I can pay is $20, match eveything at the current price and get the required shares.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e780f8fe3a75a5098b5bff95d2abd3c3",
"text": "The next day the market opens trading at 10.50, You haven't specified whether you limit order for $10.10 is to buy or sell. When the trading opens next day, it follows the same process of matching the orders. So if you have put a limit order to buy at $10.10 and there is no sell order at that price, your trade will not go through. If you have placed a limit sell order at $10.10 and there is a buyer at or higher price, it would go through. The Open price is the price of the first trade of the day.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "690e876a256760bd7a439c63fab5b45f",
"text": "As you probably know, a credit spread involves buying a call (or put) at one strike and selling another call (or put) at another with the same maturity, so you're dealing with two orders. Your broker will likely have to fill this order themselves, meaning that they'll have to look at the existing bid/asks for the different strikes and wait until the difference matches (or exceeds) your limit order. Obviously they can't place limit orders on the legs individually since they can't guarantee that they will both be executed. They also don't care what the individual prices are; they just care what the difference is. It's possible that they have computer systems that examine existing bids and asks that would fill your order, but it's still done by the broker, not the exchange. The exchange never sees your actual limit order; they will just see the market orders placed by your broker.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "728e392d990ee0646c3ba5fc4c399afe",
"text": "\"You might consider learning how the \"\"matching\"\" or \"\"pairing\"\" system in the market operates. The actual exchange only happens when both a buyer and a seller overlap their respect quotes. Sometimes orders \"\"go to market\"\" for a particular volume. Eg get me 10,000 Microsoft shares now. which means that the price starts at the current lowest seller, and works up the price list until the volume is met. Like all market it trades, it has it's advantages, and it's dangers. If you are confident Microsoft is going to bull, you want those shares now, confident you'll recoup the cost. Where if you put in a priced order, you might get only none or some shares. Same as when you sell. If you see the price (which is the price of the last completed \"\"successful\"\" trade. and think \"\"I'm going to sell 1000 shares\"\". then you give the order to the market (or broker), and then the same as what happened as before. the highest bidder gets as much as they asked for, if there's still shares left over, they go to the next bidder, and so on down the price... and the last completed \"\"successful\"\" trade is when your last sale is made at the lowest price of your batch. If you're selling, and selling 100,000 shares. And the highest bidder wants 1,000,000 shares you'll only see the price drop to that guys bid. Why will it drop (off the quoted price?). Because the quoted price is the LAST sale, clearly if there's someone still with an open bid on the market...then either he wants more shares than were available (the price stays same), or his bid wasn't as high as the last bid (so when you sale goes through, it will be at the price he's offering). Which is why being able to see the price queues is important on large traders. It is also why it can be important put stops and limits on your trades, een through you can still get gapped if you're unlucky. However putting prices (\"\"Open Orders\"\" vs \"\"(at)Market Orders\"\") can mean that you're sitting there waiting for a bounce/spike while the action is all going on without you). safer but not as much gain (maybe ;) ) that's the excitement of the market, for every option there's advantages...and risks... (eg missing out) There are also issues with stock movement, shadowing, and stop hunting, which can influence the price. But the stuff in the long paragraphs is the technical reasons.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
9542d442bb70315e6e40a413ddd57832
|
Buying an ETF vs. The explicit Index
|
[
{
"docid": "cdf6041105d52253b016ef3ffd8a099a",
"text": "what reason would I have in buying an ETF? Apart from the efforts, the real reason is the ticket size. One can't buy shares in fraction. To truly reflect the index in equal weight, the amount to invest will be in multiples of millions [depending on the Index and the stock composition] This related question should help you understand why it is difficult even for large fund house to exactly mimic the index. Why do passive ETFs require so much trading (and incur costs)?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1406a6bc19c15ffdf325ac5ddf23d852",
"text": "To add to Dheer's point, the vast majority of retail investors will have to pay fees and use up a large amount of valuable time on the entrance and exit of each stock, and each and every time you rebalance as the index weightings change. These also add up extremely fast vs the few basis points the large and liquid ETFs charge for this service.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "ddebe31d71f26aa6b26955c1a29cd63a",
"text": "One difference is the bid/ask spread will cost you more in a lower cost stock than a higher cost one. Say you have two highly liquid stocks with tiny spreads: If you wanted to buy say $2,000 of stock: Now imagine these are almost identical ETFs tracking the S&P 500 index and extrapolate this to a trade of $2,000,000 and you can see there's some cost savings in the higher priced stock. As a practical example, recently a popular S&P 500 ETF (Vanguard's VOO) did a reverse split to help investors minimize this oft-missed cost.",
"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": "c4424a03c64b8fa71f7ddeca252d0332",
"text": "There are times when investing in an ETF is more convenient than a mutual fund. When you invest in a mutual fund, you often have an account directly with the mutual fund company, or you have an account with a mutual fund broker. Mutual funds often have either a front end or back end load, which essentially gives you a penalty for jumping in and out of funds. ETFs are traded exactly like stocks, so there is inherently no load when buying or selling. If you have a brokerage account and you want to move funds from a stock to a mutual fund, an ETF might be more convenient. With some accounts, an ETF allows you to invest in a fund that you would not be able to invest in otherwise. For example, you might have a 401k account through your employer. You might want to invest in a Vanguard mutual fund, but Vanguard funds are not available with your 401k. If you have access to a brokerage account inside your 401k, you can invest in the Vanguard fund through the associated ETF. Another reason that you might choose an ETF over a mutual fund is if you want to try to short the fund.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3fb4054783d74edb5a5d34db8ab34a4d",
"text": "The expense ratio reduces the return of the ETF; your scenario of paying 100.0015 is that of a load. Most (all?) ETFs can be bought without paying a load (sales charge as a percent of amount invested), and some ETFs can be bought without paying a brokerage fee (fixed or variable charge for a buy transaction just like buying any other stock through the brokerage) because the brokerage has waived it. Your broker might charge fees for both buying and selling shares in an ETF, but in any case, this is quite separate from the expense ratio.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "12af5a0013c778afa9b7314dc89d6493",
"text": "ETFs are a type of investment, not a specific choice. In other words, there are good ETFs and bad. What you see is the general statement that ETFs are preferable to most mutual funds, if only for the fact that they are low cost. An index ETF such as SPY (which reflects the S&P 500 index) has a .09% annual expense, vs a mutual fund which average a full percent or more. sheegaon isn't wrong, I just have a different spin to offer you. Given a long term return of say even 8% (note - this question is not a debate of the long term return, and I purposely chose a low number compared to the long term average, closer to 10%) and the current CD rate of <1%, a 1% hit for the commission on the buy side doesn't bother me. The sell won't occur for a long time, and $8 on a $10K sale is no big deal. I'd not expect you to save $1K/yr in cash/CDs for the years it would take to make that $8 fee look tiny. Not when over time the growth will overshaddow this. One day you will be in a position where the swings in the market will produce the random increase or decrease to your net worth in the $10s of thousands. Do you know why you won't lose a night's sleep over this? Because when you invested your first $1K, and started to pay attention to the market, you saw how some days had swings of 3 or 4%, and you built up an immunity to the day to day noise. You stayed invested and as you gained wealth, you stuck to the right rebalancing each year, so a market crash which took others down by 30%, only impacted you by 15-20, and you were ready for the next move to the upside. And you also saw that since mutual funds with their 1% fees never beat the index over time, you were happy to say you lagged the S&P by .09%, or 1% over 11 year's time vs those whose funds had some great years, but lost it all in the bad years. And by the way, right until you are in the 25% bracket, Roth is the way to go. When you are at 25%, that's the time to use pre-tax accounts to get just below the cuttoff. Last, welcome to SE. Edit - see sheegaon's answer below. I agree, I missed the cost of the bid/ask spread. Going with the lowest cost (index) funds may make better sense for you. To clarify, Sheehan points out that ETFs trade like a stock, a commission, and a bid/ask, both add to transaction cost. So, agreeing this is the case, an indexed-based mutual fund can provide the best of possible options. Reflecting the S&P (for example) less a small anual expense, .1% or less.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "78edcf3c84f09c26a42e0c97f2ab44b3",
"text": "Index Funds & ETFs, if they are tracking the same index, will be the same in an ideal world. The difference would be because of the following factors: Expense ratio: i.e. the expense the funds charge. This varies and hence it would lead to a difference in performance. Tracking error: this means that there is a small percentage of error between the actual index composition and the fund composition. This is due to various reasons. Effectively this would result in the difference between values. Demand / Supply: with ETFs, the fund is traded on stock exchanges like a stock. If the general feeling is that the index is rising, it could lead to an increase in the price of the ETF. Index funds on the other hand would remain the same for the day and are less liquid. This results in a price increase / decrease depending on the market. The above explains the reason for the difference. Regarding which one to buy, one would need to consider other factors like: a) How easy is it to buy ETFs? Do you already hold Demat A/C & access to brokers to help you conduct the transaction or do you need to open an additional account at some cost. b) Normally funds do not need any account, but are you OK with less liquidity as it would take more time to redeem funds.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "745af972c291ab920e3b2690a6d0ef9d",
"text": "Yes, it depends on the fund it's trying to mirror. The ETF for the S&P that's best known (in my opinion) is SPY and you see the breakdown of its holdings. Clearly, it's not an equal weighted index.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1a9e38527d7e1f9e8e0d36c2cc010dfc",
"text": "\"I'm assuming the question is about how to compare two ETFs that track the same index. I'd look at (for ETFs -- ignoring index funds): So, for example you might compare SPY vs IVV: SPY has about 100x the volume. Sure, IVV has 2M shares trading, so it is liquid \"\"enough\"\". But the bigger volume on SPY might matter to you if you use options: open interest is as much as 1000x more on SPY. Even if you have no interest in options, the spreads on SPY are probably going to be slightly smaller. They both have 0.09% expense ratios. When I looked on 2010-9-6, SPY was trading at a slight discount, IVV was at a slight premium. Looking for any sort of trend is left as an exercise to the reader... Grab the prospectus for each to examine the rules they set for fund makeup. Both come from well-known issuers and have a decent history. (Rather than crazy Uncle Ed's pawn shop, or the Central Bank of Stilumunistan.) So unless you find something in the SPY prospectus that makes you queasy, the higher volume and equal expense ratios would seem to suggest it over IVV. The fact that it is at a (tiny) discount right now is a (tiny) bonus.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "43740123fa97c27cf5e4af82928e3592",
"text": "But if you add a security to the index you also remove one from the index, thus both a buy and sell. If weights change some go up, some go down thus some need to be purchased and some need to be sold. So I still don't see how ETFs are net sinks beyond their simple AUM.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fe940f93051087ade962c2d903cb6d8e",
"text": "In my opinion, the ability to set a sell or buy price is the least of my concerns. Your question of whether to choose individual stocks vs funds prompts a different issue for me to bring to light. Choosing stocks that beat the market is not simple. In fact, a case can be made for the fact that the average fund lags the market by more and more over time. In the end, conceding that fact and going with the lowest cost funds or ETFs will beat 90% of investors over time.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b846ba9a563c7b403f519847b85447c8",
"text": "No, some of Vanguard's funds are index funds like their Total Stock Market Index and 500 Index. In contrast, there are funds like Vanguard PRIMECAP and Vanguard Wellington that are actively managed. There are index funds in both open-end and exchange-traded formats. VTI is the ticker for Vanguard's Total Stock Market ETF while VTSMX is an open-end mutual fund format. VOO would be the S & P 500 ETF ticker while VFINX is one of the open-end mutual fund tickers, where VIIIX has a really low expense ratio but a pretty stiff minimum to my mind. As a general note, open-end mutual funds will generally have a 5 letter ticker ending in X while an ETF will generally be shorter at 3 or 4 letters in length.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d37d9a994626f347749725d7d6066a17",
"text": "With the disclaimer that I am not a technician, I'd answer yes, it does. SPY (for clarification, an ETF that reflects the S&P 500 index) has dividends, and earnings, therefore a P/E and dividend yield. It would follow that the tools technicians use, such as moving averages, support and resistance levels also apply. Keep in mind, each and every year, one can take the S&P stocks and break them up, into quintiles or deciles based on return and show that not all stock move in unison. You can break up by industry as well which is what the SPDRs aim to do, and observe the movement of those sub-groups. But, no, not all the stocks will perform the way the index is predicted to. (Note - If a technician wishes to correct any key points here, you are welcome to add a note, hopefully, my answer was not biased)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d68b02b590f00b6b9e569a4648f50fa8",
"text": "\"For US stocks it's a bit of a gamble. Many actively managed funds underperform the market indexes, but some of them outperform in many years. With an index you will get average results. With an active manager you \"\"might\"\" do better than average. So you can view active management as a higher risk, potentially higher reward investment approach. On the other hand, if you want to diversify some of your investments into international stocks, bonds, junk bonds, and real estate (REITs) active management is highly likely to be better than indexing. For these specialized areas specialized knowledge and research is needed.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ab3fa3b48b665dad5943843d32607325",
"text": "You better buy an ETF that does the same, because it would be much cheaper than mutual fund (and probably much cheaper than doing it yourself and rebalancing to keep up with the index). Look at DIA for example. Neither buying the same amount of stocks nor buying for the same amount of money would be tracking the DJIE. The proportions are based on the market valuation of each of the companies in the index.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
5fbbdecc487e560988373179b754aacf
|
Why would you not want to rollover a previous employer's 401(k) when changing jobs?
|
[
{
"docid": "34c47367a558c66e61037553d66b5d2e",
"text": "\"The biggest reason why one might want to leave 401k money invested in an ex-employer's plan is that the plan offers some superior investment opportunities that are not available elsewhere, e.g. some mutual funds that are not open to individual investors such as S&P index funds for institutional investors (these have expense ratios even smaller than the already low expense ratios of good S&P index funds) or \"\"hot\"\" funds that are (usually temporarily) closed to new investors, etc. The biggest reason to roll over 401k money from an ex-employer's plan to the 401k plan of a new employer is essentially the same: the new employer's plan offers superior investment opportunities that are not available elsewhere. Of course, the new employer's 401k plan must accept such roll overs. I do not believe that it is a requirement that a 401k plan must accept rollovers, but rather an option that a plan can be set up to allow for or not. Another reason to roll over 401k money from one plan to another (rather than into an IRA) is to keep it safe from creditors. If you are sued and found liable for damages in a court proceeding, the plaintiff can come after IRA assets but not after 401k money. Also, you can take a loan from the 401k money (subject to various rules about how much can be borrowed, payment requirements etc) which you cannot from an IRA. That being said, the benefits of keeping 401k money as 401k money must be weighed against the usually higher administrative costs and usually poorer and more limited choices of investment opportunities available in most 401k plans as Muro has said already.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f74a5b526c0a15793991690803db71ec",
"text": "I've changed jobs several times and I chose to rollover my 401k from the previous employer into an IRA instead of the new employer's 401k plan. The biggest reason not to rollover the 401k into the new employer's 401k plan was due to the limited investments offered by 401k plans. I found it better to roll the 401k into an IRA where I can invest in any stock or fund.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "44cfb7c35e2cdf4c0c6cfbbc7ab86add",
"text": "Another minor reason not to rollover would be to avoid the pro-rata taxes when doing a backdoor Roth IRA contribution.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "068bed5880ce9e76d2f629508242671d",
"text": "You might want to bring this fancy new IRS rule to your employer's attention. If your employer sets it up, an After-Tax 401(k) Plan allows employees to contribute after-tax money above the $18k/year limit into a special 401(k) that allows deferral of tax on all earnings until withdrawal in retirement. Now, if you think about it, that's not all that special on its own. Since you've already paid tax on the contribution, you could imitate the above plan all by yourself by simply investing in things that generate no income until the day you sell them and then just waiting to sell them until retirement. So basically you're locking up money until retirement and getting zero benefit. But here's the cool part: the new IRS rule says you can roll over these contributions into a Roth 401(k) or Roth IRA with no extra taxes or penalties! And a Roth plan is much better, because you don't have to pay tax ever on the earnings. So you can contribute to this After-Tax plan and then immediately roll over into a Roth plan and start earning tax-free forever. Now, the article I linked above gets some important things slightly wrong. It seems to suggest that your company is not allowed to create a brand new 401(k) bucket for these special After-Tax contributions. And that means that you would have to mingle pre-tax and post-tax dollars in your existing Traditional 401(k), which would just completely destroy the usefulness of the rollover to Roth. That would make this whole thing worthless. However, I know from personal experience that this is not true. Your company can most definitely set up a separate After-Tax plan to receive all of these new contributions. Then there's no mingling of pre-tax and post-tax dollars, and you can do the rollover to Roth with the click of a button, no taxes or penalties owed. Now, this new plan still sits under the overall umbrella of your company's total retirement plan offerings. So the total amount of money that you can put into a Traditional 401(k), a Roth 401(k), and this new After-Tax 401(k) -- both your personal contributions and your company's match (if any) -- is still limited to $53k per year and still must satisfy all the non-discrimination rules for HCEs, etc. So it's not trivial to set up, and your company will almost certainly not be able to go all the way to $53k, but they could get a lot closer than they currently do.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4da246c3a095b426a18e8407d3ed5a39",
"text": "The rev rec rule allows companies to fully restate transition years, but doesn't actually require it. It allows them to just do a one time adjustment to retained earning instead, which is what most companies are doing/will do. Lots of huge companies have adopted earlier than they had to, so they clearly saw some benefit in doing so. I think some are absolutely considering the benefits of a superficial bump in the transition year. Obviously not a huge shift in long term earnings though.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f12a9aefc2820de93804198d12dc9349",
"text": "There is no segregation of amounts that you have in Rollover (Traditional) IRAs when it comes to figuring out how much of your basis is being converted from your Traditional IRA into a Roth IRA. So, yes, you will lose the benefit of being able to make nondeductible contributions to your Traditional IRA each year and rolling them over into a Roth IRA without tax consequences. Since your 401k amount may be substantially more than the $5K basis you create each year, converting the 401k amount into a Traditional IRA will mean that most of the money converted to the Roth IRA is pre-tax money, and so you end up paying tax on most of the converted amount.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e4f9de5dd97850b3d692707d252fb75a",
"text": "There are a few things to consider. The answers others gave here are correct, but I'll offer some reasons you may not want to roll to an IRA:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "55fa27ae850d048706e23ab6e49c4bc6",
"text": "Why would you want to withdraw only the company match, and presumably leave your personal contributions sitting in your ex-company's 401k plan? Generally, 401k plans have larger annual expenses and provide for poorer investment choices than are available to you if you roll over your 401k investments into an IRA. So, unless you have specific reasons for wanting to continue to leave your money in the 401k plan (e.g. you have access to investments that are not available to nonparticipants and you think those investments are where you want your money to be), roll over part (or all) of your 401k assets into an IRA, and withdraw the rest for personal expenses. If your personal contributions are in a Roth 401k, roll them over to a Roth IRA, but, as I remember it, company contributions are not part of the Roth 401k and must be rolled over into a Traditional IRA. Perhaps this is why you want to take those in cash to pay for your personal purchase? Also, what is this 30% hit you are talking about? You will owe income tax on the money withdrawn from the 401k (and custodians traditionally withhold 20% and send it to the IRS on your behalf) plus penalty for early withdrawal (which the custodian may also withhold if you ask them), but the tax that you will pay on the money withdrawn will depend on your tax bracket, which may be lower if you are laid off and do not immediately take on a new job. That is, the 30% hit may be on the cash flow, but you may get some of it back as a refund when you file your income tax return.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2fb1e88d7dff2bcd6c5fed3d7524ea92",
"text": "I tried to roll my funds to my new company. But my hr department from my old job would not work with me on getting it straightened out. So I decided to either pull it all out or roll it into a 401 k and use it as a trial for stocks and investments. Simce it isn't a large amount of money to begin with",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dea355f7bd8d8149782cd9009e20198b",
"text": "The simplest way to consolidate the funds your old 401(k) plans is by doing what's called a Direct Rollover (whereby the funds go directly into the new plan and skips you completely) from each of the old plans into either an IRA that you establish with a provider of your choice or even into your current employer's 401(k) plan if that is available. That way, the funds are in one central account and available to invest. Plus it eliminates the mandatory 20% withholding if the rollover is indirect and is sent to you first before the deposit into the new plan. It is important to bear in mind that you have 60 calendar days from the date of distribution to get the full amount into the new plan and a rollover is considered a tax reportable, but not necessarily a taxable event provided you deposit the funds within the time frame allotted.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dadd31a8116db41880af0f4641299534",
"text": "Adding to justkt's answer. The big difference to you during the rollover is that moving the money to a Roth IRA, unless it was a Roth 401K, is going to require you pay a lot of taxes on the money you move. I'd suggest not doing that without guidance from a financial advisor.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eb0564abb97baf963b3f88ffa1f71db2",
"text": "When you pick a company for your IRA, they should have information about rolling over funds from another IRA or a 401K. They will be able to walk you through the process. There shouldn't be a fee for doing this. They want your money to be invested in their funds. Once your money is in their hands they are able to generate their profits. You will want to do a direct transfer. Some employers will work with the investment companies and send the funds directly to the IRA. Others will insist on sending a check to you. The company that will have your IRA should give you exact specifications for the check so that you won't have to cash it. The check will be payable to you or the IRA account. The IRA company will have all the details. Decide if you will be converting non-Roth to Roth, before doing the rollover.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "98565bbe20823e47e80ebca8ac336bca",
"text": "\"A long time ago, in a galaxy far far away, Rollover IRAs were used for funds that came from (were rolled over from) a 401(k) account or a 403(b) account. All that money (including any earnings in the interim) could be rolled over into a 401(k) plan with a new employer etc. One could make a regular contribution to a Rollover IRA but once such a commingling of money occurred, none of the money in the Rollover IRA could be rolled over into a 401(k) account etc. In those good old days when contributions to IRAs were made by paper check and \"\"deposit slip\"\", one had to write a letter to the Rollover IRA custodian certifying that the IRA owner understood that the contribution would destroy forever the possibility of rolling over the money into another 401(k) etc. All this went by the wayside a few years ago when the law changed and the distinction between Rollover IRAs and ordinary Traditional IRAs was eliminated. Commingling of IRA contributions and Rollover money from 401(k)s are permitted, and the entire IRA balance could be rolled over into a new 401(k) plan (provided the new plan accepted rollovers). However the adjectives still persist; like chili555, I too have IRAs that are still called Rollover IRA, they all have commingled funds, and if the law ever changes back, none of those IRA accounts would be eligible for rolling over into a new 401(k).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "97303a2e7856e08e23ae9798ae828027",
"text": "If you really want to use the money roll it over to the new companies 401k and then take a 401k loan out for whatever the expense is. (Assuming the retirement plan allows them.) Generally 401k loans are frowned upon for all sorts of reasons however if the alternative is to just flat out withdraw the money it is a slightly better solution.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cc17ea9c00357c6358a5b88c815d6641",
"text": "This is at the bottom of my list of concerns, as both an employee and an employee. When hiring, its because I have work that needs to be done. I want to get someone in as quickly as possible, so I really don't care about holidays. Holiday pay also doesn't come out of my budget, so that doesn't enter in the decision. As a employee, if I'm unemployed I want to start as soon as possible. If switching jobs, I'm going to get paid for the holiday at one job or another, so it really doesn't matter. The last time I changed employers, I started the second week of January. That was more driven by moving concerns than anything else.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "566f05e9449bb06f1efcf50438c9f274",
"text": "You should never roll a 401(k) to a Roth IRA. If the intention is to do so, you are better off rolling to a traditional IRA, and then converting. (Per the comment below, I should add - if the 401(k) contained post tax money, this portion rolls to a Roth, not a Tradition IRA. You then have the exercise of converting/recharacterizing just the TIRA money, as the Roth stands aside) This preserves the ability to recharacterize back to a traditional IRA. You might wish to do this if: The answers so far are great, but I'll add what I see missing -",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fb9d030ac35296ba5c9fae89e43b890a",
"text": "Once upon a time, money rolled over from a 401k or 403b plan into an IRA could not be rolled into another 401k or 403b unless the IRA account was properly titled as a Rollover IRA (instead of Traditional IRA - Roth IRAs were still in the future) and the money kept separate (not commingled) with contributions to Traditional IRAs. Much of that has fallen by the way side as the rules have become more relaxed. Also the desire to roll over money into a 401k plan at one's new job has decreased too -- far too many employer-sponsored retirement plans have large management fees and the investments are rarely the best available: one can generally do better keeping ex-401k money outside a new 401k, though of course new contributions from salary earned at the new employer perforce must be put into the employer's 401k. While consolidating one's IRA accounts at one brokerage or one fund family certainly saves on the paperwork, it is worth keeping in mind that putting all one's eggs in one basket might not be the best idea, especially for those concerned that an employee might, like Matilda, take me money and run Venezuela. Another issue is that while one may have diversified investments at the brokerage or fund family, the entire IRA must have the same set of beneficiaries: one cannot leave the money invested in GM stock (or Fund A) to one person and the money invested in Ford stock (or Fund B) to another if one so desires. Thinking far ahead into the future, if one is interested in making charitable bequests, it is the best strategy tax-wise to make these bequests from tax-deferred monies rather than from post-tax money. Since IRAs pass outside the will, one can keep separate IRA accounts with different companies, with, say, the Vanguard IRA having primary beneficiary United Way and the Fidelity IRA having primary beneficiary the American Cancer Society, etc. to achieve the appropriate charitable bequests.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "071a251118a8b48aa4362f2e706e4b35",
"text": "Tax Refund: The US generally does not refund tax like other countries. For larger sales, you might want to try state tax refunds, check here: https://help.cbp.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/373/~/how-to-obtain-a-refund-of-sales-tax-paid-while-visiting-the-united-states US Customs: You never pay US customs when you leave, they don't care about what you take out of the country. You might have to pay customs in your arrival country afterwards, and the rules depend on the country you arrive in. Most countries have a limit on how much you can bring for free, typically in the range of 500 $, but that varies a lot. Also, some countries do not count used articles, so if you wear your new clothing once, it does not count against the limit anymore.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
4280436ccf7ab5130b97030edfc26d5c
|
Meaning of “readily transferable”?
|
[
{
"docid": "bf3c52ae294bd1bbf9893e00073baa4d",
"text": "Securities or quite a few negotiable instruments can change title of ownership without any issue. Many at times the owner ship in implicit if you are holding a certain instrument. So for example in Stock its a fractional ownership in a company, this ownership transfers to the buyer from the seller without requiring any permission from the company. In case of say Loans, One cannot transfer the loan to some one else without the Banks permission.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "2647687762360c49bb6114991554d0de",
"text": "I think you are having trouble understanding what 'liquid' means. Liquidity refers to how easily an asset can be converted to cash. More liquid = more easily converted to cash, less liquid, less so. Any kind of exit load is going to make an asset less liquid due to the penalties associated with making the sale. So, the whole point of liquid funds is to give people the option of selling quickly if they need to. Since an exit load is meant to discourage this behavior, liquid funds tend not to have one. The point isn't what the financial institution 'gets', it's about offering a service to clients with a particular investment need.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6f474efecbe9e1096e80db1d81ae6af1",
"text": "You can do a direct transfer from one fund to another within Fidelity very easily. You will have to see if the two funds have any sales or redemption fees. If you want to leave Fidelity, they should be able to transfer the funds directly to the other IRA custodian. You don't want the money to go to you, instead you want to send them send the money directly to the other firm. The new custodian will be more than happy to help facilitate the transfer. The only fee for doing so should be if the funds you are investing in have fees for buying or selling shares. There are many options that don't have these transaction costs, both with Fidelity and with other companies.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b810befb58360be5aa7896bc91f112ce",
"text": "Transferring money you own from one place to another pretty much never has tax implications. It might have other implications, including requirement to report it. Being a US citizen has tax implications, including the requirement to file US tax forms for the rest of eternity.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3f678d63d1dfbbadafbbe7c07f7fca21",
"text": "You could use a money transfer service like Western Union or the equivalent.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bd6817e4cdc5230ba683aa08909bea15",
"text": "I would certainly hope to make the transfer by wire - the prospect of popping cross the border with several million dollars in the trunk seems... ill fated. I suppose I'm asking what sort of taxes, duties, fees, limits, &c. would apply Taxes - None. It is your money, and you can transfer it as you wish. You pay taxes on the income, not on the fact of having money. Reporting - yes, there's going to be reporting. You'll report the origin of the money, and whether all the applicable taxes have been paid. This is for the government to avoid money laundering. But you're going to pay all the taxes, so for transfer - you'll just need to report (and maybe, for such an amount, actually show the tax returns to the bank). Fees - shop around. Fees differ, like any other product/service costs on the marketplace.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "302f54d4efdee0b6be1f690de6e9e8e4",
"text": "You can perfectly well manage their wealth without transferring their money into your account first. Just make them open their own account on their name then ask them for credentials and then manage their money from within their own account. That way everyone will be taxed according to their wealth (which is probably advantageous but you probably have to help them with the paperwork) and it is clear at every time what belongs to whom and your relatives can at every time access their wealth. These are big advantages (for them). This keeps you at the role of an adviser (a very active one though) which should have almost zero legal ramifications for you unless you try to deceive your relatives. You may want to shift wealth between accounts to minimize tax burdens, but that comes at the risk that should the family relations get worse this might result in anger. You could open up a registered society, all members getting shares and voting rights, making you the CEO, but that should be a lot of paperwork and maybe only a good idea for large amounts of money. If you decide to transfer money between accounts of different persons this is like a gift. It might invoke a gift tax in your area. All in all, I strongly advise you to make them all open up their own accounts and then just operate the accounts and manage their wealth in their name. Sell it to them as the solution that retains them maximum ownership.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "065f69630f86e51394730e12b6f82f9b",
"text": "To sum up: My question came from misunderstanding what cost basis applies to. Now I get it that it applies to stocks as physical entities. Consider a chain of buys of 40 stock A with prices $1-$4-$10-$15 (qty 10 each time) then IRS wants to know exactly which stock I am selling. And when I transfer stocks to different account, that cost basis transfers with them. Cost basis is included in transfers, so that removes ambiguity which stock is being sold on the original account. In the example above, cost basis of 20 stocks moved to a new account would probably be $1 x 10 and $4 x 10, i.e. FIFO also applies to transfers.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "16e013dd52ed1d3c03a5c5567b83da8c",
"text": "\"I'm guessing since I don't know the term, but it sounds like you're asking about the technique whereby a loan is used to gather multiple years' gift allowance into a single up-front transfer. For the subsequent N years, the giver pays the installments on the loan for the recipient, at a yearly amount small enough to avoid triggering Gift Tax. You still have to pay income tax on the interest received (even though you're giving them the money to pay you), and you must charge a certain minimum interest (or more accurately, if you charge less than that they tax you as if the loan was earning that minimum). Historically this was used by relatively wealthy folks, since the cost of lawyers and filing the paperwork and bookkeeping was high enough that most folks never found out this workaround existed, and few were moving enough money to make those costs worthwhile. But between the \"\"Great Recession\"\" and the internet, this has become much more widely known, and there are services which will draw up standard paperwork, have a lawyer sanity-check it for your local laws, file the official mortgage lien (not actually needed unless you want the recipient to also be able to write off the interest on their taxes), and provide a payments-processing service if you do expect part or all of the loan to be paid by the recipient. Or whatever subset of those services you need. I've done this. In my case it cost me a bit under $1000 to set up the paperwork so I could loan a friend a sizable chunk of cash and have it clearly on record as a loan, not a gift. The amount in question was large enough, and the interpersonal issues tricky enough, that this was a good deal for us. Obviously, run the numbers. Websearching \"\"family loan\"\" will find much more detail about how this works and what it can and can't do, along with services specializing in these transactions. NOTE: If you are actually selling something, such as your share of a house, this dance may or may not make sense. Again, run the numbers, and if in doubt get expert advice rather than trusting strangers on the web. (Go not to the Internet for legal advice, for it shall say both mu and ni.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e71443710085606292dc745c99c90d19",
"text": "Many brokers allow you to transfer shares to another broker without selling them. It depends on what kind of account and who the broker is for what forms you might have to fill out and what other hoops you might have to jump through.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "1787961e896db69e5bb95c21983c12d5",
"text": "It's been a couple years since I worked on Transfer Pricing project. It makes sense though. I'd imagine that's why Texas and Florida are doing, tax wise, so much better than California and other high tax states.",
"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": "ffdf27fb9f7077c4a6d7ea0ba512f87f",
"text": "Three ideas: PayPal is probably the best/cheapest way to transfer small/medium amounts of money overseas.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8a3237946bbb31c267c8c9f20eb00e3c",
"text": "I'd probably call it an intangible or indirect benefit. Not sure what the trade term is.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3365eaf1af20cd0487b113340fb84876",
"text": "First, realize that Wikipedia is written by individuals, just like this board has thousands of members. The two definition were written and edited by different people, most likely. Think Venn diagram. The definition for financial instruments claims that it's the larger set, and securities is contained in a subset. Comparing the two, it seems pretty consistent. Yes, Securities include derivatives. Transferable is close to tradable, although to me tradable implies a market as compared to private transfers. I don't believe there's an opposite, per se, but there's 'other stuff.' My house has value, but is not a security. My coffee cup has no value. Back to the concept of Venn. There aren't really opposites, just items falling outside the set we're discussing. I'd caution, this is a semantic exercise. If you know what you're buying, a stock, a bond, a gold bar, etc, whether it's a financial instrument or security doesn't matter to you.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
20306ed2b4066c733ec6c64f5a0cae88
|
Mutual fund invests in mostly the same stuff as ETF, but has much higher expense ratio? (biotech sector)
|
[
{
"docid": "72fc81b3b8029581818dc18f64cc52af",
"text": "Index funds, like IBB, generally lack active management, which equates to lower expenses. This is simply because the target index, the NASDAQ Biotechnology Index in the case of IBB, is composed of known quantities. This means there won't be stock pickers or analysts constantly swapping holdings, increasing the turnover rate of the portfolio and increasing capital gains; costs that are offset by higher expense ratios in more actively managed funds.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "b846ba9a563c7b403f519847b85447c8",
"text": "No, some of Vanguard's funds are index funds like their Total Stock Market Index and 500 Index. In contrast, there are funds like Vanguard PRIMECAP and Vanguard Wellington that are actively managed. There are index funds in both open-end and exchange-traded formats. VTI is the ticker for Vanguard's Total Stock Market ETF while VTSMX is an open-end mutual fund format. VOO would be the S & P 500 ETF ticker while VFINX is one of the open-end mutual fund tickers, where VIIIX has a really low expense ratio but a pretty stiff minimum to my mind. As a general note, open-end mutual funds will generally have a 5 letter ticker ending in X while an ETF will generally be shorter at 3 or 4 letters in length.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5fda5d09dfa3620b45a28ae157bc5947",
"text": "In almost every circumstance high expense ratios are a bad idea. I would say every circumstance, but I don't want backlash from anyone. There are many other investment companies out there that offer mutual funds for FAR less than 1.5% ratio. I couldn't even imagine paying a 1% expense ratio for a mutual fund. Vanguard offers mutual funds that are significantly lower, on average, than the industry. Certainly MUCH lower than 1.5%, but then again I'm not sure what mutual funds you have, stock, bonds, etc. Here is a list of all Vanguard's mutual funds. I honestly like the company a lot, many people haven't heard of them because they don't spend nearly as much money on advertisements or a flashy website - but they have extremely low expense ratios. You can buy into many of their mutual funds with a 0.10%-0.20% expense ratio. Some are higher, but certainly not even close to 1.5%. I don't believe any of them are even half of that. Also, if you were referring to ETF's when you mentioned Index Fund (assuming that since you have ETFs in your tag), then 0.20% for ETF's is steep, check out some identical ETFs on Vanguard. I am not a Vanguard employee soliciting their service to you. I'm just trying to pass on good information to another investor. I believe you can buy vanguard funds through other investment companies, like Fidelity, for a good price, but I prefer to go through them.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dca3cf0140f34ac6c9cd6621379c2367",
"text": "In the case of VFIAX versus VOO, if you're a buy-and-hold investor, you're probably better off with the mutual fund because you can buy fractional shares. However, in general the expense ratio for ETFs will be lower than equivalent mutual funds (even passive index funds). They are the same in this case because the mutual fund is Admiral Class, which has a $10,000 minimum investment that not all people may be able to meet. Additionally, ETFs are useful when you don't have an account with the mutual fund company (i.e. Vanguard), and buying the mutual fund would incur heavy transaction fees.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "747c67c61f77e71e0193055130ee6ea0",
"text": "There are a number of mutual funds which claim to be 'ethical'. Note that your definition of 'ethical' may not match theirs. This should be made clear in the prospectus of whichever mutual fund you are looking at. You will likely pay for the privilege of investing this way, in higher expenses on the mutual fund. If I may suggest another option, you may want to consider investing in low-fee mutual funds or ETFs and donating some of the profit to offset the moral issues you see.",
"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": "61a3236acf34529cae6bfa96e07ccccb",
"text": "\"As Dheer pointed out, the top ten mega-cap corporations account for a huge part (20%) of your \"\"S&P 500\"\" portfolio when weighted proportionally. This is one of the reasons why I have personally avoided the index-fund/etf craze -- I don't really need another mechanism to buy ExxonMobil, IBM and Wal-Mart on my behalf. I like the equal-weight concept -- if I'm investing in a broad sector (Large Cap companies), I want diversification across the entire sector and avoid concentration. The downside to this approach is that there will be more portfolio turnover (and expense), since you're holding more shares of the lower tranches of the index where companies are more apt to churn. (ie. #500 on the index gets replaced by an up and comer). So you're likely to have a higher expense ratio, which matters to many folks.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "667cdf9a802e8ebd4325173d502e32f5",
"text": "In my opinion, if you are doing long-term investing, this is a non-issue. The difference of hours in being able to trade an ETF during the day vs. only being able to trade a traditional mutual fund at day-end is irrelevant if you are holding the investment for a long time. If you are engaging in day trading, market timing, or other advanced/controversial trading practices, then I suppose it could make a difference. For the way I invest (index funds, long-term, set-it-and-forget-it), ETFs have no advantage over traditional mutual funds.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0dccc0a63323e2c74165cf05e445984b",
"text": "\"The 0.14% is coming out of the assets of the fund itself. The expense ratio can be broken down so that on any given day, a portion of the fund's assets are set aside to cover the administrative cost of running the fund. A fund's total return already includes the expense ratio. This depends a lot on what kind of account in which you hold the fund. If you hold the fund in an IRA then you wouldn't have taxes from the fund itself as the account is sheltered. There may be notes in the prospectus and latest annual and semi-annual report of what past distributions have been as remember the fund isn't paying taxes but rather passing that along in the form of distributions to shareholders. Also, there is something to be said for what kinds of investments the fund holds as if the fund is to hold small-cap stocks then it may have to sell the stock if it gets too big and thus would pass on the capital gains to shareholders. Other funds may not have this issue as they invest in large-cap stocks that don't have this problem. Some funds may invest in municipal bonds which would have tax-exempt interest that may be another strategy for lowering taxes in bond funds. Depending on the fund quite a broad range actually. In the case of the Fidelity fund you link, it is a \"\"Fund of funds\"\" and thus has a 0% expense ratio as Fidelity has underlying funds that that fund holds. What level of active management are you expecting, what economies of scale does the fund have to bring down the expense ratio and what expense ratio is typical for that category of fund would come to mind as a few things to consider. That Fidelity link is incorrect as both Morningstar and Fidelity's site list an expense ratio for the fund of funds at .79%. I'd expect an institutional US large-cap index fund to have the lowest expense ratio outside of the fund of fund situation while if I were to pick an actively managed fund that requires a lot of research then the expense ratio may well be much higher though this is where you have to consider what strategy do you want the fund to be employing and how much of a cost are you prepared to accept for that? VTTHX is Vanguard Target Retirement 2035 Fund which has a .14% expense ratio which is using index funds in the fund of funds system.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "639b9ab3d09b533aafdcc8760cf3fd09",
"text": "- ETFs make money through management fees. You can look it up: they all skim off a little bit of its profit, normally <1%. - It's all about cheap diversification. People generally don't have the capital to invest individually in each equity to mimic an ETF's portfolio. - Yes, but you need a lot of money. For example: You can't just invest $1 in GOOG if you want to buy a tech sector ETF.",
"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": "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": "17d8c9ce8333dce95012229164d8535b",
"text": "This is probably the best, most concise and yet detailed answer to this oft-posed question I've seen on this sub. Have an upvote. Only thing I'd add is that HFs' comparatively more active approach creates a moat vs. mutual funds, which are seen as more long-term, passive investments. This means they can charge fees and have higher expense ratios (though obviously anyone in finance who has been conscious in the last five years knows that this is changing)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "667f5ee83a6fccf6901ac2c01fee122a",
"text": "I see a couple of reasons why you could consider choosing a mutual fund over an ETF In some cases index mutual funds can be a cheaper alternative to ETFs. In the UK where I am based, Fidelity is offering a management fee of 0.07% on its FTSE All shares tracker. Last time I checked, no ETF was beating that There are quite a few cost you have to foot when dealing ETFs In some cases, when dealing for relatively small amounts (e.g. a monthly investment plan) you can get a better deal, if your broker has negotiated discounts for you with a fund provider. My broker asks £12.5 when dealing in shares (£1.5 for the regular investment plan) whereas he asks £0 when dealing in funds and I get a 100% discount on the initial charge of the fund. As a conclusion, I would suggest you look at the all-in costs over total investment period you are considering for the exact amount you are planning to invest. Despite all the hype, ETFs are not always the cheapest alternative.",
"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": "c976a1f9cf1a5014ba73a9b00bd8da2b",
"text": "A mutual fund that purchases bonds is a bond fund. Bond funds are considered to be less risk than a traditional stock mutual fund. The cost of this less risk is that they have earned (on average) less than mutual funds investing in stocks. Sometimes, bonds have different tax consequences than stocks.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
0e63f6b4bd29f2b249dfde0c34a98948
|
If NYSE has market makers, what is the role of NYSE ARCA which is an ECN
|
[
{
"docid": "2c504c313ec0af33d9927c84da62968b",
"text": "Electronic trading is many orders of magnitude cheaper and more liquid than floor trading and is rapidly displacing it. Stil, electronic trading accounts for 79% of stock trading volume in the U.S. Polcari is losing the battle. Floor trading is still offered, but it's only used for bulk orders, so electronic trading is servicing small trades at minimum prices while floor trading is now the concierge service.",
"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": "f744364c976f38ef461e3449e043a277",
"text": "You seem to think that stock exchanges are much more than they actually are. But it's right there in the name: stock exchange. It's a place where people exchange (i.e. trade) stocks, no more and no less. All it does is enable the trading (and thereby price finding). Supposedly they went into mysterious bankruptcy then what will happen to the listed companies Absolutely nothing. They may have to use a different exchange if they're planning an IPO or stock buyback, that's all. and to the shareholder's stock who invested in companies that were listed in these markets ? Absolutley nothing. It still belongs to them. Trades that were in progress at the moment the exchange went down might be problematic, but usually the shutdown would happen in a manner that takes care of it, and ultimately the trade either went through or it didn't (and you still have the money). It might take some time to establish this. Let's suppose I am an investor and I bought stocks from a listed company in NYSE and NYSE went into bankruptcy, even though NYSE is a unique business, meaning it doesn't have to do anything with that firm which I invested in. How would I know the stock price of that firm Look at a different stock exchange. There are dozens even within the USA, hundreds internationally. and will I lose my purchased stocks ? Of course not, they will still be listed as yours at your broker. In general, what will happen after that ? People will use different stock exchanges, and some of them migth get overloaded from the additional volume. Expect some inconveniences but no huge problems.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "08731cc1aa3d6b5299b0f83c6ebf6b87",
"text": "I was looking at NAT and NAO, NAT owns 20% of NAO. They trade opposite each other on the price of oil, low is good for NAT, bad for NAO. In bad times the other company's stock would probably rise, so they could trim excess shares to keep a stable monetary holding. This would create cash in bad times, in good times they could buy more, creating a floor as well for the other.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "36347183e3c2c8963ed56ec4fa8468dc",
"text": "If the share is listed on a stock exchange that creates liquidity and orderly sales with specialist market makers, such as the NYSE, there will always be a counterparty to trade with, though they will let the price rise or fall to meet other open interest. On other exchanges, or in closely held or private equity scenarios, this is not necessarily the case (NASDAQ has market maker firms that maintain the bid-ask spread and can do the same thing with their own inventory as the specialists, but are not required to by the brokerage rules as the NYSE brokers are). The NYSE has listing requirements of at least 1.1 million shares, so there will not be a case with only 100 shares on this exchange.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1c9f0c2bfe010ef63bfec82fb6512cf8",
"text": "I used to be a trader at a desk that sold delta-one derivatives on listed indices (think swaps, ETFs). There is a LOT to do: buy/ sell stocks according to redemptions or new orders; manage the currency exposure; indices rebalance their composition everyday based on stock corporate actions, dividends and index reviews - you need to be aware of each and everyone and rebalance your portfolio to account for it; manage your inventory to get the best repo rates possible; trade single stock swaps with foreign counterparties to get access to better tax rates on dividends; when you have a big order where certain stock orders may not get filled - you have to create a strategy for managing that risk; sometimes you hedge your positions using futures that expire every three months in which case you need to figure out the best times to roll your expiring futures; i could go on and on. Basically, since the profit margins are so low, the market so competitive for such vanilla products, and the volumes so high, you have to really make your processes super efficient and error-proof. Trust me, there is a lot to be done!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "992515091016e92c23ab724308d91cbb",
"text": "\"There are people (well, companies) who make money doing roughly what you describe, but not exactly. They're called \"\"market makers\"\". Their value for X% is somewhere on the scale of 1% (that is to say: a scale at which almost everything is \"\"volatile\"\"), but they use leverage, shorting and hedging to complicate things to the point where it's nothing like a simple as making a 1% profit every time they trade. Their actions tend to reduce volatility and increase liquidity. The reason you can't do this is that you don't have enough capital to do what market makers do, and you don't receive any advantages that the exchange might offer to official market makers in return for them contracting to always make both buy bids and sell offers (at different prices, hence the \"\"bid-offer spread\"\"). They have to be able to cover large short-term losses on individual stocks, but when the stock doesn't move too much they do make profits from the spread. The reason you can't just buy a lot of volatile stocks \"\"assuming I don't make too many poor choices\"\", is that the reason the stocks are volatile is that nobody knows which ones are the good choices and which ones are the poor choices. So if you buy volatile stocks then you will buy a bunch of losers, so what's your strategy for ensuring there aren't \"\"too many\"\"? Supposing that you're going to hold 10 stocks, with 10% of your money in each, what do you do the first time all 10 of them fall the day after you bought them? Or maybe not all 10, but suppose 75% of your holdings give no impression that they're going to hit your target any time soon. Do you just sit tight and stop trading until one of them hits your X% target (in which case you start to look a little bit more like a long-term investor after all), or are you tempted to change your strategy as the months and years roll by? If you will eventually sell things at a loss to make cash available for new trades, then you cannot assess your strategy \"\"as if\"\" you always make an X% gain, since that isn't true. If you don't ever sell at a loss, then you'll inevitably sometimes have no cash to trade with through picking losers. The big practical question then is when that state of affairs persists, for how long, and whether it's in force when you want to spend the money on something other than investing. So sure, if you used a short-term time machine to know in advance which volatile stocks are the good ones today, then it would be more profitable to day-trade those than it would be to invest for the long term. Investing on the assumption that you'll only pick short-term winners is basically the same as assuming you have that time machine ;-) There are various strategies for analysing the market and trying to find ways to more modestly do what market makers do, which is to take profit from the inherent volatility of the market. The simple strategy you describe isn't complete and cannot be assessed since you don't say how to decide what to buy, but the selling strategy \"\"sell as soon as I've made X% but not otherwise\"\" can certainly be improved. If you're keen you can test a give strategy for yourself using historical share price data (or current share price data: run an imaginary account and see how you're doing in 12 months). When using historical data you have to be realistic about how you'd choose what stocks to buy each day, or else you're just cheating at solitaire. When using current data you have to beware that there might not be a major market slump in the next 12 months, in which case you won't know how your strategy performs under conditions that it inevitably will meet eventually if you run it for real. You also have to be sure in either case to factor in the transaction costs you'd be paying, and the fact that you're buying at the offer price and selling at the bid price, you can't trade at the headline mid-market price. Finally, you have to consider that to do pure technical analysis as an individual, you are in effect competing against a bank that's camped on top of the exchange to get fastest possible access to trade, it has a supercomputer and a team of whizz-kids, and it's trying to find and extract the same opportunities you are. This is not to say the plucky underdog can't do well, but there are systematic reasons not to just assume you will. So folks investing for their retirement generally prefer a low-risk strategy that plays the averages and settles for taking long-term trends.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c02e759961fc1045b5c3846be9ea8436",
"text": "The process would look something like: 1. Register your investment company with the SEC 2. Get the ETF approved by the SEC 3. Get a custodian bank (likely requires min assets of a few million) 4. Get listed on an exchange like NYSEARCA by meeting requirements and have an IPO 1 and 2 probably require a lot of time and fees and would be wise to have a lawyer advising, 3 is obviously difficult due to asset requirements and 4 would probably involve an investment bank plus more fees",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "244082b525c3e0b52022e26c339e7810",
"text": "\"In the US, stocks are listed on one exchange but can be traded on multiple venues. You need to confirm exactly what your data is showing: a) trades on the primary-listed exchange; or b) trades made at any venue. Also, the trade condition codes are important. Only certain trade condition codes contribute towards the day's open/high/low/close and some others only contribute towards the volume data. The Consolidated Tape Association is very clear on which trades should contribute towards each value - but some vendors have their own interpretation (or just simply an erroneous interpretation of the specifications). It may surprise you to find that the majority of trading volume for many stocks is not on their primary-listed exchange. For example, on 2 Mar 2015, NASDAQ:AAPL traded a total volume across all venues was 48096663 shares but trading on NASDAQ itself was 12050277 shares. Trades can be cancelled. Some data vendors do not modify their data to reflect these busted trades. Some data vendors also \"\"snapshot\"\" their feed at a particular point in time of the data. Some exchanges can provide data (mainly corrections) 4-5 hours after the closing bell. By snapshotting the data too early and throwing away any subsequent data is a typical cause of data discrepancies. Some data vendors also round prices/volumes - but stocks don't just trade to two decimal places. So you may well be comparing two different sets of trades (with their own specific inclusion rules) against the same stock. You need to confirm with your data sources exactly how they do things. Disclosure: Premium Data is an end-of-day daily data vendor.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "138081ec8dc672510864b024303858ca",
"text": "Whilst it is true that they do not have a conference call every time a rating is produced, the parameters of a natural oligopoly do indicate that there are negative effects of deviating too much from the other members of an oligopoly. There are instances of rating agencies (Moody's) giving lower ratings to punish the issuer for going elsewhere (Re Hannover), but usually a slightly lower rating may be acceptable and is usually corrected to be in line with the competitor shortly afterwards. The power, arguably, is with the issuer in this sense because they can take their business to the 3rd member (Fitch) if the rating is too low from one of the Big Two. The preservation of the 'Big Two', for so long, is arguably testament to the S&P and Moody's understanding of these parameters If the answer is not micromanaging, what do you think it is out of interest?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4f0896b4114a3e414cf3926afd207f86",
"text": "\"I'm not sure which article you are referring to- if you are talking about the convergex article.... it literally describes what they did in the article. Tradeworx and software company thesys(both founded by manoj narang) provide data to the sec and function as market makes- they are highly respected and handle over 5% of us equity by volume. Their \"\"head people\"\" is manoj narang. I don't think he \"\"bailed out\"\". As you can read [here](https://research-doc.credit-suisse.com/docView?sourceid=em&document_id=x569866&serialid=lZPbU6l0cgAqB%2B1gg4uZFLk14dBwhfSb9lZ3%2BdmPHV4%3D) they are willing 53% of the trades they place everyday and have He has stated in an interview he wants to explore options trading. They were debunking myths because of the regulators wanted answers and at the time hft was not understood very well. Narang also testified at a senate committee[video here](https://youtu.be/NG47K41Q7KA)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2b23681c3322b5595b3103d3e8839086",
"text": "\"Generally, ETFs work on the basis that there exists a pair of values that can be taken at any moment in time: A Net Asset Value of each share in the fund and a trading market price of each share in the fund. It may help to picture these in baskets of about 50,000 shares for the creation/redemption process. If the NAV is greater than the market price, then arbitrageurs will buy up shares at the market price and do an \"\"in-kind\"\" transaction that will be worth the NAV value that the arbitrageurs could turn around and sell for an immediate profit. If the market price is greater than the NAV, then the arbitrageurs will buy up the underlying securities that can be exchanged \"\"in-kind\"\" for shares in the fund that can then be sold on the market for an immediate profit. What is the ETF Creation/Redemption Mechanism? would be a source on this though I imagine there are others. Now, in the case of VXX, there is something to be said for how much trading is being done and what impact this can have. From a July 8, 2013 Yahoo Finance article: At big option trade in the iPath S&P 500 VIX Short-Term Futures Note is looking for another jump in volatility. More than 250,000 VXX options have already traded, twice its daily average over the last month. optionMONSTER systems show that a trader bought 13,298 August 26 calls for the ask price of $0.24 in volume that was 6 times the strike's previous open interest, clearly indicating new activity. Now the total returns of the ETF are a combination of changes in share price plus what happens with the distributions which could be held as cash or reinvested to purchase more shares.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fcffe05a9aa5ced0a8d67edcb9f5e6d5",
"text": "\"Not arguing w that at all, and you can't colo w IB afaik. Their API over WAN, VPN or CTCI on direct line only. If you colo at Nasdaq and clear through Lightspeed you're talking microseconds (which is where my actual low latency strats are). But yes, I suppose for IB I should have mentioned \"\"low-ish\"\" latency rather than actual low latency. So I'll add a caveat to the newbs - don't try to do ECN arb (or any other super-low-latency strat) or market-make (their cancel fees will kill you) the entire equity universe through IB. It won't work. They're not suitable for that. My 50-100 reference was for WAN IB clearing for these guys probably using their API through IB gateway or TWS, which is how most would likely start. Doubt they're diving head first into ECN arb day one - they probably wouldn't be doing lowest latency stuff, most peeps start w some sort of trend following strat in my exp and you can work on those timescales w those. Trying to give advice for people starting out, not for other already pro algo traders. But yes, finprogger is correct, IB would not be a suitable broker to use for a competitive ultra low-latency strat. They are too slow.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "aa3078ec6e69e72a7a071cc61a91b20a",
"text": "I'm not in the business but I've always thought that Catalyst + industry context = market beating returns. Meaning that if you know what an event means faster than everyone else you can make money. Though I don't know how you'd express that in a report. An example that comes to mind is when Japan announced they were forming a consortium, the largest in the world, to make LCD panel glass. After that I got the heck of GLW though the stock price kept going up at the time. It is like no one understood the implications.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "049c73e6636485e2c9f7dcfce0f14540",
"text": "No, it's not even remotely accurate in the current sense. Both markets have counterparties directly executing against one another, and both have auctions. The auction mechanics are different (with NYSE's Specialist/DMM model) but during normal market hours there isn't much difference.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
bbff2f8bcd679bf5a906f6ee11407255
|
Should I take out a bigger mortgage, or pay a greater cash deposit?
|
[
{
"docid": "cfccc6ceb8832a56d3bd16d4570f255e",
"text": "At a minimum, I would save 20-30k, because you need to have both a safety net and some money for home repairs. Very few people move into a house and then do zero repairs - painting, usually, at a minimum, and there's almost always something that comes up pretty soon after. Even if you're buying a condo, you'll want to be sure you can fix anything that needs fixing within that first year or two. Beyond that, you have to decide based on your risk tolerance and your other details, like your income. Taking a smaller mortgage means a guaranteed 3% to 4% return, right now. That's not quite what you'll probably get on the market over the long term, but how did your investments do last year? My 401(k) was down slightly... In order to do better than that 3-4%, you're going to have to invest in stocks (or ETFs or similar), meaning you could have 10+% swings potentially year over year, which if that's your only (extra) 50k might be more than you can tolerate. If you're very risk tolerant and mostly looking to make money over the long term, then it may be worth it to you. But if a larger mortgage makes it harder to pay the monthly payments (a meaningfully smaller buffer), or if your job is such that you might end up having to sell those investments at a loss to cover your mortgage for a few months because you (didn't make enough|got laid off|etc.), then you may want the smaller mortgage to make that less of a risk (though still setting aside the safety net in something minimally risky).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8a32ff455ef9ede9b3f4850281372c9a",
"text": "The answer to your question depends on your answer to this question: Would you be willing to take out a loan at that interest rate and invest that money straight into stocks? That's basically what you're planning to do. You leverage your stock investment, which is a valid and often used way to improve returns. Better returns ALWAYS come with more risk. Depending on your location there might be a tax advantage to a mortage, which you can take into account.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "bffe0c8e40d0f4420e78fcbd9e76bab5",
"text": "\"When you compare the costs of paying your current mortgage with the rental income from the flat, you're not really comparing like with like. Firstly, the mortgage payments are covering both interest and capital repayments, so some of the 8k is money that is adding to your net worth. Secondly, the value of the flat (130k) is much more than the outstanding mortgage (80k) so if you did sell the flat and pay off the mortgage, you'd have 50k left in cash that could be invested to provide an income. The right way to compare the two options is to look at the different costs in each scenario. Let's assume the bigger house will cost 425k as it makes the figures work out nicely. If you buy the bigger house with a bigger mortgage, you will need to borrow 50k more so will end up with a mortgage of 130k, and you will still have the 8k/year from the flat. Depending on your other income, you might have to pay tax on the 8k/year - e.g. at 40% if you're a higher-rate taxpayer, leaving you with 4.8k/year. If you sell the flat, you'll have no mortgage repayments to make and no income from the flat. You'll be able to exactly buy the new house outright with the 50k left over after you repay the mortgage, on top of your old house. You'd also have to pay some costs to sell the flat that you wouldn't have to with the bigger mortgage, but you'd save on the costs of getting a new mortgage. They probably aren't the same, but let's simplify and assume they are. If anything the costs of selling the flat are likely to be higher than the mortgage costs. Viewed like that, you should look at the actual costs to you of having a 130k mortgage, and how much of that would be interest. Given that you'll be remortgaging, at current mortgage rates, I'd expect interest would only be 2-3%, i.e around 2.5k - 4k, so significantly less than the income from the flat even after tax. The total payment would be more because of capital repayment, but you could easily afford the cashflow difference. You can vary the term of the mortgage to control how much the capital repayment is, and you should easily be able to get a 130k mortgage on a 425k house with a very good deal. So if your figure of 8k rent is accurate (considering void periods, costs of upkeep etc), then I think it easily makes sense to get the bigger house with the bigger mortgage. Given the tax impact (which was pointed out in a comment), a third strategy may be even better: keep the flat, but take out a mortgage on it in exchange for a reduced mortgage on your main house. The reason for doing it that way is that you get some tax relief on the mortgage costs on an investment property as long as the income from that property is higher than the costs, whereas you don't on your primary residence. The tax relief used to just be at the same tax rate you were paying on the rental income, i.e. you could subtract the mortgage costs from the rental income when calculating tax. It's gradually being reduced so it's just basic rate tax relief (20%) even if you pay higher-rate tax, but it still could save you some money. You'd need to look at the different mortgage costs carefully, as \"\"buy-to-let\"\" mortgages often have higher interest rates.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c5e1289e278da7e065f8a75fc8f8c465",
"text": "One other consideration is that by paying off your mortgage early versus, for example, investing that capital in a mutual fund is that you are reducing your net liquidity to some degree. That is, if you find yourself needing an emergency infusion of cash it is easier to sell a stock/fund than to sell your house or get a equity loan. I suppose if you were planning to need a lot of cash to start a business or invest in real estate, then maybe it would make sense to keep your cash more liquid. However, in your situation I agree with Joe. Pay it off. It feels REALLY good to write that last check!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1ae3cb543558e6c150f706998416094c",
"text": "You want to buy a house for $150,000. It may be possible to do this with $10,000 and a 3.5% downpayment, but it would be a lot better to have $40,000 and make a 20% downpayment. That would give you a cushion in case house prices fall, and there are often advantages to a 20% downpayment (lower rate; less mandatory insurance). You have an income of $35,000 and expenses of $23,000 (if you are careful with the money--what if you aren't?). You should have savings of either $17,500 or $11,500 in case of emergencies. Perhaps you simply weren't mentioning that. Note that you also need at least $137 * 26 = $3562 more to cover mortgage payments, so $15,062 by the expenses standard. This is in addition to the $40,000 for downpayment and closing costs. What do you plan to do if there is a problem with the new house, e.g. you need a new roof? Or smaller expenses like a new furnace or appliance? A plumbing problem? Damages from a storm? What if the tenants' teenage child has a party and trashes the place? What if your tenants stop paying rent but refuse to move out, trashing the place while being evicted? Your emergency savings need to be able to cover those situations. You checked comps (comparable properties). Great! But notice that you are looking at a one bathroom property for $150,000 and comparing to $180,000 houses. Consider that you may not get the $235 for that house, which is cheaper. Perhaps the rent for that house will only be $195 or less, because one bathroom doesn't really support three bedrooms of people. While real estate can be part of a portfolio, balance would suggest that much more of your portfolio be in things like stocks and bonds. What are you doing for retirement? Are you maxing out any tax-advantaged options that you have available? It might be better to do that before entering the real estate market. I am a 23 year old Australian man with a degree in computer science and a steady job from home working as a web developer. I'm a bit unclear on this. What makes the job steady? Is it employment with a large company? Are you self-employed with what has been a steady flow of customers? Regardless of which it is, consider the possibility of a recession. The company can lay you off (presumably you are at the bottom of the seniority). The new customers may be reluctant to start new projects while their cash flow is restrained. And your tenants may move out. At the same time. What will you do then? A mortgage is an obligation. You have to pay it regardless. While currently flush, are you the kind of flush that can weather a major setback? I would feel a lot better about an investment like this if you had $600,000 in savings and were using this as a complementary investment to broaden your portfolio. Even if you had $60,000 in savings and would still have substantial savings after the purchase. This feels more like you are trying to maximize your purchase. Money burning a hole in your pocket and trying to escape. It would be a lot safer to stick to securities. The worst that happens there is that you lose your investment (and it's more likely that the value will be reduced but recover). With mortgages, you can lose your entire investment and then some. Yes, the price may recover, but it may do so after the bank forecloses on the mortgage.",
"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": "63f5076c8a243b8546772a1205a51082",
"text": "If I was bank, I certainly wouldn't give a **30 year** mortgage to a **57 year old** with a property which is worth less than the mortgage! And I don't see why a bank should. I get that it sucks for him to have a 6.35% interest mortgage, but that situation sucks for the bank as well. I wouldn't offer a lower interest to someone in that sort of situation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1c2347a4ed4cd25bf7adcbdf7126f9d7",
"text": "The rules of thumb are there for a reason. In this case, they reflect good banking and common sense by the buyer. When we bought our house 15 years ago it cost 2.5 times our salary and we put 20% down, putting the mortgage at exactly 2X our income. My wife thought we were stretching ourselves, getting too big a house compared to our income. You are proposing buying a house valued at 7X your income. Granted, rates have dropped in these 15 years, so pushing 3X may be okay, the 26% rule still needs to be followed. You are proposing to put nearly 75% of your income to the mortgage? Right? The regular payment plus the 25K/yr saved to pay that interest free loan? Wow. You are over reaching by double, unless the rental market is so tight that you can actually rent two rooms out to cover over half the mortgage. Consider talking to a friendly local banker, he (or she) will likely give you the same advice we are. These ratios don't change too much by country, interest rate and mortgages aren't that different. I wish you well, welcome to SE.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5efb6240c4f3e22fb6f64f933cf1d4dc",
"text": "\"I put about that down on my place. I could have purchased it for cash, but since my investments were returning more interest than the loan was costing me (much easier to achieve now!), this was one of the safest possible ways of making \"\"leverage\"\" work for me. I could have put less down and increased the leverage, but tjis was what I felt most comfortable with. Definitely make enough of a down payment to avoid mortgage insurance. You may want to make enough of a down payment that the bank trusts you to handle your property insurance and taxes yourself rather than insisting on an escrow account and building that into the loan payments; I trust myself to mail the checks on time much more than I trust the bank. Beyond that it's very much a matter of personal preference and what else you might do with the money.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "030f333f695729064b103a9fbb7dd4f3",
"text": "Aggressively paying of Mortgage is better. If you have more cash available [assuming you have covered all other aspects i.e. emergency funds, retirement etc], the only question you need to ask is where will you invest and what returns would you get. So if your mortgage is say at 5%, if the spare money can get you more than this, its beneficial, if its in Bank CD with say near zero interest, its not worth it. However if you are sure you can make 10% returns on the investments, then go ahead and don't pay the mortgage aggressively.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7e6110b72db7be0364dfa70f0f2309bf",
"text": "\"Condensed to the essence: if you can reliably get more income from investing the cost of the house than the mortgage is costing you, this is the safest leveraged investment you'll ever make. There's some risk, of course, but there is risk in any financial decision. Taking the mortgage also leaves you with far greater flexibility than if you become \"\"house- rich but cash-poor\"\". (Note that you probably shouldn't be buying at all if you may need geographic flexibility in the next five years or so; that's another part of the liquidity issue.) Also, it doesn't have to be either/or. I borrowed half and paid the rest in cash, though I could have taken either extreme, because that was the balance of certainty vs.risk that I was comfortable with. I also took a shorter mortgage than I might have, again trading off risk and return; I decided I would rather have the house paid off at about the same time that I retire.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "88890edbedd3979b6a8244e4a8df8b85",
"text": "\"Here in the UK, the rule of thumb is to keep a lot of equity in your home if you can. I assume here that you have a lot of savings you're considering using. If you only have say 10% of the house price you wouldn't actually have a lot of choice in the matter, the mortgage lender will penalise you heavily for low deposits. The practical minimum is 5%, but for most people a 95% mortgage is just silly (albeit not as silly as the 100% or greater mortgages you could get pre-2008), and you should take serious individual advice before considering it. According to Which, the average in the UK for first-time buyers is 20% (not the best source for that data I confess, but a convenient one). Above 20% is not at all unusual. You'll do an affordability calculation to figure out how much you can borrow, which isn't at all the same as how much you should borrow, but does get you started. Basically you, decide how much a month you can spend on mortgage payments. The calculation will let you put every penny into this if you choose to, but in practice you'll want some discretionary income so don't do that. decide the term of the mortgage. For a young first-time buyer in the UK I think you'd typically take a 25-year term and consider early repayment options rather than committing to a shorter term, but you don't have to. Mortgage lenders will offer shorter terms as long as you can afford the payments. decide how much you're putting into a deposit make subtractions for cost of moving (stamp duty if applicable, fees, removals aka \"\"people to lug your stuff\"\"). receive back a number which is the house price you can pay under these constraints (and of course a breakdown of what the mortgage principle would be, and the interest rate you'll pay). This step requires access to lender information, since their rates depend on personal details, deposit percentage, phase of the moon, etc. Our mortgage advisor did multiple runs of the calculation for us for different scenarios, since we hadn't made up our minds entirely. Since you have not yet decided how much deposit to make, you can use multiple calculations to see the effect of different deposits you might make, up to a limit of your total savings. Putting up more deposit both increases the amount you can borrow for a given monthly payment (since mortgage rates are lower when the loan is a lower proportion of house value), and of course increases the house price you can afford. So unless you're getting a very high return on your savings, £1 of deposit gets you somewhat more than £1 of house, and the calculation will tell you how much more. Once you've chosen the house you want, the matter is even simpler: do you prefer to put your savings in the house and borrow less and make lower payments, or prefer to put your savings elsewhere and borrow more and make higher payments but perhaps have some additional income from the savings. Assuming you maintain a contingency fund, a lower mortgage is generally considered a good investment in the UK, but you need to check what's right for you and compare it to other investments you could make. The issue is complicated by the fact that residential property prices are rising quite quickly in most areas of the UK, and have been for a long time, meaning that highly-leveraged property investment appears to be a really good idea. This leads to the imprudent, but tempting, conclusion that you should buy the biggest house you can possibly afford and watch its value rises. I do not endorse this advice personally, but it's certainly true that in a sharply rising house market it's easier to get away with buying a bigger house than you need, than it is to get away with it in a flat or falling market. As Stephen says, an offset mortgage is a no-brainer good idea if the rate is the same. Unfortunately in the UK, the rate isn't the same (or anyway, it wasn't a couple of years ago). Offset mortgages are especially good for those who make a lot of savings from income and for any reason don't want to commit all of those savings to a traditional mortgage payment. Good reasons for not wanting to do that include uncertainty about your future income and a desire to have the flexibility to actually spend some of it if you fancy :-)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dd333f8f311aa1f844a430926d5d8df7",
"text": "Firstly, I'm going to do what you said and analyze your question taking your entire family's finances into account. That means giving you an answer that maximizes your family's total wealth rather then just your own. If instead of that your question really was, should I let my parents buy me a house and live rent free, then obviously you should do that (assuming your parents can afford it and you aren't taking advantage people who need to be saving for retirement and not wasting it on a 25 y/o who should be able to support him / herself). This is really an easy question assuming you are willing to listen to math. Goto the new york times rent vs buy calculator and plug in the numbers: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/upshot/buy-rent-calculator.html Firstly, if you do what you say you want to do buy the house all cash and live there for 4 years, it would be the equivalent of paying 1151 / month in rent once you factor in transaction costs, taxes, opportunity costs, etc. Take a look at the calculator, it's very detailed. This is why you should never buy houses all cash (unless its a negotiating tactic in a hot market, and even then you should refi after). Mortgage rates are super low right now, all that money sitting in the house is appreciating at maybe the rate of inflation (assuming the house value isn't going down which it can very easily do if you don't maintain it, another cost you need to factor in). Instead, you could be invested in the stock market getting 8%, the lost opportunity cost there is huge. I'm not even considering your suggestion that you hang onto the house after you move out in 4 years. That's a terrible idea. Investment properties should be at a maximum value of 10x the yearly rent. I wouldn't pay more then 72K for a house / apartment that rents for only 600 / month (and even then I would look for a better deal, which you can find if you time things right). Don't believe me? Just do the numbers. Renting your 200K house for 600 / month is 7200 / year. Figure you'll need to spend 1% / year (I'm being optimistic here) on maintanence / vacancy (and I'm not even considering your time dealing with tenants). Plus another 1% or so on property tax. That's 4K / year, so your total profit is 3200 which is a return of only 1.6% on your 200K. You can get 1% in an ally savings account for comparison. Really you are much better off investing in a diversified portfolio. You only need 6 months living expenses in cash, so unless your family is ridicuouly wealthy (In which case you should be asking your financial planner what to do and not stack exchange), I have no idea why your parents have 200K sitting around in a savings account earning 0. Open a vanguard account for them and put that money in VTI and your family will be much better off 5 years from now then if you buy that money pit (err house). If risk is a concern, diversify more. I have some money invested with a robo advisor. They do charge a small fee, but it's set it and forget it with auto diversification and tax loss harvesting. Bottom line is, get that money invested in something, having it sitting in a bank account earning 0 is probably the second worst thing you could do with next to buying this house.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "99c9e66ffea3b6ed304f3f3501d0acb0",
"text": "The answer can depend greatly on whether the interest on a mortgage for the house you live in is tax deductible in the country you are in (I assume the mortgage is on the house you live in and not an investment property). It will also depend on the difference between the mortgage interest rate and the return of the unit trust, your income and your tax rates. In essence you would need to do a cost-benefit analysis to figure out which option would provide the bigest financial benefit, considering the different rates, your income and your tax rates. Basically, if you can get a better return from the unit trust than the mortgage interest rate and you can claim a tax deduction for the mortgage interest payments, then you may be better off investing in the unit trust rather than putting extra repayments into the mortgage.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b2c1b4cf7165848bcc59d2356d58217a",
"text": "Every payment you make on your house will already be increasing your equity in it. For that reason alone, I'd recommend moving additional savings into other long-term funds.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f4337f65c2c443100a3f1bce1ce7805c",
"text": "Your wealth will go up if your effective rate after taxes is less than the inflation rate. That is, if your interest rate is R and marginal tax rate is T, then you need R*(1-T) to be less than inflation to make a loan worth it. Lately inflation has been bouncing around between 1% and 1.8%. Let's assume a 25% tax rate. Is your interest rate lower than between 1.3% and 2.4%? If not, don't take out a loan. Another thing to consider: when you take out a loan you have to do a ton of extra stuff to make the lender happy (inspections, appraisals, origination charges, etc.). These really add up and are part of the closing costs as well as the time/trouble of buying a house. I recently bought my house using 100% cash. It was 2 weeks between when I agreed to a price to when the deal was sealed and my realtor said I probably saved about $10,000 in closing costs. I think she was exaggerating, but it was a lot of time and money I saved. My final closing costs were only a few hundred, not thousands, of dollars. TL;DR: Loans are for suckers. Avoid if possible.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c660aa77d34da2bf069924c305d831ea",
"text": "\"I am going to respond to a very thin sliver of what's going on. Skip ahead 4 years. When buying that house, is it better to have $48K in the bank but a $48K student loan, or to have neither? That $48K may very well be what it would take to put you over the 20% down payment threshhold thus avoiding PMI. Banks let you have a certain amount of non-mortgage debt before impacting your ability to borrow. It's the difference between the 28% for the mortgage, insurance and property tax, and the total 38% debt service. What I offer above is a bit counter-intuitive, and I only mention it as you said the house is a priority. I'm answering as if you asked \"\"how do I maximize my purchasing power if I wish to buy a house in the next few years?\"\"\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
da1f473b19910cf74d9610972173020e
|
Does anyone know what Bank of NY Mellon's EB DLs are?
|
[
{
"docid": "3b0513ea719821872a14f80eda6c8c71",
"text": "ACWI refers to a fund that tracks the MSCI All Country World Index, which is A market capitalization weighted index designed to provide a broad measure of equity-market performance throughout the world. The MSCI ACWI is maintained by Morgan Stanley Capital International, and is comprised of stocks from both developed and emerging markets. The ex-US in the name implies exactly what it sounds; this fund probably invests in stock markets (or stock market indexes) of the countries in the index, except the US. Brd Mkt refers to a Broad Market index, which, in the US, means that the fund attempts to track the performance of a wide swath of the US stock market (wider than just the S&P 500, for example). The Dow Jones U.S. Total Stock Market Index, the Wilshire 5000 index, the Russell 2000 index, the MSCI US Broad Market Index, and the CRSP US Total Market Index are all examples of such an index. This could also refer to a fund similar to the one above in that it tracks a broad swath of the several stock markets across the world. I spoke with BNY Mellon about the rest, and they told me this: EB - Employee Benefit (a bank collective fund for ERISA qualified assets) DL - Daily Liquid (provides for daily trading of fund shares) SL - Securities Lending (fund engages in the BNY Mellon securities lending program) Non-SL - Non-Securities Lending (fund does not engage in the BNY Mellon securities lending program) I'll add more detail. EB (Employee Benefit) refers to plans that fall under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, which are a set a laws that govern employee pensions and retirement plans. This is simply BNY Mellon's designation for funds that are offered through 401(k)'s and other retirement vehicles. As I said before, DL refers to Daily Liquidity, which means that you can buy into and sell out of the fund on a daily basis. There may be fees for this in your plan, however. SL (Securities Lending) often refers to institutional funds that loan out their long positions to investment banks or brokers so that the clients of those banks/brokerages can sell the shares short. This SeekingAlpha article has a good explanation of how this procedure works in practice for ETF's, and the procedure is identical for mutual funds: An exchange-traded fund lends out shares of its holdings to another party and charges a rental fee. Running a securities-lending program is another way for an ETF provider to wring more return out of a fund's holdings. Revenue from these programs is used to offset a fund's expenses, which allows the provider to charge a lower expense ratio and/or tighten the performance gap between an ETF and its benchmark.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "d2a3af423d2876660f81c03c1720679f",
"text": "> … Sycamore lined up financing from **UBS Group AG, Bank of America Corp.’s Merrill Lynch, Deutsche Bank AG, Credit Suisse Group AG, Royal Bank of Canada, Jefferies Group LLC, Wells Fargo & Co. and Fifth Third Bank. Merrill Lynch and Deutsche Bank** … > Staples, meanwhile, got financial advice on the deal from **Barclays Plc and Morgan Stanley** … Any banks in the world missing?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c06dd8658a400808f0995c1905f5a6bd",
"text": "This depends on the practise and applications available with the Beneficiary Bank. For a corporate customer, the details are show. For Retail customers they are generally not shown.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "70540b0a4421346f3dd5a42a14ff7ff1",
"text": "Basically, you answer client questions on the valuation, generally speaking the P/L values for liquid equities you won't have much problems with, however for credit is where all the fun is as its OTC especially OTC derivatives. You're gonna argue with a lot of hedge funds over CDS prices and illiquid credit. Hedge fund A will call you: Yo, why are you booking a loss of -50 bps on bond X. You: Our end market median price of (10 providers) @ 4pm is 101.5. Hedge fun A: Post market its at 102. You: Sorry, can't help you as the NAV is out at 4pm. A lot of fund managers will rage at you guys over these things as it fucks up their NAV's. disclaimer: I used to be in the position of hedge fund A.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "61eb5fc6ed2f5ec03a425230699f8729",
"text": "If this is true, can you explain to me how this deal came to originate itself? My thoughts are like this: Tim's looking to expand and grow their company and market share, looking to join or merge into a company. RBC and Citi step in and help Tim's find the perfect pairing with respect to their priority as a company. RBC and Citi then help Tim's sell themselves TO BK? The real question is: since 3G Capital are really the ones that are pulling the strings on this deal, are they just outsourcing all the analysis work to Lazard JP and Wells Fargo? P.S I would really like to know more on how deals like these are handled and who does the advising/analysis for who, and etc.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "423ab71df601cb740e4df3cb6ab1caf1",
"text": "There's a primer on valuing community banks by oddball Stocks, an investor who specializes in that kind of stuff. I can't link it cause I'm on my phone, but just search it up on Google and I'm sure you'll find it.",
"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": "2be63ec22254cb4566913758224c9219",
"text": "I doubt it, they never knew who those loans belonged to even a decade ago . .there is no way the underlying assets even if identifiable will be performing or marketable. It was a simple bank fraud, where banks bundled up all their worthless shit in alphabet soup and the rating agencies rated it aaa and it blew up . . its still the same worthless shit",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3fe18d8b664294e35f4ba7aec9d1e9be",
"text": "\"I've looked around for a while and found one at Broadway Federal Bank. I opened one up last year and will most likely be renewing it if the rates stay fairly competitive. Here are the features: I think it's a great alternative to a savings account because the ability to withdraw at any time defeats the purpose of \"\"saving\"\". By getting penalized to withdraw with this CD, you are discouraged from withdrawing and hence, actually save. The biggest downside is that they are a fairly small community bank and only have branches in Los Angeles. They also only have three branches in total and do not have ATM's that you can make deposits into aside from the ones outside of their branches.However, you can open an account online and and make electronic deposits. Hope this helps.I included their website below. www.broadwayfederalbank.com\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b24d10511c7da25e635a279c6554e061",
"text": "That looks very much like an S&P 500 E-Mini index future. However, ES1 is a strange symbol. Futures have the month of expiry encoded in their symbol as well: http://commodities.about.com/od/understandingthebasics/ss/futurescontract_3.htm For example, the September 2011 future in this series would be ESU1. I'm not very familiar with Bloomberg so perhaps this is the front contract (i.e. the one that's closest to expiry (in the is case the September 2011 one)). Only problem is that prices don't exactly match what CME has (high of 1190 and low of 1186.25, for when this page gets out of date): http://www.cmegroup.com/trading/equity-index/us-index/e-mini-sandp500.html - but they are so close I suspect it must be some sort of S&P 500 index future.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "292b758fcbcb0874ad35cc1f9019d524",
"text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/17/business/dealbook/student-loan-debt-collection.html) reduced by 85%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Other large student lenders, like Sallie Mae, also pursue delinquent borrowers in court, but National Collegiate stands apart for its size and aggressiveness, borrowers&#039; lawyers say. > National Collegiate&#039;s beneficial owner, Mr. Uderitz, hired a contractor in 2015 to audit the servicing company that bills National Collegiate&#039;s borrowers each month and is supposed to maintain custody of many loan documents critical for collection cases. > A random sample of nearly 400 National Collegiate loans found not a single one had assignment paperwork documenting the chain of ownership, according to a report they had prepared. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6o3vdd/student_loan_forgiveness_due_to_lost_paperwork/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~169942 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*: **Borrower**^#1 **loan**^#2 **National**^#3 **case**^#4 **Collegiate**^#5\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3fb8a2cd4553ce6c5ecbc76fd26775f7",
"text": ">Which one is Citibank I literally *just* told you retard. >Those CEO's (including this prick) were responsible for it. No they werent. CDO's / MBS's are *not* from depository banks. The financial institutions that are responsible for the financial crisis are primarily Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns and AIG. AKA 2 *investment* banks and an insurance firm. So as I've said, you don't understand the difference between a depository bank and an investment bank. You also have 0 idea on how a collateral works. And again, tax payers didn't lose a single cent. You're brainless.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bb4f5b0127ee7a4b75598adb294af40c",
"text": "DB runs hedge funds that own stock in both companies, has a US bank that lends to both companies, has a US equity division that trades the stock of both companies, is a prime broker to hedge funds that own stock in both companies. They are also a lender to private equity firms that own transportation and logistics companies. However, I agree with the point you are trying to make about a person heard from another person who heard from another person",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fb821ad5bbe752f81848cd2213cece62",
"text": "\"I'm *really* surprised to see Schwab as \"\"only\"\" #5.. They don't specialize in \"\"niche\"\" ETFs, but for the core \"\"lazy portfolio\"\" style ETFs, I've always considered them neck-and-neck with Vanguard. That said - There's nothing wrong with obscure players in the market! I'd rather they had more exposure and therefore lower ERs, but the fact that something like $BBC *can* exist makes me sooo happy! That's pretty much my personal \"\"ultra high risk\"\" basket in one convenient form!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2a123a5257336278656f89e22c3cdeb3",
"text": "\"I don't understand what the D, to the right of APPLE INC, means. This means the graph below is for the \"\"D\"\". There is selection at top and you can change this to Minutes [5,20,60,etc], Day, Week [W], Month [M] I'm not understanding how it can say BATS when in actuality AAPL is listed on the NASDAQ. Do all exchanges have info on every stock even from other exchanges and just give them to end-users at a delayed rate? BATS is an exchange. A stock can be listed on multiple exchange. I am not sure if AAPL is also listed on BATS. However looks like BATS has agreement with major stock exchanges to trade their data and supplies this to trading.com\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bd38205c34dc77a9c5aa7331658e5d84",
"text": "\"After the passage of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 and the implementation of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, the creation of an entirely new Office of Financial Stability in the treasury, the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility, the Public-Private Investment Program and the Legacy Loans and Legacy Securities Program, the Supervisory Capital Assessment Program, and the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, I find it remarkable that anyone can seriously think that the US government is not signalling, if not actually doing, *everything* it can short of nationalization to not allow a systemically important bank to collapse. This is to say nothing about the coining of an entirely new institution, the \"\"Too Big To Fail\"\" bank or \"\"Systemically Important Financial Institution\"\" (SIFI). BTW and FYI, [here](http://www.scribd.com/doc/10940608/0116TARP) is the CBO: >This is the first of CBO’s statutory reports on the TARP’s transactions. Through December 31, 2008, those transactions totaled $247 billion. [...][The] CBO estimates that the **subsidy cost** of those transactions (broadly speaking, the difference between what the Treasury paid for the investments or lent to the firms and the market value of those transactions) amounts to **$64 billion**.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
0598ae89642d8615f6fa23ea8048bfca
|
What's wrong with this margin calculation?
|
[
{
"docid": "182681f9ca106a53303d6a110a399dfe",
"text": "As the referenced document says, there are 3 formulas, and you need to use the formula which results the greatest margin requirement. In your case, you need to use the 10% formula:",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "89929095aab99c1f455c2bcd653832ea",
"text": "How would you calculate separate margins in the following example: You have a fairly volatile component that is basically a commodity that you have sold as a standalone product for years. You then begin offering a value-add service of programming these components so users can buy the basic component or a ready to go preprogrammed version. Sales can also offer sales deals at their discretion. I just want to spitball some ideas.",
"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": "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": "10fe938563555d2e141b1e9b2bede874",
"text": "Your headline is still inaccurate. Two serious errors: 1.) 2647, which is a difference of 32% 2.) They are CEOs of Large corporations, not 2647 random CEOs. Maybe this nitpicking will help you understand why your idea of perfect headline accuracy is misguided. The most important part is that it's mostly true. It's much better than [this situation.](http://www.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/ncd12/as_a_result_of_mondays_protests_at_the_port_of/c37zdcy)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a0c4b887ba92031b06f7fba792b62fcf",
"text": "Wow I honestly hope this is your first ever finance class. Anyway this isn't even finance, the only thing here finance related are the terms. It's really an algebra problem. Which is 1,312,500/x = 2 soooo find X. X = 656250 so 131,250 in notes payable. If you don't know what to do know to find the quick ratio, then change majors",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b10bdd6414d8ba0ada832b28cc52e57a",
"text": "\"Don't worry about it. The State doesn't care about rounding error. All you need to do is say \"\"We charge our prices with tax included\"\" - you know, like carnivals and movie theaters. Then follow the procedures your state specifies for computing reportable tax. Quite likely it wants your pre-tax sales total for the reporting period. To get that, total up your gross sales that you collected, and divide by (1 + tax rate). Just like DJClayworth says, except do it on total sales instead of per-item. If you need to do the split per-transaction for Quickbooks or something, that's annoying. What Quickbooks says will be pennies off the method I describe above. The state don't care as long as it's just pennies, or in their favor.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c600f9ea131c2cbd2362197798ffc51f",
"text": "This is a really easy problem. If you're genuinely having trouble, maybe don't be a finance major? All you need to do is know the formulas for the ratios and plug in the variables. Simple and clean. However, if you're lazy and trying to get free answers off of reddit, then you could have saved the time you took to post this question and actually do the problem. You probably would have gotten the answer all by yourself without much help.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d8467aae09feacb8c5a1c9b2663bd24e",
"text": "The MWRR that you showed in your post is calculated incorrectly. The formula that you use... ($15,750 - $15,000 - $4,000) / ($15,000 + 0.5 x $4,000) Translates into a form of the DIETZ formula of (EMV-BMV-C)/(BMV + .5 x C) The BMV is the STARTING balance. And as a matter of fact, the starting balance was NOT 15,000. It was IN FACT 11,000. See, the starting value for a month MUST BE the ending value of the prior month. So the BMV of 11,000 would give you the correct answer. Because if you added 4,000 at the start of the month (on day 1), it would have to have been ADDED to the 11,000 of the PRIOR month's ENDING value. Make sense? That would also mean that the addition of 4000 to the 11000 would imply that you started day 1 with 11,000. Make sense? Summary: When doing the calculations, you may use the ending value on the last day of the month to get your EMV. BUT YOU MAY NOT take the ending value on day 1 to get the BMV. That simply can not make sense since you already added a bunch of money during the day. Think about it. Davie",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1d7dd3d16b1dbe15092156bd866d1eef",
"text": "Right, that's my understanding of the problem too. I tried some of the indices last night (not necessarily the ones you are suggesting), but when pulling them into COMP it only provided the price return, not the total return including coupons. This latter part is still the challenge.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1be32c46810581eff49517a4b91500a0",
"text": "You've flipped the numerator and denominator around, and need to multiply by 100 to get percentage rather than 10: I like to use a simple example to assess reasonableness of an approach, if you had invested $100 and after 1 year had $150, your approach would yield: But since $50 is half of $100, we know the rate of return should be 50%, so we know that approach is off. But, flipping the numerator and denominator and multiplying by 100 gets us the 50% we expected: Edit: Good catch by @DJohnM you've called it 9 years, but it's actually 11, so you'd want to adjust accordingly.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "227085867cf45b9715b131058918dc42",
"text": "Thank you very much for this thoughtful response. In my opinion the judges care more about the why behind your valuation rather than a how. Anyone can use a formula, but it takes so much more to understand why to use the formula. Personally, the 'why' is going to be the toughest part for me understand and wrap my head around. Once again thank you for the advice and the tip.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "efd524a48659c49c9949fa0c942f32ad",
"text": "My interpretation of that sentence is that you can't do the buying/selling of shares outright (sans margin) because of the massive quantity of shares he's talking about. So you have to use margin to buy the stocks. However, because in order to make significant money with this sort of strategy you probably need to be working dozens of stocks at the same time, you need to be familiar with portfolio margin. Since your broker does not calculate margin calls based on individual stocks, but rather on the value of your whole portfolio, you should have experience handling margin not just on individual stock movements but also on overall portfolio movements. For example, if 10% (by value) of the stocks you're targeting tend to have a correlation of -0.8 with the price of oil you should probably target another 10% (by value) in stocks that tend to have a correlation of +0.8 with the price of oil. And so on and so forth. That way your portfolio can weather big (or even small) changes in market conditions that would cause a margin call on a novice investor's portfolio.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "20d25eb66d23c393eb8804674b95aa13",
"text": "\"The sentence is mathematically wrong and verbally unclear. Mathematically, you calculate the downwards percentage by So, it should be Verbally, the reporter should have written \"\"The stock is down by 25%\"\", not \"\"down by -25%\"\".\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "19564c17df00c8001e767ceac2d3b026",
"text": "You should use the Gordon Growth model, but you are using the wrong rate. required return = rf + market premium x Beta rm = 0,12, premium = 0,08 --> rf = 0,04 thus rr = 0.04 + 0.08 * 1.5 = 0.16 then you get $15/(0.16-0.05) = $136,36",
"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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
4682cbb0ac293522db0f5c8797ff70ad
|
Short term investing vs Leaving money alone?
|
[
{
"docid": "b272448378e112e1a1d362916c9b7bdf",
"text": "There are three basic concepts finance (as far as I'm concerned). Liquidity is basically an asset's spendability. Assets range in liquidity from cash (very liquid) to real estate (not very liquid). You can spend cash immediately, while real estate must first be converted to cash. Another important concept is your time horizon. When do you need your money. Money you need in the near term should be kept in very liquid assets, while money you won't need for a significantly long time can be tied in to something much less liquid. Volatility is the degree to which an assets value is predictable from day to day. Cash and guaranteed savings accounts have very low volatility, while a stock portfolio will fluctuate in value from day to day, sometimes a lot and sometimes you can lose your initial investment. So really, you need to determine what you need or want this money for, and depending on when you'll need it you can make decisions about whether or not to invest it, or keep it in a savings account, or keep it in literal actual cash. Your TFSA is maxed for the year, so that's out. Do you have an emergency fund? Do you want to travel or have other more near term desires that cost money? If you have a solid financial foundation and already have an emergency fund, you may want to set up a brokerage account and invest in an index fund. You should not invest money in the stock market unless you are ready to leave it there for at least a few years. Stocks are volatile but over a long enough period the market generally goes up. In your search for the right index fund, watch out for fees. Most big brokers will have a list of funds you can invest in with no up front fees and no commission. The fund itself will charge an expense ratio, look for an index fund with an expense ratio around 0.10%. This means you'll pay 0.10% of your holdings each year to the fund manager. No matter how much money we're talking about, I wouldn't put more than half in the market. Dip your toe in, get used to the value fluctuating. Don't start reading about technical analysis and derivative trading. Just put your money in a very low fee big market index and let it ride.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "47b77219c4bb92d989334483376ab68d",
"text": "\"Should I invest the money I don't need immediately and only withdraw it next year when I need it for living expenses or should I simply leave it in my current account? This might come as a bit of a surprise, but your money is already invested. We talk of investment vehicles. An investment vehicle is basically a place where you can put money and have it either earn a return, or be able to get it back later, or both. (The neither case is generally called \"\"spending\"\".) There are also investment classes which are things like cash, stocks, bonds, precious metals, etc.: different things that you can buy within an investment vehicle. You currently have the money in a bank account. Bank accounts currently earn very low interest rates, but they are also very liquid and very secure (in the sense of being certain that you will get the principal back). Now, when you talk about \"\"investing the money\"\", you are probably thinking of moving it from where it is currently sitting earning next to no return, to somewhere it can earn a somewhat higher return. And that's fine, but you should keep in mind that you aren't really investing it in that case, only moving it. The key to deciding about an asset allocation (how much of your money to put into what investment classes) is your investment horizon. The investment horizon is simply for how long you plan on letting the money remain where you put it. For money that you do not expect to touch for more than five years, common advice is to put it in the stock market. This is simply because in the long term, historically, the stock market has outperformed most other investment classes when looking at return versus risk (volatility). However, money that you expect to need sooner than that is often recommended against putting it in the stock market. The reason for this is that the stock market is volatile -- the value of your investment can fluctuate, and there's always the risk that it will be down when you need the money. If you don't need the money within several years, you can ride that out; but if you need the money within the next year, you might not have time to ride out the dip in the stock market! So, for money that you are going to need soon, you should be looking for less volatile investment classes. Bonds are generally less volatile than stocks, with government bonds generally being less volatile than corporate bonds. Bank accounts are even less volatile, coming in at practically zero volatility, but also have much lower expected rates of return. For the money that you need within a year, I would recommend against any volatile investment class. In other words, you might take whichever part you don't need within a year and put in bonds (except for what you don't foresee needing within the next half decade or more, which you can put in stocks), then put the remainder in a simple high-yield deposit-insured savings account. It won't earn much, but you will be basically guaranteed that the money will still be there when you want it in a year. For the money you put into bonds and stocks, find low-cost index mutual funds or exchange-traded funds to do so. You cannot predict the future rate of return of any investment, but you can predict the cost of the investment with a high degree of accuracy. Hence, for any given investment class, strive to minimize cost, as doing so is likely to lead to better return on investment over time. It's extremely rare to find higher-cost alternatives that are actually worth it in the long term.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "516c2d122e4ea621f52e35fbf8647cce",
"text": "My figuring (and I'm not an expert here, but I think this is basic math) is: Let's say you had a windfall of $1000 extra dollars today that you could either: a. Use to pay down your mortgage b. Put into some kind of equity mutual fund Maybe you have 20 years left on your mortgage. So your return on investment with choice A is whatever your mortgage interest rate is, compounded monthly or daily. Interest rates are low now, but who knows what they'll be in the future. On the other hand, you should get more return out of an equity mutual fund investment, so I'd say B is your better choice, except: But that's also the other reason why I favour B over A. Let's say you lose your job a year from now. Your bank won't be too lenient with you paying your mortgage, even if you paid it off quicker than originally agreed. But if that money is in mutual funds, you have access to it, and it buys you time when you really need it. People might say that you can always get a second mortgage to get the equity out of it, but try getting a second mortgage when you've just lost your job.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a60e5b4f3373df169d9c71b7bff93859",
"text": "It is a dangerous policy not to have a balance across the terms of assets. Short term reserves should remain in short term investments because they are most likely needed in the short term. The amount can be shaved according to the probability of their respective needs, but long term asset variance usually exceed the probability of needing to use reserves. For example, replacing one month bonds paying essentially nothing with stocks that should be expected to return 9% will expose oneself to a possible sudden 50% loss. If cash is indeed so abundant that reserves can be doubled, this policy can be expected to be stable; however, cash is normally scarce. It is a risky policy to place reserves that have a 20% chance of being 100% liquidated into investments that have a 20% chance of declining by approximately 50% just for a chance of an extra 9% annual return. Financial stability should always be of primary concern with rate of return secondary only after stability has been reasonably assured.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bab6ea73a159b162acf0efe1a8be6b24",
"text": "\"The answer to your question depends very much on your definition of \"\"long-term\"\". Because let's make something clear: an investment horizon of three to six months is not long term. And you need to consider the length of time from when an \"\"emergency\"\" develops until you will need to tap into the money. Emergencies almost by definition are unplanned. When talking about investment risk, the real word that should be used is volatility. Stocks aren't inherently riskier than bonds issued by the same company. They are likely to be a more volatile instrument, however. This means that while stocks can easily gain 15-20 percent or more in a year if you are lucky (as a holder), they can also easily lose just as much (which is good if you are looking to buy, unless the loss is precipitated by significantly weaker fundamentals such as earning lookout). Most of the time stocks rebound and regain lost valuation, but this can take some time. If you have to sell during that period, then you lose money. The purpose of an emergency fund is generally to be liquid, easily accessible without penalties, stable in value, and provide a cushion against potentially large, unplanned expenses. If you live on your own, have good insurance, rent your home, don't have any major household (or other) items that might break and require immediate replacement or repair, then just looking at your emergency fund in terms of months of normal outlay makes sense. If you own your home, have dependents, lack insurance and have major possessions which you need, then you need to factor those risks into deciding how large an emergency fund you might need, and perhaps consider not just normal outlays but also some exceptional situations. What if the refrigerator and water heater breaks down at the same time that something breaks a few windows, for example? What if you also need to make an emergency trip near the same time because a relative becomes seriously ill? Notice that the purpose of the emergency fund is specifically not to generate significant interest or dividend income. Since it needs to be stable in value (not depreciate) and liquid, an emergency fund will tend towards lower-risk and thus lower-yield investments, the extreme being cash or the for many more practical option of a savings account. Account forms geared toward retirement savings tend to not be particularly liquid. Sure, you can usually swap out one investment vehicle for another, but you can't easily withdraw your money without significant penalties if at all. Bonds are generally more stable in value than stocks, which is a good thing for a longer-term portion of an emergency fund. Just make sure that you are able to withdraw the money with short notice without significant penalties, and pick bonds issued by stable companies (or a fund of investment-grade bonds). However, in the present investment climate, this means that you are looking at returns not significantly better than those of a high-yield savings account while taking on a certain amount of additional risk. Bonds today can easily have a place if you have to pick some form of investment vehicle, but if you have the option of keeping the cash in a high-yield savings account, that might actually be a better option. Any stock market investments should be seen as investments rather than a safety net. Hopefully they will grow over time, but it is perfectly possible that they will lose value. If what triggers your financial emergency is anything more than local, it is certainly possible to have that same trigger cause a decline in the stock market. Money that you need for regular expenses, even unplanned ones, should not be in investments. Thus, you first decide how large an emergency fund you need based on your particular situation. Then, you build up that amount of money in a savings vehicle rather than an investment vehicle. Once you have the emergency fund in savings, then by all means continue to put the same amount of money into investments instead. Just make sure to, if you tap into the emergency fund, replenish it as quickly as possible.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4937d5b68a0d1816b7b81ca9fbd721cb",
"text": "First of all kudos to you for seeing the value in saving at a young age. There are several different things you can mean by this and I'm not sure which is accurate so I am going to address the first two that I thought of. If you are selling your investments because you need the money (emergency expenses, saved enough for a short term goal, whatever the reason) then this may not be the best solution for your savings. Investing in mutual funds, ETFs, stocks, 401k, IRA, etc are typically for longer term goals such as a goal that is 10+ years away (maybe buying a home, paying for college for your children, retirement, etc). If you are selling your investments because you believe that another investment is performing better and you want to get in on that one instead what I would suggest is leaving the money you have invested where it is and starting future investments in the new fund/ETF you are interested in. For example if you have $2000 invested in fund X and now you do some research and fund Q looks more appealing that is great, start investing in fund Q with your next deposit. Any research you do will be based on past results, there is nothing that guarantees that fund Q will continue doing better than the fund X you already have. Trying to time the market rarely ends well for the investor. I would encourage you to continue saving money a bit at a time just like you have been doing. Avoid selling your investments until it is time to sell them for whatever goal you intended them for. Set aside some cash to cover any unexpected expenses so you won't have to sell your investments to cover the costs, even at 18 unplanned things happen.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5a29bc0855b978c898d15c36416dee48",
"text": "\"Question 2 Some financial institutions can provide a way to invest small amounts with low or no cost fees over a period of time (like monthly, weekly, etc). For instance, a few brokerages have a way to buy specific ETFs for no cost (outside of the total expense ratio). Question 3 When someone says that investing is like buying a lottery ticket, they are comparing an event that almost always has at least a 99.9% of no return (large winnings) to an event that has much better odds. Even if I randomly pick a stock in the S&P 500 and solely invest in it, over the course of a given year, I do not face a 99.9% chance of losing everything. So comparing the stock market to a lottery, unless a specific lottery has much better odds (keep in mind that some of these jackpots have a 99.9999999% of no return) is not the same. Unfortunately, nothing truly safe exists - risk may mutate, but it's always present; instead, the probability of something being safe and (or) generating a return may be true for a given period of time, while in another given period of time, may become untrue. One may argue that holding cash is safer than buying an index fund (or stock, ETF, mutual fund, etc), and financially that may be true over a given period of time (for instance, the USD beat the SPY for the year of 2008). Benjamin Franklin, per a biography I'm reading, argued that the stock market was superior to gold (from the context, it sounds like the cash of his day) because of what the stock market represents: essentially you're betting on the economic output of workers. It's like saying, in an example using oil, that I believe that even though oil becomes a rare resource in the long run, human workers will find an alternative to oil and will lead to better living standards for all of us. Do civilizations like the Mongolian, Roman, and Ottoman empires collapse? Yes, and would holding the market in those days fail? Yes. But cash and gold might be useless too because we would still need someone to exchange goods with and we would need to have the correct resources to do so (if everyone in a city owns gold, gold has little value). The only \"\"safe bet\"\" in those days would be farming skill, land, crops and (or) livestock because even without trading, one could still provide some basic necessities.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "050c767b77c61494380662aa4b300d36",
"text": "\"Investing is always a matter of balancing risk vs reward, with the two being fairly strongly linked. Risk-free assets generally keep up with inflation, if that; these days advice is that even in retirement you're going to want something with better eturns for at least part of your portfolio. A \"\"whole market\"\" strategy is a reasonable idea, but not well defined. You need to decide wheher/how to weight stocks vs bonds, for example, and short/long term. And you may want international or REIT in the mix; again the question is how much. Again, the tradeoff is trying to decide how much volatility and risk you are comfortable with and picking a mix which comes in somewhere around that point -- and noting which assets tend to move out of synch with each other (stock/bond is the classic example) to help tune that. The recommendation for higher risk/return when you have a longer horizon before you need the money comes from being able to tolerate more volatility early on when you have less at risk and more time to let the market recover. That lets you take a more aggressive position and, on average, ger higher returns. Over time, you generally want to dial that back (in the direction of lower-risk if not risk free) so a late blip doesn't cause you to lose too much of what you've already gained... but see above re \"\"risk free\"\". That's the theoretical answer. The practical answer is that running various strategies against both historical data and statistical simulations of what the market might do in the future suggests some specific distributions among the categories I've mentioned do seem to work better than others. (The mix I use -- which is basically a whole-market with weighting factors for the categories mentioned above -- was the result of starting with a general mix appropriate to my risk tolerance based on historical data, then checking it by running about 100 monte-carlo simulations of the market for the next 50 years.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c9762f2e3e92994e473a00118bd94166",
"text": "For me, spending my spare time on my career offers better return on investment (time) than stock investing, so I don't have the time to try to craft strategies about stock confusion anyway. It just serves as further proof to me that trying to time the market on short time scales is doomed unless you can account for all the irrationality of human behavior.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "63fde89d7c05259fa2e50d06f04f7286",
"text": "Even straight index funds grow at about 6-7%. on average, or over long periods of time. In short time periods (quarters, years), they can fluctuate anywhere from -10% to +20%. Would you be happy if your bank account lost 10% of its value the week before you had to pay the bill for the repairs? Is it appropriate to invest small amounts for short periods of time? In general, no. Most investments are designed for long term appreciation. Even sophisticated financial companies can't do any better than 1 or 2% (annualized) on short-term cash reserves. Where you can make a huge difference is on the cost side. Bargain with suppliers, or wait for sales on retail items. Both will occasionally forego their margin on certain items in order to try to secure future business, which can make a difference of 20% or more in the cost of repairs.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "40ead7a7f462b5e7c70fea1d19b68f18",
"text": "I would encourage you to read The Warren Buffett Way. Its a short read and available from most libraries as an audio book. It should address most of the ignorance that your post displays. Short term prices, offered in the market, do not necessarily reflect the future value of a company. In the short term the market is a popularity contest, in the long run prices increases based on the performance of the company. How much free cash flow (and related metrics) does the company generate. You seem way overly concerned with short term price fluctuations and as such you are more speculating. Expecting a 10 bagger in 2-3 years is unrealistic. Has it happened, sure, but it is a rare thing. Most would be happy to have a 2 bagger in that time frame. If I was in your shoes I'd buy the stock, and watch it. Provided management meet my expectations and made good business decisions I would hold it and add to my position as I was able and the market was willing to sell me the company at a good price. It is good to look at index funds as a diversification. Assuming everything goes perfectly, in 2-3 years, you would have an extra 1K dollars. Big deal. How much money could you earn during that time period? Simply by working at a fairly humble job you should be able to earn between 60K and 90K during that time. If you stuck 10% of that income into a savings account you would be far better off (6K to 9K) then if this stock actually does double. Hopefully that gets you thinking. Staring out is about earning and saving/investing. Start building funds that can compound. Very early on, the rate of return (provided it is not negative) is very unimportant. The key is to get money to compound!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a0b6e828cc624c4765047924ac4790ed",
"text": "\"First: what's your risk tolerance? How long is your investment going to last? If it's a short-term investment (a few years) and you expect to break even (or better) then your risk tolerance is low. You should not invest much money in stocks, even index funds and \"\"defensive\"\" stocks. If, however, you're looking for a long-term investment which you will put money into continually over the next 30 years, the amount of stock you purchase at any given time is pretty small, so the money you might lose by timing the market wrong will also be rather small. Also, you probably do a remarkably poor job of knowing when to buy stocks. If you actually knew how to time the market to materially improve your risk-adjusted returns, you've missed your calling; you should be making six figures or more on Wall Street. :)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6b804ef09f486798a3503be8d5ce1a1e",
"text": "You seem to have a grasp of the basic principles involved, but your estimation of the risk you are taking seems a bit low. Your non-investment reserves are unlikely to cover your expenses for more than a month, so the chance that you would need to sell investments to cover additional expenses is high. You mention that I am flexible with the 'cash on hand' amount. For instance, for about three months I put a very tight spending/investing freeze on my life because I knew I'd be leaving jobs and moving (I already had the other job lined up). Those savings presumably went toward moving expenses, as your usual savings were insufficient. In the event that you are laid off suddenly, you might find yourself in the same position again, with added unplanned expenses like fees for breaking a lease. Your current plan involves selling investments to cover the gap. Based on your age you have probably only invested in a predominantly positive market, so the chance that you might need to sell investments for cash seems like a reasonable trade-off for the added potential gains. Your perception might change if the markets go south and you are forced to sell into a down market, possibly at a significant loss. You also don't indicate if your investments are currently sufficient to cover an extended period of unemployment. You are taking on a lot of risk under your current plan. Essentially you are trading possible investment gains for flexibility and time. By making small changes like saving at least enough to move as you did previously, you can give yourself time to react to job loss or other unexpected financial need. Rather than give the traditional emergency funds advice, I suggest you look at the broader picture. The total amount of savings/risk is up to you, but you should consider your current savings as insufficient to rely on as a safety net.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "700d562ac8cc25dccfd48cd894eb4ef0",
"text": "\"Some thoughts: 1) Do you have a significant emergency fund (3-6 months of after-tax living expenses)? If not, you stand to take a significant loss if you have an unexpected need for cash that is tied up in investments. What if you lose/hate your job or your car breaks down? What if a you want to spend some time with a relative or significant other who learns they only have a few months to live? Having a dedicated emergency fund is an important way to avoid downside risk. 2) Lagerbaer has a good suggestion. Given that if you'd reinvested your dividends, the S&P 500 has returned about 3.5% over the last 5 years, you may be able to get a very nice risk-free return. 3) Do you have access to employer matching funds, such as in a 401(k) at work? If you get a dollar-for-dollar match, that is a risk-free pre-tax 100% return and should be a high priority. 4) What do you mean by \"\"medium\"\" volatility? Given that you are considering a 2/3 equity allocation, it would not be at all out of the realm of possibility that your balance could fall by 15% or more in any given year and take several years to recover. If that would spook you, you may want to consider lowering your equity weights. A high quality bond fund may be a good fit. 5) Personally, I would avoid putting money into stocks that I didn't need back for 10 years. If you only want to tie your money up for 2-5 years, you are taking a significant risk that if prices fall, you won't have time to recover before you need your money back. The portfolio you described would be appropriate for someone with a long-term investment horizon and significant risk tolerance, which is usually the case for young people saving for retirement. However, if your goals are to invest for 2-5 years only, your situation would be significantly different. 6) You can often borrow from an investment account to purchase a primary residence, but you must pay that amount back in order to avoid significant taxes and fees, unless you plan to liquidate assets. If you plan to buy a house, saving enough to avoid PMI is a good risk-free return on your money. 7) In general, and ETF or index fund is a good idea, the key being to minimize the compound effect of expenses over the long term. There are many good choices a la Vanguard here to choose from. 8) Don't worry about \"\"Buy low, sell high\"\". Don't be a speculator, be an investor (that's my version of Anthony Bourdain's, \"\"don't be a tourist, be a traveler\"\"). A speculator wants to sell shares at a higher price than they were purchased at. An investor wants to share in the profits of a company as a part-owner. If you can consistently beat the market by trying to time your transactions, good for you - you can move to Wall Street and make millions. However, almost no one can do this consistently, and it doesn't seem worth it to me to try. I don't mean to discourage you from investing, just make sure you have your bases covered so that you don't have to cash out at a bad time. Best of luck! Edit Response to additional questions below. 1) Emergency fund. I would recommend not investing in anything other than cash equivalents (money market, short-term CDs, etc.) until you've built up an emergency fund. It makes sense to want to make the \"\"best\"\" use of your money, but you also have to account for risk. My concern is that if you were to experience one or more adverse life events, that you could lose a lot of money, or need to pay a lot in interest on credit card debt, and it would be prudent to self-insure against some of those risks. I would also recommend against using an investment account as an emergency fund account. Taking money out of investment accounts is inefficient because the commissions/taxes/fees can easily eat up a significant portion of your returns. Ideally, you would want to put money in and not touch it for a long time in order to take advantage of compounding returns. There are also high penalties for early disbursements from retirement funds. Just like you need enough money in your checking account to buy food and pay the rent every month, you need enough money in an emergency fund to pay for things that are a real possibility, even if they are less common. Using a credit card or an investment account is a relatively expensive way to do this. 2) Invest at all? I would recommend starting an emergency fund, and then beginning to invest for retirement. Once your retirement savings are on track, you can begin saving for whatever other goals you may have\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4fe71dad8b6df9ac042bb484b3097c02",
"text": "I use two measures to define investment risk: What's the longest period of time over which this investment has had negative returns? What's the worst-case fall in the value of this investment (peak to trough)? I find that the former works best for long-term investments, like retirement. As a concrete example, I have most of my retirement money in equity, since the Sensex has had zero returns over as long as a decade. Since my investment time-frame is longer, equity is risk-free, by this measure. For short-term investments, like money put aside to buy a car next year, the second measure works better. For this purpose, I might choose a debt fund that isn't the safest, and has had a worst-case 8% loss over the past decade. I can afford that loss, putting in more money from my pocket to buy the car, if needed. So, I might choose this fund for this purpose, taking a slight risk to earn higher return. In any case, how much money I need for a car can only be a rough guess, so having 8% less than originally planned may turn out to be enough. Or it may turn out that the entire amount originally planned for is insufficient, in which case a further 8% shortfall may not be a big deal. These two measures I've defined are simple to explain and understand, unlike academic stuff like beta, standard deviation, information ratio or other mumbo-jumbo. And they are simple to apply to a practical problem, as I've illustrated with the two examples above. On the other hand, if someone tells me that the standard deviation of a mutual fund is 15%, I'll have no idea what that means, or how to apply that to my financial situation. All this suffers from the problem of being limited to historical data, and the future may not be like the past. But that affects any risk statistic, and you can't do better unless you have a time machine.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e10e3b8c4f9555a9875db7cf0e384946",
"text": "\"The fundamental concept of the time value of money is that money now is worth more than the same amount of money later, because of what you can do with money between now and later. If I gave you a choice between $1000 right now and $1000 in six months, if you had any sense whatsoever you would ask for the money now. That's because, in the six months, you could use the thousand dollars in ways that would improve your net worth between now and six months from now; paying down debt, making investments in your home or business, saving for retirement by investing in interest-bearing instruments like stocks, bonds, mutual funds, etc. There's absolutely no advantage and every disadvantage to waiting 6 months to receive the same amount of money that you could get now. However, if I gave you a choice between $1000 now and $1100 in six months, that might be a harder question; you will get more money later, so the question becomes, how much can you improve your net worth in six months given $1000 now? If it's more than $100, you still want the money now, but if nothing you can do will make more than $100, or if there is a high element of risk to what you can do that will make $100 that might in fact cause you to lose money, then you might take the increased, guaranteed money later. There are two fundamental formulas used to calculate the time value of money; the \"\"future value\"\" and the \"\"present value\"\" formulas. They're basically the same formula, rearranged to solve for different values. The future value formula answers the question, \"\"how much money will I have if I invest a certain amount now, at a given rate of return, for a specified time\"\"?. The formula is FV = PV * (1+R)N, where FV is the future value (how much you'll have later), PV is the present value (how much you'll have now), R is the periodic rate of return (the percentage that your money will grow in each unit period of time, say a month or a year), and N is the number of unit periods of time in the overall time span. Now, you asked what \"\"compounding\"\" is. The theory is very simple; if you put an amount of money (the \"\"principal\"\") into an investment that pays you a rate of return (interest), and don't touch the account (in effect reinvesting the interest you earn in the account back into the same account), then after the first period during which interest is calculated and paid, you'll earn interest on not just the original principal, but the amount of interest already earned. This allows your future value to grow faster than if you were paid \"\"simple interest\"\", where interest is only ever paid on the principal (for instance, if you withdrew the amount of interest you earned each time it was paid). That's accounted for in the future value formula using the exponent term; if you're earning 8% a year on your investment, then after 1 year you'll have 108% of your original investment, then after two years you'll have 1.082 = 116.64% (instead of just 116% which you'd get with simple interest). That .64% advantage to compounding doesn't sound like much of an advantage, but stay tuned; after ten years you'll have 215.89% (instead of 180%) of your original investment, after 20 you'll have 466.10% (instead of 260%) and after 30 your money will have grown by over 1000% as opposed to a measly 340% you'd get with simple interest. The present value formula is based on the same fundamental formula, but it's \"\"solved\"\" for the PV term and assumes you'll know the FV amount. The present value formula answers questions like \"\"how much money would I have to invest now in order to have X dollars at a specific future time?\"\". That formula is PV = FV / (1+R)N where all the terms mean the same thing, except that R in this form is typically called the \"\"discount rate\"\", because its purpose here is to lower (discount) a future amount of money to show what it's worth to you now. Now, the discount rate (or yield rate) used in these calculations isn't always the actual yield rate that the investment promises or has been shown to have over time. Investors will calculate the discount rate for a stock or other investment based on the risks they see in the company's financial numbers or in the market as a whole. The models used by professional investors to quantify risk are rather complex (the people who come up with them for the big investment banks are called \"\"quants\"\", and the typical quant graduates with an advanced math degree and is hired out of college with a six-figure salary), but it's typically enough for the average investor to understand that there is an inherent risk in any investment, and the longer the time period, the higher the chance that something bad will happen that reduces the return on your investment. This is why the 30-year Treasury note carries a higher interest rate than the 10-year T-note, which carries higher interest than the 6-month, 1-year and 5-year T-bills. In most cases, you as an individual investor (or even an institutional investor like a hedge fund manager for an investment bank) cannot control the rate of return on an investment. The actual yield is determined by the market as a whole, in the form of people buying and selling the investments at a price that, coupled with the investment's payouts, determines the yield. The risk/return numbers are instead used to make a \"\"buy/don't buy\"\" decision on a particular investment. If the amount of risk you foresee in an investment would require you to be earning 10% to justify it, but in fact the investment only pays 6%, then don't buy it. If however, you'd be willing to accept 4% on the same investment given your perceived level of risk, then you should buy.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aed6c8a2de8cc877cb499bc37e5253b8",
"text": "\"This is basically the short-term/long-term savings question in another form: savings that you hope are long-term but which may turn short-term very suddenly. You can never completely eliminate the risk of being forced to draw on long term savings during a period when the market is doing Something Unpleasant that would force you to take a loss (or right before it does Something Pleasant that you'd like to be fully invested during). You can only pick the degree of risk that you're willing to accept, balancing that hazard of forced sales against the lower-but-more-certain returns you'd get from a money market or equivalent. I'm considered a moderately aggressive investor -- which doesn't mean I'm pushing the boundaries on what I'm buying (not by a long shot!), but which does mean I'm willing to keep more of my money in the market and I'm more likely to hold or buy into a dip than to sell off to try to minimize losses. That level of risk-tolerance also means I'm willing to maintain a ready-cash pool which is sufficient to handle expected emergencies (order of $10K), and not become overly paranoid about lost opportunity value if it turns out that I need to pull a few thou out of the investments. I've got decent health insurance, which helps reduce that risk. I'm also not particularly paranoid about the money. On my current track, I should be able to maintain my current lifestyle \"\"forever\"\" without ever touching the principal, as long as inflation and returns remain vaguely reasonable. Having to hit the account for a larger emergency at an Inconvenient Time wouldn't be likely to hurt me too much -- delaying retirement for a year or two, perhaps. It's just money. Emergencies are one of the things it's for. I try not to be stupid about it, but I also try not to stress about it more than I must.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
0a3114038a04aaec3a17bc611cebe2a8
|
Looking into investment bonds for the first time- what do I need to be aware of?
|
[
{
"docid": "0b1bae7921e2964548e4bfb52f74808c",
"text": "\"All bonds carry a risk of default, which means that it's possible that you can lose your principal investment in addition to potentially not getting the interest payments that you expect. Bonds (in the US anyway) are graded, so you can manage this risk somewhat by taking higher quality bonds, i.e. in companies or governments that are considered more creditworthy. Regular bank savings (again specific to the US) are insured by FDIC, so even if your bank goes bust, the US Government is backing them up to some limit. That makes such accounts less risky. There's generally no insurance on a bond, even if it is issued by a government entity. If you do your homework on the bond rating system and choose bonds in a rating band where you're comfortable, this could be a good option for you. You'll find, however, that the bond market also \"\"knows\"\" that the interest rates are generally low, so be ware that higher interest issues are usually coming from less creditworthy (and therefore more risky) issuers. EDIT Here's some additional information based on the follow-up question in the comment. When you buy a bond you are actually making a loan to the issuer. They will pay you interest over the lifetime of the bond and then return your principal at the end of the term. (Verify this payment schedule - This is typical, but you should be sure that whatever you're buying works like this.) This is not an investment in the value of the issuer itself like you would be making if you bought stock. With stock you are taking an ownership share in the company. This might entitle you to dividends if the company pays them, but otherwise your investment value on a stock will be tied to the performance of the company. With the bond, the company might be in decline but the bond still a good investment so long as the company doesn't decline so much that they cannot pay their debts. Also, bonds can be issued by governments, but governments do not sell stock. (An \"\"ownership share of the government\"\" would not make sense.) This may be the so-called sovereign debt if issued by a sovereign government or it may be local (we call it municipal here in the US) debt issued by a subordinate level of government. Bonds are a little bit like stock in the sense that there's a secondary market for them. That means that if you get partway through the length of the bond and don't want to hold it, you can sell the bond to someone else. Of course, it will be harder to sell a bond later if the company becomes insolvent or if the interest rates go up between when you buy and when you sell. Depending on these market factors, you might end up with a capital gain or capital loss (meaning you get more or less than the principal that you put into the bond) at the time of a sale.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dda09c7a210d3a3c37bd61c5791be5c3",
"text": "First off, I do not recommend buying individual bonds yourself. Instead buy a bond fund (ETF or mutual fund). That way you get some diversification. The risk-reward ratio will be evident in what you find to invest in. Junk bond funds pay the highest rates. Treasury bond funds pay the lowest. So you have to ask yourself how comfortable are you with risk? Buy the funds that pay the highest rate but still let you sleep at night.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "e07de22b589af6035a2298aff58498b6",
"text": "US government bonds and bonds issued by companies with a safe track record and consistently high ratings, for the past years, by credit agencies. But the time line of your investment, which is quite short, maybe a factor of choosing the right bonds. If you are not going to touch the money then CD maybe an option or an interest bearing savings account.",
"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": "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": "0614273d91d85965c4ba9eaaef0c1251",
"text": "Adding international bonds to an individual investor's portfolio is a controversial subject. On top of the standard risks of bonds you are adding country specific risk, currency risk and diversifying your individual company risk. In theory many of these risks should be rewarded but the data are noisy at best and adding risk like developed currency risk may not be rewarded at all. Also, most of the risk and diversification mentioned above are already added by international stocks. Depending on your home country adding international or emerging market stock etfs only add a few extra bps of fees while international bond etfs can add 30-100bps of fees over their domestic versions. This is a fairly high bar for adding this type of diversification. US bonds for foreign investors are a possible exception to the high fees though the government's bonds yield little. If your home currency (or currency union) does not have a deep bond market and/or bonds make up most of your portfolio it is probably worth diversifying a chunk of your bond exposure internationally. Otherwise, you can get most of the diversification much more cheaply by just using international stocks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "29a1399a292d5cc55b09dfc576ba97f1",
"text": "Bond information is much tougher to get. Try to find access to a Bloomberg terminal. Maybe you have a broker that can do the research for you, maybe your local university has one in their business school, maybe you know someone that works for a bank/financial institution or some other type of news outlet. Part of the reason for the difference in ease of access to information is that bond markets are dominated by institutional investors. A $100 million bond issues might be 90% owned by 10-20 investors (banks, insurance co's, mutual funds, etc.) that will hold the bonds to maturity and the bonds might trade a few times a month/year. On the other hand a similar equity offering may have several hundred or thousand owners with daily trading, especially if it's included in an active stock index. That being said, you can get some information on Fidelity's website if you have an account, but I think their junk data is limited. Good luck with the hunt.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b01d95f8b94c0c2cbca6f0916c0342b8",
"text": "One thing to note before buying bond funds. The value of bonds you hold will drop when interest rates go up. Interest rates are at historical lows and pretty much have nowhere to go but up. If you are buying bonds to hold to maturity this is probably not a major concern, but for a bond fund it might impair performance if things suddenly shift in the interest rate market.",
"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": "a5983c003ade5140773b9f348f02fc90",
"text": "I'll get to my answer in a moment, but first need to put focus on the two key components of bond prices: interest rates and credit risk. Suppose that the 10-year treasury has a coupon of 2% per year (it would be paid as 1% twice per year, in reality). If you own one contract of the bond which we suppose has a so-called face-value of $100, then this contract will over the ten years pay you a total of $20 in coupons, then $100 at redemption. So $120 in total. Would you therefore buy this 10-year treasury bond for $120, or more, or less? Well, if there were bank accounts around which were offering you an interest rate of 2% per year fixed for the next 10 years, then you could alternatively generate $120 from just $100 deposited now (if we assume that the interest paid is not put back in the account to earn 2% per year). Consequently, a price of $100 for the treasury would seem about right. However, suppose that you are not very confident that the banks that offer these accounts will even be around in 10 years time, maybe they will fail before that and you'll never get your money back. Then you might say to yourself that the above calculation is mathematically right, but not really a full representation of the different risks. And you conclude that maybe treasuries should be a bit more expensive, because they offer better credit risk than bank deposits. All of this just to show that the price of bonds is a comparative valuation of rates and credit: you need to know the general level of interest rates available in other investment products (even in stocks, I'd say), you need to have a feel for how much credit risk there is in the different investment products. Most people think that 'normally' interest rates are positive, because we are so familiar with the basic principle that: if I lend you some money then you need to pay me some interest. But in a world where everyone is worried about bank failures, people might prefer to effectively 'deposit' our savings with the US treasury (by buying their bonds) than to deposit their savings in the local bank. The US treasury will see this extra demand and put up the prices of their bonds (they are not stupid at the US treasury, you know!), so maybe the price of the 10-year treasury will go above $120. It could, right? In this scenario, the implied yield on the 10-year treasury is negative. There you go, yields have gone negative because of credit risk concerns.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "3e3d6a2ce2c219ca85fe488f106792ae",
"text": "\"While you have asked for general principles, I am going to seize onto a specific example you gave in order to illustrate the difficulties here: Argentina. Argentina's bonds are probably not safer than US treasuries. Argentina is presently in the business of seizing foreign oil businesses (Repsol YPF) while championing leftist causes. At the very least this indicates an elevated level of political risk: S&P, which affirmed Argentina's ratings five notches into junk territory at B, said policies such as those enacted since the country's October presidential election could also weaken Argentina's macroeconomic framework and external liquidity... \"\"Actions of this type continue to shorten the economic planning horizon in the country and contribute to Argentina's deteriorating economic and political links with the international community.\"\" -- \"\"S&P Lowers Argentina Outlook To Negative\"\". The Wall Street Journal, 23 April 2012 You're not going to be able to capture that sort of a risk with raw budget numbers. It's hard enough to figure out creditworthiness for a business; for an entire nation it's even harder. That's why credit-rating firms, as faulty as they may be, employ dozens of people to try and figure this sort of thing out. Additionally, there is a currency risk associated with buying bonds denominated in foreign currencies. It doesn't matter much if $nation repays all its bonds if they have so much inflation that the repayment is worth half of what it used to be (nor is it much help if your own nation's currency rises in value while your investment's value is stable elsewhere). Ultimately the value of a bond is \"\"how much money am I actually going to get back?\"\" and while operating a budget surplus isn't a bad sign in and of itself, it's hardly the complete picture. A fair accounting of the relative creditworthiness of any two nations needs to unite two massive fields of study: Macroeconomics and Politics. It is possible that the right sort of degree in economics, risk management, or a similar field of study could prepare you to know exactly what sort of research is necessary to make a meaningful analysis. :) Now, if you just want some commentary on which bonds are safe to buy, ask a credit-rating agency -- for example, read Standard and Poor's sovereign ratings - or find a mutual fund which may invest in international bonds at its own discretion and have someone else make the decisions.\"",
"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": "538fe0fb7780d4da227f8ac29f58e5f1",
"text": "\"For any sort of investment you need to understand your risks first. If you're going to put money into the stock or bond market I would get a hold of Graham's \"\"The Intelligent Investor\"\" first, or any other solid value investing book, and educate yourself on what the risks are. I can't speak about real estate investing but I am sure there are plenty of books describing risks and benefits of that as well. I could see inflation/deflation having an effect there but I think the biggest impact on the landlord front is quality of life in the area you are renting and the quality of the tenant you can get. One crazy tenant and you will be driven mad yourself. As for starting a business, one thing I would like to say is that money does not automatically make money. The business should be driven by a product or service that you can provide first, and the backing seed capital second. In my opinion you will have to put energy and time worth much more than the 100k into a business over time to make it successful so the availability of capital should not be the driving decision here. Hope this helps more than it confuses.\"",
"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": "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": "8731553b794274231c27787eedc05ebb",
"text": "I started to work out, step by step, why this doesn't work, but the scenario is too convoluted to make that helpful. Basically, you're making mistakes in some or all of the following spots:",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
00e740f8fa5cb3f695d42113ef8395a0
|
How should I calculate the opportunity cost of using a 401(k) loan?
|
[
{
"docid": "237116a79ea2c8651da7f6a01c6316eb",
"text": "One way to analyze the opportunity cost of using a 401K loan would be to calculate your net worth after using a 401K loan. If your net worth increases then the 401K loan would be advisable. Note that the calculations provided below do not take into account tax considerations. A net worth calculation is where you add all your assets and then subtract all your liabilities. The resulting number is your net worth. First, calculate the net worth of not taking the loan and simply paying the credit card interest. This means you only pay the interest on the credit card. In addition to the parameters identified in your question, two additional parameters will need to be considered: Cash and the market rate of return on the 401K. Scenario 1 (only pay credit card interest): After 12 months all you have paid is the interest on the credit card. The 401K balance is untouched so it will hopefully grow. The balance on the credit card remains at the end of 12 months. Scenario 2 (use 401K loan to pay credit card balance): You borrow $5,000 from your 401K to pay the credit card balance. You will have to pay $5,000 plus the 401K interest rate back into your 401K account. Use the following equation to determine when Scenario 2 increases your net worth more than scenario 1: Thus, if your credit card interest rate is greater than the rate you can earn on your 401K then use the 401K loan to pay off the credit card balance. Another scenario that should be considered: borrow money from somewhere else to pay off the credit card balance. Scenario 3 (external loan to pay credit card balance): You borrow $5,000 from somewhere besides your 401K to pay off the credit card balance. The following is used to determine if you should use an external loan over the 401K loan: This means you should use an external loan if you can obtain an interest rate less than the rate of return you can earn on your 401K. The same methodology can be used to compare Scenario 3 to Scenario 1.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fdb012344bb1443fc5a22c7647a6ca73",
"text": "\"There is no equation. Only data that would help you come to the decision that's right for you. Assuming the 401(k) is invested in a stock fund of one sort or another, the choice is nearly the same as if you had $5K cash to either invest or pay debt. Since stock returns are not fixed, but are a random distribution that somewhat resembles a bell curve, median about 10%, standard deviation about 14%. It's the age old question of \"\"getting a guaranteed X% (paying the debt) or a shot at 8-10% or so in the market.\"\" This come up frequently in the decision to pre-pay mortgages at 4-5% versus invest. Many people will take the guaranteed 4% return vs the risk that comes with the market. For your decision, the 401(k) loan, note that the loan is due if you separate from the company for whatever reason. This adds an additional layer of risk and another data point to the mix. For your exact numbers, the savings is barely $50. I'd probably not do it. If the cards were 18%, I'd lean toward the loan, but only if I knew I could raise the cash to pay it back to not default.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "40a3ed42a95a261f1ea50c917cd0b435",
"text": "Make sure that when you have the loan you still contribute enough to get the company match. For example: An inability to maximize the match might need to be figured into the opportunity cost of the loan. Some companies will suspend your contributions for a specific number of months for a hardship withdraw. Make sure you understand where the money comes from for the loan. Can you count the money that the company matched but you are not vested with, when determining the maximum amount of the loan? If the money is in what is now a closed fund can you replenish the funds back into that fund if use it to fund the loan? Know what the repayment time period is of the loan.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "27f2b7a24bc8d76a49fb23344bb4e2b7",
"text": "The 5% to 6.5% loan rates are a bit high. You'll probably want to pay those off first, and make it one of your priorities as soon as you have a 6-month savings fund. This should probably take precedence over savings for retirement, unless you're giving up a 401(k) match. Pay extra on the highest-interest loan until it's all paid off, then switch to the next one down, and accelerate the payoff as much as you can. If you're looking at a loan at 6% and a payoff date in 8 years or so (2020), am extra dollar paid now will save you ~$0.60. Not a bad return in general, and an excellent return for something that's zero-risk. The other loans, at 2-3%, are different. An extra dollar paid now on a 2% loan will save you $0.17 over 8 years. That's a pretty mediocre return. If you have a good, stable job and good job prospects, and a decent family support network, and few commitments like children and mortgages, and a low cost of living... generally, the things that help you have a high tolerance for risk... then you should consider investing your money in the stock market instead of paying off these loans any earlier than you need to. (Broad index funds and the like, not individual stocks).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5b740b898731a15a46298c807c24c05d",
"text": "\"I'll add 2 observations regarding current answers. Jack nailed it - a 401(k) match beats all. But choose the right flavor account. You are currently in the 15% bracket (i.e. your marginal tax rate, the rate paid on the last taxed $100, and next taxed $100.) You should focus on Roth. Roth 401(k) (and if any company match, that goes into a traditional pretax 401(k). But if they permit conversions to the Roth side, do it) You have a long time before retirement to earn your way into the next tax bracket, 25%. As your income rises, use the deductible IRA/ 401(k) to take out money pretax that would otherwise be taxed at 25%. One day, you'll be so far into the 25% bracket, you'll benefit by 100% traditional. But why waste the opportunity to deposit to Roth money that's taxed at just 15%? To clarify the above, this is the single rate table for 2015: For this discussion, I am talking taxable income, the line on the tax return designating this number. If that line is $37,450 or less, you are in the 15% bracket and I recommend Roth. Say it's $40,000. In hindsight on should put $2,550 in a pretax account (Traditional 401(k) or IRA) to bring it down to the $37,450. In other words, try to keep the 15% bracket full, but not push into 25%. Last, after enough raises, say you at $60,000 taxable. That, to me is \"\"far into the 25% bracket.\"\" $20,000 or 1/3 of income into the 401(k) and IRA and you're still in the 25% bracket. One can plan to a point, and then use the IRA flavors to get it dead on in April of the following year. To Ben's point regarding paying off the Student Loan faster - A $33K income for a single person, about to have the new expense of rent, is not a huge income. I'll concede that there's a sleep factor, the long tern benefit of being debt free, and won't argue the long term market return vs the rate on the loan. But here we have the probability that OP is not investing at all. It may take $2000/yr to his 401(k) capture the match (my 401 had a dollar for dollar match up to first 6% of income). This $45K, after killing the card, may be his only source for the extra money to replace what he deposits to his 401(k). And also serve as his emergency fund along the way.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "478bf5c86f175e786a9a7ca05f38691a",
"text": "\"There is a very simple calculation that will answer the question: Is the expected ROI of the 401K including the match greater than the interest rate of your credit card? Some assumptions that don't affect the calculation, but do help illustrate the points. You have 30 years until you can pull out the 401K. Your credit card interest rate is 20% compounded annually. The minimum payoffs are being disregarded, because that would legally just force a certain percentage to credit card. You only have $1000. You can either pay off your credit card or invest, but not both. For most people, this isn't the case. Ideally, you would simply forego $1000 worth of spending, AND DO BOTH Worked Example: Pay $1000 in Credit Card Debt, at 20% interest. After 1 year, if you pay off that debt, you no longer owe $1200. ROI = 20% (Duh!) After 30 years, you no longer owe (and this is pretty amazing) $237,376.31. ROI = 23,638% In all cases, the ROI is GUARANTEED. Invest $1000 in matching 401k, with expected ROI of 5%. 2a. For illustration purposes, let's assume no match After 1 year, you have $1050 ($1000 principal, $0 match, 5% interest) - but you can't take it out. ROI = 5% After 30 years, you have $4321.94, ROI of 332% - assuming away all risk. 2b. Then, we'll assume a 50% match. After 1 year, you have $1575 ($1000 principle, $500 match, 5% interest) - but you can't take it out. ROI = 57% - but you are stuck for a bit After 30 years, you have $6482.91, ROI of 548% - assuming away all risk. 2c. Finally, a full match After 1 year, you have $2100 ($1000 principle, $1000 match, 5% interest) - but you can't take it out. ROI = 110% - but again, you are stuck. After 30 years, you have $8643.89, ROI of 764% - assuming away all risk. Here's the summary - The interest rate is really all that matters. Paying off a credit card is a guaranteed investment. The only reason not to pay off a 20% credit card interest rate is if, after taxes, time, etc..., you could earn more than 20% somewhere else. Note that at 1 year, the matching funds of a 401k, in all cases where the match exceeded 20%, beat the credit card. If you could take that money before you could have paid off the credit card, it would have been a good deal. The problem with the 401k is that you can't realize that gain until you retire. Credit Card debt, on the other hand, keeps growing until you pay it off. As such, paying off your credit card debt - assuming its interest rate is greater than the stock market (which trust me, it almost always is) - is the better deal. Indeed, with the exception of tax advantaged mortgages, there is almost no debt that has an interest rate than is \"\"better\"\" than the market.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5f0edf85120de7c5c1749d028c8df837",
"text": "First I must say that I'm not a Ramsey fan. Sometimes loans will make your financial situation significantly better. Especially if its a 0% loan. Generally, I do think that leveraging has its place, its the ab-use of loans what causes problems, not the use. Re your question - you're right in trying to first build up an emergency fund. You should have enough in it to be able to pay for yourself for at least half a year of unemployment or zero income. You only have one month. Your family member gave you money for free, which is admirable, but I'm sure there's a limit to everyone's generosity and he might not give it to you for free again, once you pay it off. Thus, you should be able to handle your future troubles on your own, and emergency fund is a crucial part of this. Pay as agreed, try not to be late, and you'll pay the loan off within 3 years. If you accumulate enough emergency fund, and you still have some extra left - pay some extra on the loan in order to pay it off early. Do make sure you take full advantage of the employer's 401k match. This has, IMHO, much higher priority than paying off the 0% loan early.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fc08551789f62459d11d05327992ab6a",
"text": "\"At first blush, this seems like it makes sense - assuming, like you say in your question, that you are perfectly confident in your ability to repay (even if you need to pay the balance in full if you lose your job), then this seems like a guaranteed 4% return, and a reasonable part of your retirement portfolio. Where it falls apart, though, is that you're paying yourself. You're just taking the money out of one pocket and putting it in another. So really you're getting a guaranteed 0% return. You're losing the compounding growth of the loan amount while it's out of your accounts, and the fact that you can afford the 4% interest means you could have been putting that into a requirement account as well aside from the loan - so it doesn't really count as \"\"interest\"\" in the sense that your money is passively making money for you. So ultimately: no, it shouldn't count as part of your bond allocation.\"",
"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": "7ac77f862da86e38701a192398ab3ea4",
"text": "I have credit card debt of about $5000 That's the answer right there. You told us the 401(b) has no match. The next highest priority would be credit card debt that's costing you interest. You didn't mention the rate on the card, I'm assuming it's 8% or more. As far as your balance sheet (the 'bottom line') is concerned, pay off a 10% debt is the same as earning 10% on your money. If anyone promises you a higher return with a different investment, I'd run the other way. We hope the market, i.e. the US stock market, as measured by a broad index, say the S&P 500, will return 8-10%/yr over the long term, but this isn't guaranteed. Paying off that credit card will save you the interest every year, and free up the payments to invest elsewhere. In response to Marlene's comment - Crazy? No. Human nature and emotion is what it is. I honestly don't know how to address some of it. Years ago, I was in a similar situation with a reader who had a $5000 'emergency' account, yet had $5000 in credit card debt. I had a tough time getting my head around why it wasn't obvious this made no sense. In your case, I might suggest you pay the card down to below $1000 and have the credit line reduced. Paying high interest on $5K makes no sense at any point in one's life. At least a 20-something can dig his way out and learn a lesson. A pre-retiree shouldn't be throwing this money away.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dc6bc158f13edb1bb3336e9855f79c7a",
"text": "\"I think the math is wrong. Note that in Scenario #1, you are only out of pocket $1000, while in Scenario #2, you are out of pocket $1250; the contribution and the tax you paid with respect to it. A better concept than tax rate is \"\"Retention Rate\"\". This is the fraction of your money that the Feds let you keep. And Growth Factor is the how much the investment grows. So In Scenario #1, you multiply $1000 by the investment Growth Factor and then by the retirement Retention Rate. And in Scenario #2, you multiply the same $1000 by the current Retention Rate and then by the Growth Factor. Since in your approximation, the two GFs are the same, there is no saving...\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8d5621331f74f236d8df4739c497937e",
"text": "Answers to this your question break down along a few lines regarding opportunity costs of tying up a significant chunk of your salary and assets in one piece of property, as opposed to other things you'd like to do with your life. The 30 year standard mortgage was invented in the 30's as part of FDR's new deal to make housing affordable to more people, while relieving the strain on the market of foreclosed homes from ~10 year interest only balloon mortgages (sound familiar?). The 30 year term tends to follow the career of the average American of that era, allowing them to pay the house off and live out the remainder of their lives there at a lower cost. Houses are depreciating assets because they wear out over time. Their greatest investment value is a place to live. The appreciation on a home comes from the real estate it sits on and the community the property is located in. Value is determined by desirability of the house and community in their current state, and the supply of property in the area. This value can only be extracted when you sell the home. This partially answers your last question noting that you shouldn't buy a really expensive building for investment value. We've learned in recent years that there are no long term guarantees of property value either, because land and communities can decrease in value due to unemployment, over supply, crime, pollution, etc. Only buy as much home as you will need in the next decade or so, in a place that you will like living over that time period, and don't consider it much of an investment. I will tell you to get a fifteen year fixed rate mortgage since it's readily available at lower rates and has a significantly lower total purchase price than the standard 30 years. The monthly payment difference isn't that great, and anyone who looks at the monthly payment as opposed to the total costs, your priorities and the opportunity costs shouldn't be trusted for financial advice. I don't like debt. There are psychological benefits to being free from the bondage and drain of a long term mortgage on your finances. The biggest argument for paying off your home quickly is freedom to pursue other desires with all of your salary and the assets you have available to you. Some financial advisers will tell you to keep your mortgage costs under 25% of your income, so that you can actually live off the money you make. I would also recommend paying at least enough into your 401k to get the company match and fully funding your Roth IRA. I'd also have an emergency fund to cover at least 6 months of expenses, including this mortgage in case you lose your job. A 15 or 20 year mortgage will give you breathing room to take care of these other priorities, and you can overpay on almost any mortgage to decrease the principal and finish in a shorter time period (make sure to get a mortgage that allows prepayment) . More financially savvy people may tell you to take the 30 year mortgage and invest the difference. Especially with mortgage rates around 4%, this is a very cheap way to increase your purchasing power and total assets. Most people lack the investment prowess and self discipline to make this plan pay off. There are even fewer guarantees regarding markets and investments than property. This also is a way of diversifying your total assets to protect against loss of value in your home. This approach has backfired for thousands of people who are underwater on their homes. This problem is often compounded by job loss forcing you to move, or increasing your commute, making your home less desirable for you. Some people will tell you to maintain the mortgage for the tax credit. This fails a basic math test since you only get about a quarter of the money (depending on your tax rate) that you are paying in interest back from the government. The rest of the money goes to bank at no gain to you. This approach is basically a taxpayer subsidized decrease of your 4% interest payment to a 3% interest payment (assuming you have ~ $5000 in other deductions), and only pays off if you can successfully invest the money at a rate somewhat greater than 3%.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8389f755320da15a711c925902a2d0fd",
"text": "Not applicable. Or, at least totally unrealistic. Lots of assumptions about returns, no discussion of time frames, and no discussion of volatility. If it's a personal choice you wouldn't do it this way, plus there are other factors to consider. As far as the math of the question, you use a discount rate that allows you to account for alternatives, typically a RFR, but again, that doesn't apply to an individual quite in the same way since it's not a debt vs equity question.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ae148a4b9aca1e2103a1c57a04f56f16",
"text": "This is great, thank you. Can you think of any cases where expected return is greater than interest payments (like in #2) but the best choice would still be raise money through equity issuing? My intuition tells me this may be possible for an expensive company.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7059fcd42d5749c30fdcba2c0984a646",
"text": "It looks like your Solo 401K loan will need to repaid in 5 years. If you borrow too much in order to pay back in this time you run into the typical 401K loan risks, that it is considered a distribution. Don't borrow more then can be repaid in that time. When you borrow money from your 401K, it is no longer invested in the market. Lets assume that you are borrowing at 6% or so, and your LOC is at 3.5%, and the mutual funds you are invested in are returning 9%. You would be better off with the LOC. As you are paying 3.5% but earning 9%. Keep in mind with a LOC that is variable you have interest rate risk, where you don't really have that with the 401K loan. I think the 401K loan is riskier then you are allowing. If you do not pay it back within the allotted time, you get nailed for 40% of the unpaid balance. That is quite high. With the HELOC, you can weather quite a few negative credit events without your home ever being in jeopardy.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a3cd5d461c100798a0b9eb286edba3f5",
"text": "While you can borrow money from a 401(k) for your home down payment, there are disadvantages, including but not limited to: The 401(k) is designed as a way to save for retirement. Smaller contributions and balances (due to the loan) in your account will add up and significantly reduce your balance over time. If you lose your job you will have to pay back the loan quickly, within 60 days. Interest on the 401(k) loan is also not tax-deductible, even if you're using it to pay for a home. My advice: max out any employer contributions to your 401(k) because it's free money. After that, extra savings for a house should be in a separate account.",
"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": "00155b67fc1e919484a70eadd7488566",
"text": "It would help if we had numbers to walk you through the analysis. Current balance, rate, remaining term, and the new mortgage details. To echo and elaborate on part of Ben's response, the most important thing is to not confuse cash flow with savings. If you have 15 years to go, and refinance to 30 years, at the rate rate, your payment drops by 1/3. Yet your rate is identical in this example. The correct method is to take the new rate, plug it into a mortgage calculator or spreadsheet using the remaining months on the current mortgage, and see the change in payment. This savings is what you should divide into closing costs to calculate the breakeven. It's up to you whether to adjust your payments to keep the term the same after you close. With respect to keshlam, rules of thumb often fail. There are mortgages that build the closing costs into the rate. Not the amount loaned, the rate. This means that as rates dropped, moving from 5.25% to 5% made sense even though with closing costs there were 4.5% mortgages out there. Because rates were still falling, and I finally moved to a 3.5% loan. At the time I was serial refinancing, the bank said I could return to them after a year if rates were still lower. In my opinion, we are at a bottom, and the biggest question you need to answer is whether you'll remain in the house past your own breakeven time. Last - with personal finance focusing on personal, the analysis shouldn't ignore the rest of your balance sheet. Say you are paying $1500/mo with 15 years to go. Your budget is tight enough that you've chosen not to deposit to your 401(k). (assuming you are in the US or country with pretax retirement account options) In this case, holding rates constant, a shift to 30 years frees up about $500/mo. In a matched 401(k), your $6000/yr is doubled to $12K/year. Of course, if the money would just go in the market unmatched, members here would correctly admonish me for suggesting a dangerous game, in effect borrowing via mortgage to invest in the market. The matched funds, however are tough to argue against.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
6817f453459ead673e3eed58e8ccf718
|
How to calculate the rate of return on selling a stock?
|
[
{
"docid": "a1fb7f933ec57fb9d7f255a5ba2a5170",
"text": "You probably want the Internal Rate of Return (IRR), see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_rate_of_return which is the compound interest rate that would produce your return. You can compute it in a spreadsheet with XIRR(), I made an example: https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AvuTW2HtDQfYdEsxVlM0RFdrRk1QS1hoNURxZkVFN3c&hl=en You can also use a financial calculator, or there are probably lots of web-based calculators such as the ones people have mentioned.",
"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": "ce932128386e9ac1e3bdbe0c347a0ad7",
"text": "If annualized rate of return is what you are looking for, using a tool would make it a lot easier. In the post I've also explained how to use the spreadsheet. Hope this helps.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "275df9312e040d3309fae20aff051c75",
"text": "Technically you should take the quarterly dividend yield as a fraction, add one, take the cube root, and subtract one (and then multiple by the stock price, if you want a dollar amount per share rather than a rate). This is to account for the fact that you could have re-invested the monthly dividends and earned dividends on that reinvestment. However, the difference between this and just dividing by three is going to be negligible over the range of dividend rates that are realistically paid out by ordinary stocks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "44f9f76999c87d2d86618c849ab259aa",
"text": "Well, one can easily have rates below -100%. Suppose I start with $100, and end up with $9 after a year. What was my rate of return? It could be -91%, -181%, -218%, or -241%, or something else, depending on the compounding method. We always have that the final amount equals the initial amount times a growth factor G, and we can express this using a rate r and a day count fraction T. In this case, we have T = 1, and B(T) = B(0) * 0.09, so: So, depending on how we compound, we have a rate of return of -91%, -181%, -218%, or -241%. This nicely illustrates that:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7af4f32798568d7e60f0dbc247e02a37",
"text": "The price-earnings ratio is calculated as the market value per share divided by the earnings per share over the past 12 months. In your example, you state that the company earned $0.35 over the past quarter. That is insufficient to calculate the price-earnings ratio, and probably why the PE is just given as 20. So, if you have transcribed the formula correctly, the calculation given the numbers in your example would be: 0.35 * 4 * 20 = $28.00 As to CVRR, I'm not sure your PE is correct. According to Yahoo, the PE for CVRR is 3.92 at the time of writing, not 10.54. Using the formula above, this would lead to: 2.3 * 4 * 3.92 = $36.06 That stock has a 52-week high of $35.98, so $36.06 is not laughably unrealistic. I'm more than a little dubious of the validity of that formula, however, and urge you not to base your investing decisions on it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c5158b4448a8dd6770b62826b77c8ee1",
"text": "In order to calculate the ratio you are looking for, just divide total debt by the market capitalization of the stock. Both values can be found on the link you provided. The market capitalization is the market value of equity.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6102ca35a6adf578632c2b0f37dadc2f",
"text": "\"Below I will try to explain two most common Binomial Option Pricing Models (BOPM) used. First of all, BOPM splits time to expiry into N equal sub-periods and assumes that in each period the underlying security price may rise or fall by a known proportion, so the value of an option in any sub-period is a function of its possible values in the following sub period. Therefore the current value of an option is found by working backwards from expiry date through sub-periods to current time. There is not enough information in the question from your textbook so we may assume that what you are asked to do is to find a value of a call option using just a Single Period BOPM. Here are two ways of doing this: First of all let's summarize your information: Current Share Price (Vs) = $70 Strike or exercise price (X) = $60 Risk-free rate (r) = 5.5% or 0.055 Time to maturity (t) = 12 months Downward movement in share price for the period (d) = $65 / $70 = 0.928571429 Upward movement in share price for the period (u) = 1/d = 1/0.928571429 = 1.076923077 \"\"u\"\" can be translated to $ multiplying by Vs => 1.076923077 * $70 = $75.38 which is the maximum probable share price in 12 months time. If you need more clarification here - the minimum and maximum future share prices are calculated from stocks past volatility which is a measure of risk. But because your textbook question does not seem to be asking this - you probably don't have to bother too much about it yet. Intrinsic Value: Just in case someone reading this is unclear - the Value of an option on maturity is the difference between the exercise (strike) price and the value of a share at the time of the option maturity. This is also called an intrinsic value. Note that American Option can be exercised prior to it's maturity in this case the intrinsic value it simply the diference between strike price and the underlying share price at the time of an exercise. But the Value of an option at period 0 (also called option price) is a price you would normally pay in order to buy it. So, say, with a strike of $60 and Share Price of $70 the intrinsic value is $10, whereas if Share Price was $50 the intrinsic value would be $0. The option price or the value of a call option in both cases would be fixed. So we also need to find intrinsic option values when price falls to the lowest probable and rises to the maximum probable (Vcd and Vcu respectively) (Vcd) = $65-$60 = $5 (remember if Strike was $70 then Vcd would be $0 because nobody would exercise an option that is out of the money) (Vcu) = $75.38-$60 = $15.38 1. Setting up a hedge ratio: h = Vs*(u-d)/(Vcu-Vcd) h = 70*(1.076923077-0.928571429)/(15.38-5) = 1 That means we have to write (sell) 1 option for each share purchased in order to hedge the risks. You can make a simple calculation to check this, but I'm not going to go into too much detail here as the equestion is not about hedging. Because this position is risk-free in equilibrium it should pay a risk-free rate (5.5%). Then, the formula to price an option (Vc) using the hedging approach is: (Vs-hVc)(e^(rt))=(Vsu-hVcu) Where (Vc) is the value of the call option, (h) is the hedge ratio, (Vs) - Current Share Price, (Vsu) - highest probable share price, (r) - risk-free rate, (t) - time in years, (Vcu) - value of a call option on maturity at the highest probable share price. Therefore solving for (Vc): (70-1*Vc)(e^(0.055*(12/12))) = (75.38-1*15.38) => (70-Vc)*1.056540615 = 60 => 70-Vc = 60/1.056540615 => Vc = 70 - (60/1.056540615) Which is similar to the formula given in your textbook, so I must assume that using 1+r would be simply a very close approximation of the formula above. Then it is easy to find that Vc = 13.2108911402 ~ $13.21 2. Risk-neutral valuation: Another way to calculate (Vc) is using a risk-neutral approach. We first introduce a variable (p) which is a risk-neutral probability of an increase in share price. p = (e^(r*t)-d)/(u-d) so in your case: p = (1.056540615-0.928571429)/(1.076923077-0.928571429) = 0.862607107 Therefore using (p) the (Vc) would be equal: Vc = [pVcu+(1-p)Vcd]/(e^(rt)) => Vc = [(0.862607107*15.38)+(0.137392893*5)]/1.056540615 => Vc = 13.2071229185 ~ $13.21 As you can see it is very close to the hedging approach. I hope this answers your questions. Also bear in mind that there is much more to the option pricing than this. The most important topics to cover are: Multi-period BOPM Accounting for Dividends Black-Scholes-Merton Option Pricing Model\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a12da22d330b7e220f7cd8e070ac02ec",
"text": "\"You can calculate the \"\"return on investment\"\" using libreoffice, for example. Look at the xirr function. You would have 2 columns, one a list of dates (ie the dates of the deposits or dividends or whatever that you want to track, the last entry would be today's date and the value of the investment today. The xirr function calculates the internal rate of return for you. If you add money to the account, and the current value includes the original investment and the added funds, it will be difficult to calculate the ROI. If you add money by purchasing additional shares (or redepositing dividends by buying additional shares), and you only want to track the ROI of the initial investment (ignoring future investments), you would have to calculate the current value of all of the added shares (that you don't want to include in the ROI) and subtract that value from the current total value of the account. But, if you include the dates and values of these additional share purchases in the spreadsheet, xirr will calculate the overall IRR for you.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a553405f8eccfb06d6fae1018d4ab54a",
"text": "\"For a retail investor who isn't a Physics or Math major, the \"\"Beta\"\" of the stock is probably the best way to quantify risk. Examples: A Beta of 1 means that a stock moves in line with the market. Over 1 means that you would expect the stock to move up or down faster than the market as a whole. Under 1 means that you would expect the stock to move slower than the market as a whole.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5ee820eda84b17c1564e86100cc24e34",
"text": "Securities change in prices. You can buy ten 10'000 share of a stock for $1 each one day on release and sell it for $40 each if you're lucky in the future for a gross profit of 40*10000 = 400'0000",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bf0540111a2051185227f72005547c32",
"text": "\"Generally if you are using FIFO (first in, first out) accounting, you will need to match the transactions based on the number of shares. In your example, at the beginning of day 6, you had two lots of shares, 100 @ 50 and 10 @ 52. On that day you sold 50 shares, and using FIFO, you sold 50 shares of the first lot. This leaves you with 50 @ 50 and 10 @ 52, and a taxable capital gain on the 50 shares you sold. Note that commissions incurred buying the shares increase your basis, and commissions incurred selling the shares decrease your proceeds. So if you spent $10 per trade, your basis on the 100 @ 50 lot was $5010, and the proceeds on your 50 @ 60 sale were $2990. In this example you sold half of the lot, so your basis for the sale was half of $5010 or $2505, so your capital gain is $2990 - 2505 = $485. The sales you describe are also \"\"wash sales\"\", in that you sold stock and bought back an equivalent stock within 30 days. Generally this is only relevant if one of the sales was at a loss but you will need to account for this in your code. You can look up the definition of wash sale, it starts to get complex. If you are writing code to handle this in any generic situation you will also have to handle stock splits, spin-offs, mergers, etc. which change the number of shares you own and their cost basis. I have implemented this myself and I have written about 25-30 custom routines, one for each kind of transaction that I've encountered. The structure of these deals is limited only by the imagination of investment bankers so I think it is impossible to write a single generic algorithm that handles them all, instead I have a framework that I update each quarter as new transactions occur.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fdbe399b50e8f270715d8522907f7202",
"text": "What you're missing is the continuous compounding computation doesn't work that way. If you compound over n periods of time and a rate of return of r, the formula is e^(r*n), as you have to multiply the returns together with a mulitplicative base of 1. Otherwise consider what 0 does to your formula. If I get a zero return, I have a zero result which doesn't make sense. However, in my formula I'd still get the 1 which is what I'm starting and thus the no effect is the intended result. Continuous compounding would give e^(-.20*12) = e^(-2.4) = .0907 which is a -91% return so for each $100 invested, the person ends up with $9.07 left at the end. It may help to picture that the function e^(-x) does asymptotically approach zero as x tends to infinity, but that is as bad as it can get, so one doesn't cross into the negative unless one wants to do returns in a Complex number system with imaginary numbers in here somehow. For those wanting the usual compounding, here would be that computation which is more brutal actually: For your case it would be (1-.20)^12=(0.8)^12=0.068719476736 which is to say that someone ends up with 6.87% in the end. For each $100 had in the beginning they would end with $6.87 in the end. Consider someone starting with $100 and take 20% off time and time again you'd see this as it would go down to $80 after the first month and then down to $64 the second month as the amount gets lower the amount taken off gets lower too. This can be continued for all 12 terms. Note that the second case isn't another $20 loss but only $16 though it is the same percentage overall. Some retail stores may do discounts on discounts so this can happen in reality. Take 50% off of something already marked down 50% and it isn't free, it is down 75% in total. Just to give a real world example where while you think a half and a half is a whole, taking half and then half of a half is only three fourths, sorry to say. You could do this with an apple or a pizza if you want a food example to consider. Alternatively, consider the classic up and down case where an investment goes up 10% and down 10%. On the surface, these should cancel and negate each other, right? No, in fact the total return is down 1% as the computation would be (1.1)(.9)=.99 which is slightly less than 1. Continuous compounding may be a bit exotic from a Mathematical concept but the idea of handling geometric means and how compounding returns comes together is something that is rather practical for people to consider.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e7b44d6fb01103d972318fdd1aa04c52",
"text": "\"You'll generally get a number close to market cap of a mature company if you divide profits (or more accurately its free cash flow to equity) by the cost of equity which is usually something like ~7%. The value is meant to represent the amount of cash you'd need to generate investment income off it matching the company you're looking at. Imagine it as asking \"\"How much money do I need to put into the bank so that my interest income would match the profits of the company I'm looking at\"\". Except replace the bank with the market and other forms of investments that generate higher returns of course and that value would be lower.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4f532d58c93660b445922f2c46034831",
"text": "Thanks for showing me that. I can see it now. I have always used my formula, and even a senior at another company confirmed the way I calculated the returns. Luckily, I do not work with that manager, and he has his own model, and so do I. But he was pretty cool about it when I asked about his calculations.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a346ee2542db4507de800e5de36fc933",
"text": "\"So, there is no truly \"\"correct\"\" way to calculate return. Professionals will often calculate many different rates of return depending on what they wish to understand about their portfolio. However, the two most common ways of calculating multi-period return though are time-weighted return and money-weighted return. I'll leave the details to this good Investopeadia article, but the big picture is time-weighted returns help you understand how the stock performed during the period in question independent of how you invested it it. Whereas money-weighted return helps you understand how you performed investing in the stock in question. From your question, it appears both methods would be useful in combination to help you evaluate your portfolio. Both methods should be fairly easy to calculate yourself in a spread sheet, but if you are interested there are plenty of examples of both in google docs on the web.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e708f9f70f348131c33139a46aa03b34",
"text": "One thing to keep in mind when calculating P/E on an index is that the E (earnings) can be very close to zero. For example, if you had a stock trading at $100 and the earnings per share was $.01, this would result in a P/E of 10,000, which would dominate the P/E you calculate for the index. Of course negative earnings also skew results. One way to get around this would be to calculate the average price of the index and the earnings per share of the index separately, and then divide the average price of the index by the average earnings per share of the index. Different sources calculate these numbers in different ways. Some throw out negative P/Es (or earnings per share) and some don't. Some calculate the price and earnings per share separate and some don't, etc... You'll need to understand how they are calculating the number in order to compare it to PEs of individual companies.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e9343d55d9c40a3883063ddba8f15f63",
"text": "\"at $8.50: total profit = $120.00 *basis of stock, not paid in cash, so not included in \"\"total paid\"\" at $8.50: total profit = $75.00\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
93dca89ea47215366b0ed1354513d035
|
How could a company survive just on operations cash flow, i.e. no earnings?
|
[
{
"docid": "aaa788cffd3ea02085b6090b0e9b3120",
"text": "It is true that operation profit comes from gross profit however it is possible for a company to have negative net profit yet have postive cash flow , it has to do with the accounting practice A possible example is that a company has extremely high depreciation expense of fixed asset hence net profit will be negative but cash flow will be positive. Assuming the fixed asset has been fully paid for in earlier years",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "74025b05eba2366bf975acf56e3717e6",
"text": "\"It depends on the definition of earnings. A company could have revenue that nets in excess of expenses, so from that perspective a good cash flow or EBITDA, but have debt servicing costs, taxes, depreciation, amortization, that alters that perspective. So if a company is carrying a large debt load, then the bondholders are in the position to capture any excess revenues through debt service payments and the company is in a negative equity positions (no equity or dividends payable to shareholders) and has not produced earnings. If a company has valuable preferred shares issued and outstanding, then depending on the earnings definition, there may be no earnings (for the common stock) until the preferences are satisfied by the returns. So while the venture itself (revenues minus costs) could be cash flow positive, this may not be sufficient to produce \"\"earnings\"\" for shareholders, whose claim on the company still entitles them to zero current liquidation value (i.e. they get nothing if the company dissolves immediately - all value goes to bondholders or preferred). It could also be that taxes are eating into revenue, or the depreciation of key assets is greater than the excess of revenues over costs (e.g. a bike rental company by the beach makes money on a weekly basis but is rusting out half its stock every 3 months and replacement costs will overwhelm the operating revenues).\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "25fce1f063053c17c38a95d0e83a8f69",
"text": "\"There are many different methods for a corporation to get money, but they mostly fall into three categories: earnings, debt and equity. Earnings would be just the corporation's accumulation of cash due to the operation of its business. Perhaps if cash was needed for a particular reason immediately, a business may consider selling a division or group of assets to another party, and using the proceeds for a different part of the business. Debt is money that (to put it simply) the corporation legally must repay to the lender, likely with periodic interest payments. Apart from the interest payments (if any) and the principal (original amount leant), the lender has no additional rights to the value of the company. There are, basically, 2 types of corporate debt: bank debt, and bonds. Bank debt is just the corporation taking on a loan from a bank. Bonds are offered to the public - ie: you could potentially buy a \"\"Tesla Bond\"\", where you give Tesla $1k, and they give you a stated interest rate over time, and principal repayments according to a schedule. Which type of debt a corporation uses will depend mostly on the high cost of offering a public bond, the relationships with current banks, and the interest rates the corporation thinks it can get from either method. Equity [or, shares] is money that the corporation (to put it simply) likely does not have a legal obligation to repay, until the corporation is liquidated (sold at the end of its life) and all debt has already been repaid. But when the corporation is liquidated, the shareholders have a legal right to the entire value of the company, after those debts have been paid. So equity holders have higher risk than debt holders, but they also can share in higher reward. That is why stock prices are so volatile - the value of each share fluctuates based on the perceived value of the entire company. Some equity may be offered with specific rules about dividend payments - maybe they are required [a 'preferred' share likely has a stated dividend rate almost like a bond, but also likely has a limited value it can ever receive back from the corporation], maybe they are at the discretion of the board of directors, maybe they will never happen. There are 2 broad ways for a corporation to get money from equity: a private offering, or a public offering. A private offering could be a small mom and pop store asking their neighbors to invest 5k so they can repair their business's roof, or it could be an 'Angel Investor' [think Shark Tank] contributing significant value and maybe even taking control of the company. Perhaps shares would be offered to all current shareholders first. A public offering would be one where shares would be offered up to the public on the stock exchange, so that anyone could subscribe to them. Why a corporation would use any of these different methods depends on the price it feels it could get from them, and also perhaps whether there are benefits to having different shareholders involved in the business [ie: an Angel investor would likely be involved in the business to protect his/her investment, and that leadership may be what the corporation actually needs, as much or more than money]. Whether a corporation chooses to gain cash from earnings, debt, or equity depends on many factors, including but not limited to: (1) what assets / earnings potential it currently has; (2) the cost of acquiring the cash [ie: the high cost of undergoing a public offering vs the lower cost of increasing a bank loan]; and (3) the ongoing costs of that cash to both the corporation and ultimately the other shareholders - ie: a 3% interest rate on debt vs a 6% dividend rate on preferred shares vs a 5% dividend rate on common shares [which would also share in the net value of the company with the other current shareholders]. In summary: Earnings would be generally preferred, but if the company needs cash immediately, that may not be suitable. Debt is generally cheap to acquire and interest rates are generally lower than required dividend rates. Equity is often expensive to acquire and maintain [either through dividend payments or by reduction of net value attributable to other current shareholders], but may be required if a new venture is risky. ie: a bank/bondholder may not want to lend money for a new tech idea because it is too risky to just get interest from - they want access to the potential earnings as well, through equity.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "41dce61a9e2d1757dfcf183f6671a9f8",
"text": "You're indeed right, this cannot be answered affirmatively. I will try, without going too deep in details, to brush a shallow portrait In its simplest form, a going concern company could be valued by the present value of a growing perpetuity (Cash Flow/(Required return - growth)), assuming compounding perpetual growth. That's a massive assumption for a yet to turn a dime company. That's why comparable transactions are usually used as benchmark. In this case, your PE can be thought as the inverse of a growing perpetuity, and it's size will be determined by the difference between return and growth. So when you're pre-revenue, you're basically trying to value a moonshot with everything to prove, no matter how genius the idea. Considering the high levels of financial risks due to failure, VCs will require biblical levels of returns (50% to 90% is not unheard of). Hence why they usually leave with a good chunk of the company in seed rounds. When you've had a few sales, you got to know your customer and you've tested the markets, your direction gets clearer and your prospects improve. Risks moves down a notch and the next round of financing will be at much lower rates. Your growth rate, still high but nowhere as crazy as before, can be estimated with relatively more precision. Companies turning a recurrent level of profits are the easiest to value (all else being equal). The financial mathematics are more appropriate now, and their value will be derived by current market conditions as well as comparable transactions. With unlimited resources and perfect markets, the value of the company will be the same wether the founder is at the helm or the VCs are in the place. But considering many founders need the VCs' resources to extract the value of their company and markets are imperfect, the value of the company can change significantly depending on the decisions. Hope that helps!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c13cce6e70fbcf39b7eb695a13cf21e5",
"text": "A lot of these firms consist of ex-McKinsey consulting people that know how to evaluate operations, efficiency, etc. Like any company, operating plans are presented by mgmt to the board and implemented by management. The PE firm works with management to design the operating strategy, and that may be done in-house (PE firm) and/or with outside consults in the industry. Operational performance is important, but unfortunately a lot of PE firms really only engage in financial engineering. The more industry/sector specific the PE the firm, the more value they likely add (as a generalization).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d7a167abd6c63e3410c1c6b5d9916b05",
"text": "It just had less cash. That doesn't necessarily mean that the company had a net loss for the year. Just like having more cash doesn't mean the company made a profit. What if a company had revenue of $1 million, expenses of $2 million, and took out a loan of $5 million? They had a net loss of $1 million, but they have $4 million more in cash.",
"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": "8251000cc2c3e8b95abfb04205e6fcc7",
"text": "\"The answer is Discounted Cash Flows. Companies that don't pay dividends are, ostensibly reinvesting their cash at returns higher than shareholders could obtain elsewhere. They are reinvesting in productive capacity with the aim of using this greater productive capacity to generate even more cash in the future. This isn't just true for companies, but for almost any cash-generating project. With a project you can purchase some type of productive assets, you may perform some kind of transformation on the good (or not), with the intent of selling a product, service, or in fact the productive mechanism you have built, this productive mechanism is typically called a \"\"company\"\". What is the value of such a productive mechanism? Yes, it's capacity to continue producing cash into the future. Under literally any scenario, discounted cash flow is how cash flows at distinct intervals are valued. A company that does not pay dividends now is capable of paying them in the future. Berkshire Hathaway does not pay a dividend currently, but it's cash flows have been reinvested over the years such that it's current cash paying capacity has multiplied many thousands of times over the decades. This is why companies that have never paid dividends trade at higher prices. Microsoft did not pay dividends for many years because the cash was better used developing the company to pay cash flows to investors in later years. A companies value is the sum of it's risk adjusted cash flows in the future, even when it has never paid shareholders a dime. If you had a piece of paper that obligated an entity (such as the government) to absolutely pay you $1,000 20 years from now, this $1,000 cash flows present value could be estimated using Discounted Cash Flow. It might be around $400, for example. But let's say you want to trade this promise to pay before the 20 years is up. Would it be worth anything? Of course it would. It would in fact typically go up in value (barring heavy inflation) until it was worth very close to $1,000 moments before it's value is redeemed. Imagine that this \"\"promise to pay\"\" is much like a non-dividend paying stock. Throughout its life it has never paid anyone anything, but over the years it's value goes up. It is because the discounted cash flow of the $1,000 payout can be estimated at almost anytime prior to it's payout.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7e5b4f091f7a0e9f2328d42e944873bc",
"text": "I don't believe you would be able to with only Net Sales and COGS. Are you talking about trying to estimate them? Because then I could probably come up with an idea based on industry averages, etc. I think you would need to know the average days outstanding, inventory turnover and the terms they're getting from their vendors to calculate actuals. There may be other ways to solve the problem you're asking but thats my thoughts on it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8f20d184f04a39ab58bee86c211d7adc",
"text": "\"To answer your question briefly: net income is affected by many things inside and outside of management control, and must be supplemented by other elements to gain a clear picture of a company's health. To answer your question in-depth, we must look at the history of financial reporting: Initially, accounting was primarily cash-based. That is, a business records a sale when a customer pays them cash, and records expenses when cash goes out the door. This was not a perfectly accurate system, as cashflow might be quite erratic even if sales are stable (collection times may differ, etc.). To combat problems with cash-based accounting, financial reporting moved to an accrual-based system. An accrual is the recording of an item before it has fully completed in a cash transaction. For example, when you ship goods to a customer and they owe you money, you record the revenue - then you record the future collection of cash as a balance sheet item, rather than an income statement item. Another example: if your landlord charges you rent on December 31st for the past year, then in each month leading up to December, you accrue the expense on the income statement, even though you haven't paid the landlord yet. Accrual-based accounting leaves room for accounting manipulation. Enron is a prime example; among other things, they were accruing revenue for sales that had not occurred. This 'accelerated' their income, by having it recorded years before cash was ever collectible. There are specific guidelines that restrict doing things like this, but management will still attempt to accelerate net income as much as possible under accounting guidelines. Public companies have their financial statements audited by unrelated accounting firms - theoretically, they exist to catch material misstatements in the financial statements. Finally, some items impacting profit do not show up in net income - they show up in \"\"Other Comprehensive Income\"\" (OCI). OCI is meant to show items that occurred in the year, but were outside of management control. For example, changes in the value of foreign subsidiaries, due to fluctuations in currency exchange rates. Or changes in the value of company pension plan, which are impacted by the stock market. However, while OCI is meant to pick up all non-management-caused items, it is a grey area and may not be 100% representative of this idea. So in theory, net income is meant to represent items within management control. However, given the grey area in accounting interpretation, net income may be 'accelerated', and it also may include some items that occurred by some 'random business fluke' outside of company control. Finally, consider that financial statements are prepared months after the last year-end. So a company may show great profit for 2015 when statements come out in March, but perhaps Jan-March results are terrible. In conclusion, net income is an attempt at giving what you want: an accurate representation of the health of a company in terms of what is under management control. However it may be inaccurate due to various factors, from malfeasance to incompetence. That's why other financial measures exist - as another way to answer the same question about a company's health, to see if those answers agree. ex: Say net income is $10M this year, but was only $6M last year - great, it went up by $4M! But now assume that Accounts Receivable shows $7M owed to the company at Dec 31, when last year there was only $1M owed to the company. That might imply that there are problems collecting on that additional revenue (perhaps revenue was recorded prematurely, or perhaps they sold to customers who went bankrupt). Unfortunately there is no single number that you can use to see the whole company - different metrics must be used in conjunction to get a clear picture.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "deddbfbc8570f74859816b453494558a",
"text": "\"Additionally, the original commenter I was responding to was making an argument that \"\"they don't make money therefore they're a failure\"\", which isn't a bad argument to make if you're talking about *revenue*. Companies that make no revenue are generally considered to be failures, so in that context, he would be correct to say \"\"they're a failure because they make no money\"\", and you wouldn't really need any other points to back up your argument. That being said, plenty of businesses, start-ups especially burn through more money than they make. The lack of profit doesn't necessarily make them a failure provided they are still generating revnue, which Tesla is, and a lot of it. So, if you'd like to have a discussion about whether they're making *enough* *revenue*, or whether they're poorly re-investing the *revenue* they are making, and how those factors might determine whether or not they should be considered a failure, then I'd be happy to participate. But if you're only interested in making replies that try to condecend to me because you're too quick to jump to conclusions about what I've written, then have at it I guess. Whatever floats your boat.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c12afdfda110b918e2a94689f865b3ee",
"text": "Depending on the improvement, you have to amortize or depreciate it over time, which effectively allows you to write off the value over a period of years, even if you pay for it all up front. This messes with cash flow, which is different than profitability, but when you span the write off over five or ten years, the distinction between cash flow and profitability for a private, self funded company is irrelevant. If the money ain't there, the money ain't there. Operating capital is life blood. Taxes also alter the ROI equation of the investment, since you don't keep all the money you put in. Way over simplified example: Lets say I close out the year with some arbitrary profit - ten million bucks - in my war chest. 3.5 could go to taxes. I also know that my supplier can't handle my volume for next year while the season is hot, so I'd like to buy inventory in the off season. Last year I sold 6.5 mill worth of stuff from this supplier, but I estimate I could sell 9-10 mill if I didn't have availability problems. If I buy 9-10 mill in inventory, I can't pay taxes. If I pay taxes, I can't buy enough to grow next year. Sure, COGS is a deductible expense, but the expense isn't realized until the inventory is sold, which won't be until long after these taxes are due. I now have taxes interfering with my expansion, even though eventually I can write that off. Now lets look at the manufacturer - sure he could expand his capacity and make more money, but he has to deduct the 5 mill machine he needs over twenty years (or ten or whatever) while the purchase price needs to be made today. This year he's gonna pay tax on 90 or 95% of the money he used to buy that machine, which would eat into the money he needs to buy raw materials to fill orders he already has. Of course, the real world is much more complicated, and you can leverage leasing agreements and purchasing terms to alleviate this to some extent, but I wanted to illustrate a point. I hope my extremely simplified example communicated what I mean. Does that make sense?",
"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": "4a16300f64ef8baf4afd50d1d171a5a7",
"text": "You are omitting how the company made 120 million in the previous year and may be facing a shrinking market and thus have poor future prospects. If the company is shrinking, what will the shares be worth down the road. Remember companies like AOL or Blackberry? There was a time they had big profits before things changed which is the part you aren't considering here. If the company has lost something big on its earnings, e.g. the oil wells it owned have run out of reserves or the patents on its key drugs have expired, then there could be the perception that the company won't be able to compete in the future to continue to deliver earnings. Some companies may well end up going broke as one could look at GM for a company that used to be one of the largest car companies in the world and yet it ended up going broke.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "34c196aea003eefb16bd311fcdd7e074",
"text": "In order to grow the way they do without recording profits, they need to find costs (or cut prices). The revenue is turning over because it's being paid out all over the place. Either those companies are running on razor thin margins, or they're paying taxes. There's also payroll taxes for the 270,000 workers.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ecc40dffa7d3e640baaf9d8fe7f57f1f",
"text": "Being pushed to produce quarterly numbers isn't always the best for a company's long-term strategies. Whether or not this will happen is the question, however. Private companies don't need to post immediate substantial profits, public companies are expected to.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "001e570c3a2a33bd32b83c3442ff2427",
"text": "Usually their PE ratio will just be listed as 0 or blank. Though I've always wondered why they don't just list the negative PE as from a straight math standpoint it makes sense. PE while it can be a useful barometer for a company, but certainly does not tell you everything. A company could have negative earnings for a lot of reasons, some good and some bad. The company could just be a bad company and could be losing money hand over fist, or the company could have had a one time occurrence such as a big acquisition or some other event that just affected this years earnings, or they could be an awesome high growth company that is heavily investing for their future and forgoing locking in profits now for much bigger profits in the future. Generally IPO company's fall into that last category as they are going public usually because they want an influx of cash that they are going to use to grow the company much more rapidly. So they are likely already taking all incoming $$ and taking on debt to grow the company and have exceeded all of those options and that's when they turn to the stock market for the additional influx of cash, so it is very common for these companies not to have earnings. Now you just have to decide if that company is investing that money wisely and will in the future translate to actual earnings.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
892a39afd40d7824a35f2ddbff8064f4
|
Where do I invest my Roth IRA besides stock market and mutual funds?
|
[
{
"docid": "b2c9d55800920d12987fec8518dbba0a",
"text": "\"That depends, really. Generally speaking, though - Roth IRAs are THE PLACE for Stock-Market/Mutual-Fund investing. All the off the wall (or, not so off the wall) things like Real Estate investments, or buying up gold, or whatever other ideas you hear from people - they may be good or bad or whatnot. But your Roth IRA is maybe not the best place for that sort of thing. The whole philosophy behind IRAs is to deliberately set aside money for the future. Anything reasonable will work for this. Explore interesting investment ideas with today's money, not tomorrow's money. That being said - at your age I would go for the riskier options within what's available. If I were in your situation (and I have been, recently), I would lean toward low-fee mutual funds classified as \"\"Growth\"\" funds. My own personal opinion (THIS IS NOT ADVICE) is that Small Cap International funds are the place to be for young folks. That's a generalized opinion based on my feel for the world, but I don't think I'm personally competent to start making specific stock picks. So, mutual funds makes sense to me in that I can select the fund that generally aligns with my sense of things, and assume that their managers will make reasonably sound decisions within that framework. Of course that assumption has to be backed up with reputation of the specific MF company and the comparative performance of the fund relative to other funds in the same sector. As to the generalized question (how else can you work toward financial stability and independence), outside of your Roth IRA: find ways to boost your earning potential over time, and buy a house before the next bubble (within the next 18 months, I'm GUESSING).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c164f3698cace48ad15cbebf89a3c733",
"text": "Nowhere. To back up a bit, mutual funds are the stock market (and the bond market). That is, when you invest in a mutual fund, your money is ultimately buying stocks on the open market. Some of it might be buying bonds. The exact mix of stocks and bonds depends on the mutual fund. But a mutual fund is just a basket of stocks and/or bonds (and/or other, more exotic investments). At 25, you probably should just be investing your Roth IRA in index stock mutual funds and index bond mutual funds. You probably shouldn't even be doing peer-to-peer lending (unless you're willing to think of any losses as the cost of a hobby); the higher interest rate you're getting is a reflection of the risk that your borrowers will default. I'm not even sure if peer-to-peer lending is allowed in Roth IRA's. Investing in just stocks, bonds, and cast is boring, but these are easy investments to understand. The harder the investment is to understand, the easier it is for it to be a scam (or just a bad investment). There's not necessarily anything wrong with boring.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "25bba446bab6025f3ba5a43c75c5eea3",
"text": "In general, investors with a long period of time until they would need to withdraw the cash are best off holding mostly equities. While the dividends that equities would return are less than the interest you would get in peer-to-peer lending, over long periods of time not only do you get the dividends from equity investment but the value of the stock will grow faster than interest on loans. The higher returns from stocks, however, comes with more risk of big downturns. Many people pull their investments out of stocks right after crashes which really hurts their long term returns. So, in order to get the benefit of investing in stocks you need to be strong enough to continue to hold the stocks through the crash and into the recovery. As for which stocks to invest in, generally it is best to invest in low-fee index funds/etfs where you own a broad collection of stocks so that if (when) any one stock goes bust that your portfolio does not take much damage. Try to own both international and domestic stocks to get good diversification. The consensus recommends adding just a little bit of REITs and bonds to your investments, but for someone at 25 it might not be worth it yet. Warren Buffett had some good thoughts on index investing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a1a5c32d5c98b0c4935cb25dfbecff85",
"text": "Many investment companies are also offering target retirement date portfolios to invest in. They manage reducing the risk over time so you don't have to worry about it if you choose not to.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ba2d795bc39f7da46307320bf26cc886",
"text": "You're technically 'allowed' to do other investments with your Roth, but you get taken to the cleaners by the financial 'services' community who wants to take a slice. Non-securities investments from a Roth typically require a 'custodian' or other intermediary to handle your investment, e.g. buying silver coins and paying someone else to hold them. Buy these with cash and hold them yourself, assuming you trust yourself more than some stranger.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "ec29e9f3446d7fbc121a80fbf555f43b",
"text": "\"You could put in in a Money Market Fund. These are designed to always be $1 per share, and not lose money. Of course, it still, very rarely, happens and is called \"\"breaking the buck\"\" when they do. Sounds like the high yield savings is the way to go. The rates will be the same as what you can get from a Money Market Fund, but you also have the added advantage that the account is FDIC insured. BTW, using a Roth as an emergency fund is a terrible idea. It is true that, since you already paid taxes on your contributions, you can withdraw those contributions without incurring penalties. However, you have to file paperwork to do it, and since it's not common, the IRA custodian is likely to screw it up. Plus, you have to keep track of what were contributions, and what was investment returns, to not run afoul of the penalties. And it will take time to do it, which you may not have in an emergency. Considering you're only looking at getting 1% interest anyway, there's no reason to use a Roth account as an emergency fund. You can set those same automatic deposits into a savings account.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3338cdf93ea8e4afd56c25c5749a9ce7",
"text": "\"Retirement accounts often can be invested with pretax money, with the exception of Roth accounts that use post-tax and have tax-free growth if you follow the rules, rather than after tax money as well as provide a shelter so that you aren't having to pay annual taxes on dividends and other possible distributions. Another point would be to consider how much money you'd be investing as some funds may have institutional versions that can be much cheaper than others, e.g. compare Vanguard's index funds that the 500 Index in Investor shares, Admiral shares and institutional forms where the tickers would be VFINX, VFIAX, VINIX, VIIIX to consider. Some companies may have access to the institutional funds that aren't what you'd have unless you are investing millions of dollars upfront. Lastly, if there isn't an employer plan and you make a ton of cash, you may not qualify for a deductible IRA or Roth IRA contribution for something else that may happen if you want to start playing with, \"\"What if.\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "789d3dcae90ef6d21ef686157bc50cf5",
"text": "I would open a taxable account with the same custodian that manages your Roth IRA (e.g., Vanguard, Fidelity, etc.). Then within the taxable account I would invest the extra money in low cost, broad market index funds that are tax efficient. Unlike in your 401(k) and Roth IRA, you will now have tax implications if your funds produce dividends or realize a capital gain. That is why tax-efficient funds are important to minimize this as much as possible. The 3-fund portfolio is a popular choice for taxable accounts because of simplicity and the tax efficiency of broad market index funds that are part of the three fund portfolio. The 3-fund portfolio normally consists of Depending on your tax bracket you may want to consider municipal bonds in your taxable instead of taxable bonds if your tax bracket is 25% or higher. Another option is to forgo bonds altogether in the taxable account and just hold bonds in retirement accounts while keeping tax efficient domestic and international tock funds in your taxable account. Then adjust the bond portion upward in your retirement accounts to account for the additional stocks in your taxable accounts. This will maintain the asset allocation that you've already chosen that is appropriate for your age and goals.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8439491878fa8722c81dcce170268652",
"text": "Your approach sounds solid to me. Alternatively, if (as appears to be the case) then you might want to consider devoting your tax-advantaged accounts to tax-inefficient investments, such as REITs and high-yield bond funds. That way your investments that generate non-capital-gain (i.e. tax-expensive) income are safe from the IRS until retirement (or forever). And your investments that generate only capital gains income are safe until you sell them (and then they're tax-cheap anyway). Of course, since there aren't really that many tax-expensive investment vehicles (especially not for a young person), you may still have room in your retirement accounts after allocating all the money you feel comfortable putting into REITs and junk bonds. In that case, the article I linked above ranks investment types by tax-efficiency so you can figure out the next best thing to put into your IRA, then the next, etc.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "da302fbfa3c5fd4fc872d67cf29b8eae",
"text": "Don't try individual stocks. If you have a job, any job, even one from mowing lawns, you can open a Roth IRA. If you are under 18 you will need your parents/guardian to setting up the account. You can put the an amount equal to your earned income into the Roth IRA, up to the annual maximum of $5500. There are advantages to a Roth IRA: What happens if you are using your income to pay for your car, insurance, etc? You can get the money from your parents, grandparents. The only rule is that you can't invest more than you have earned. Act before Tax day (April 15th). You know what you made last year. If you open the account and make the contribution before April 15th it can count for last year, as long as you are clear with the broker/bank when you make the deposit.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7bd8572aed467d1f9e285837d5171f92",
"text": "You could use a stock-only ISA and invest in Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs). ETFs are managed mutual funds that trade on open exchanges in the same manner as stocks. This changes the specific fund options you have open to you, but there are so many ETFs at this point that any sector you want to invest in is almost certainly represented.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e7bb9875419bcac783606f089868f84c",
"text": "\"Whoa. These things are on two dimensions. It's like burger and fries, you can also have chicken sandwich and fries, or burger and onion rings. You can invest in an taxable brokerage account and/or an IRA. And then, within each of those... You can buy index funds and/or anything else. All 4 combinations are possible. If someone says otherwise, take your money and run. They are a shady financial \"\"advisor\"\" who is ripping you off by steering you only into products where they get a commission. Those products are more expensive because the commission comes out of your end. Not to mention any names. E.J. If you want financial advice that is honest, find a financial advisor who you pay for his advice, and who doesn't sell products at all. Or, just ask here. But I would start by listening to Suze Orman, Dave Ramsey, whomever you prefer. And read John Bogle's book. They can tell you all about the difference between money market, bonds, stocks, managed mutual funds (ripoff!) and index funds. IRA accounts, Roth IRA accounts and taxable accounts are all brokerage accounts. Within them, you can buy any security you want, including index funds. The difference is taxation. Suppose you earn $1000 and choose to invest it however Later you withdraw it and it has grown to $3000. Investing in a taxable account, you pay normal income tax on the $1000. When you later withdraw the $3000, you pay a tax on $2000 of income. If you invested more than a year, it is taxed at a much lower \"\"capital gains\"\" tax rate. With a traditional IRA account, you pay zero taxes on the initial $1000. Later, when you take the money out, you pay normal income tax on the full $3000. If you withdrew it before age 59-1/2, you also pay a 10% penalty ($300). With a Roth IRA account, you pay normal income tax on the $1000. When you withdraw the $3000 later, you pay NOTHING in taxes. Provided you followed the rules. You can invest in almost anything inside these accounts: Money market funds. Terrible return. You won't keep up with the market. Bonds. Low return but usually quite safe. Individual stocks. Good luck. Managed mutual funds. You're paying some genius stock picker to select high performing stocks. He has a huge staff of researchers and good social connections. He also charges you 1.5% per year overhead as an \"\"expense ratio\"\", which is a total loss to you. The fact is, he can usually pick stocks better than a monkey throwing darts. But he's not 1.5% better! Index funds. These just shrug and buy every stock on the market. There's no huge staff or genius manager, just some intern making small adjustments every week. As such, the expense ratio is extremely small, like 0.1%. If any of these investments pay dividends, you must pay taxes on them when they're issued, if you're not in an IRA account. This problem gets fixed in ETF's. Index ETF's. These are index funds packaged to behave like stocks. Dividends increase your stock's value instead of being paid out to you, which simplifies your taxes. If you buy index funds outside of an IRA, use these. Too many other options to get into here.\"",
"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": "7f07447ba3dc4293af568924c7c111b9",
"text": "\"You are overthinking it. Yes there is overlap between them, and you want to understand how much overlap there is so you don't end up with a concentration in one area when you were trying to avoid it. Pick two, put your money in those two; and then put your new money into those two until you want to expand into other funds. The advantage of having the money in an IRA held by a single fund family, is that moving some or all of the money from one Mutual fund/ETF to another is painless. The fact it is a retirement account means that selling a fund to move the money doesn't trigger taxes. The fact that you have about $10,000 for the IRA means that hopefully you have decades left before you need the money and that this $10,00 is just the start. You are not committed to these investment choices. With periodic re-balancing the allocations you make now will be adjusted over the decades. One potential issue. You said: \"\"I'm saving right not but haven't actually opened the account.\"\" I take it to mean that you have money in a Roth TRA account but it isn't invested into a stock fund, or that you have the money ready to go in a regular bank account and will be making a 2015 contribution into the actual IRA before tax day this year, and the 2016 contribution either at the same time or soon after. If it is the second case make sure you get the money for 2015 into the IRA before the deadline.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f5fb93b7a5cd0209d2b227983b37eb21",
"text": "Most people carry a diversity of stock, bond, and commodities in their portfolio. The ratio and types of these investments should be based on your goals and risk tolerance. I personally choose to manage mine through mutual funds which combine the three, but ETFs are also becoming popular. As for where you keep your portfolio, it depends on what you're investing for. If you're investing for retirement you are definitely best to keep as much of your investment as possible in 401k or IRAs (preferably Roth IRAs). Many advisers suggest contributing as much to your 401k as your company matches, then the rest to IRA, and if you over contribute for the IRA back to the 401k. You may choose to skip the 401k if you are not comfortable with the choices your company offers in it (such as only investing in company stock). If you are investing for a point closer than retirement and you still want the risk (and reward potential) of stock I would suggest investing in low tax mutual funds, or eating the tax and investing in regular mutual funds. If you are going to take money out before retirement the penalties of a 401k or IRA make it not worth doing. Technically a savings account isn't investing, but rather a place to store money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d5aef11d085a3dd22f8ef4a9e831aea5",
"text": "\"Couple of clarifications to start off: Index funds and ETF's are essentially the same investments. ETF's allow you to trade during the day but also make you reinvest your dividends manually instead of doing it for you. Compare VTI and VTSAX, for example. Basically the same returns with very slight differences in how they are run. Because they are so similar it doesn't matter which you choose. Either index funds and ETF's can be purchased through a regular taxable brokerage account or through an IRA or Roth IRA. The decision of what fund to use and whether to use a brokerage or IRA are separate. Whole market index funds will get you exposure to US equity but consider also diversifying into international equity, bonds, real estate (REITS), and emerging markets. Any broker can give you advice on that score or you can get free advice from, for example, Future Advisor. Now the advice: For most people in your situation, you current tax rate is currently very low. This makes a Roth IRA a very reasonable idea. You can contribute $5,500 for 2015 if you do it before April 15 and you can contribute $5,500 for 2016. Repeat each year. You won't be able to get all your money into a Roth, but anything you can do now will save you money on taxes in the long run. You put after-tax money in a Roth IRA and then you don't pay taxes on it or the gains when you take it out. You can use Roth IRA funds for college, for a first home, or for retirement. A traditional IRA is not recommended in your case. That would save you money on taxes this year, when presumably your taxes are already low. Since you won't be able to put all your money in the IRA, you can put the rest in a regular taxable brokerage account (if you don't just want to put it in a savings account). You can buy the same types of things as you have in your IRA. Note that if your stocks (in your regular brokerage account) go up over the course of a year and your income is low enough to be in the 10 or 15% tax bracket and you have held the stock for at least a year, you should sell before the end of the year to lock in your gains and pay taxes on them at the capital gains rate of 0%. This will prevent you from paying a higher rate on those gains later. Conversely, if you lose money in a year, don't sell. You can sell and lock in losses during years when your taxes are high (presumably, after college) to reduce your tax burden in those years (this is called \"\"tax loss harvesting\"\"). Sounds like crazy contortions but the name of the game is (legally) avoiding taxes. This is at least as important to your overall wealth as the decision of which funds to buy. Ok now the financial advisor. It's up to you. You can make your own financial decisions and save the money but it requires you putting in the effort to be educated. For many of us, this education is fun. Also consider that if you use a regular broker, like Fidelity, you can call up and they have people who (for free) will give you advice very similar to what you will get from the advisor you referred to. High priced financial advisors make more sense when you have a lot of money and complicated finances. Based on your question, you don't strike me as having those. To me, 1% sounds like a lot to pay for a simple situation like yours.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d6153164b7170b645d40c4449f890c9b",
"text": "I know of no way to answer your question without 'spamming' a particular investment. First off, if you are a USA citizen, max out your 401-K. Whatever your employer matches will be an immediate boost to your investment. Secondly, you want your our gains to be tax deferred. A 401-K is tax deferred as well as a traditional IRA. Thirdly, you probably want the safety of diversification. You achieve this by buying an ETF (or mutual fund) that then buys individual stocks. Now for the recommendation that may be called spamming by others : As REITs pass the tax liability on to you, and as an IRA is tax deferred, you can get stellar returns by buying a mREIT ETF. To get you started here are five: mREITs Lastly, avoid commissions by having your dividends automatically reinvested by using that feature at Scottrade. You will have to pay commissions on new purchases but your purchases from your dividend Reinvestment will be commission free. Edit: Taking my own advice I just entered orders to liquidate some positions so I would have the $ on hand to buy into MORL and get some of that sweet 29% dividend return.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cabb237fffd7db5cb951c9fa74e91e1c",
"text": "The easiest way to deal with risks for individual stocks is to diversify. I do most of my investing in broad market index funds, particularly the S&P 500. I don't generally hold individual stocks long, but I do buy options when I think there are price moves that aren't supported by the fundamentals of a stock. All of this riskier short-term investing is done in my Roth IRA, because I want to maximize the profits in the account that won't ever be taxed. I wouldn't want a particularly fruitful investing year to bite me with short term capital gains on my income tax. I usually beat the market in that account, but not by much. It would be pretty easy to wipe out those gains on a particularly bad year if I was investing in the actual stocks and not just using options. Many people who deal in individual stocks hedge with put options, but this is only cost effective at strike prices that represent losses of 20% or more and it eats away the gains. Other people or try to add to their gains by selling covered call options figuring that they're happy to sell with a large upward move, but if that upward move doesn't happen you still get the gains from the options you've sold.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eb389b09b7bb394c4430165a6c427d6f",
"text": "Now today all small and big business depends on the internet. So businessman should be those business lists in the multiple online directories. In the USA maximum user buy product through the web. If you have a business, then you can list your business globaltradeconnect's Business directory online. Where you can get more customer, product information, business location and direction. It's awesome to list a business on other online website like Google, Facebook, Bing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "47ae54c33da604d2225616426525aae9",
"text": "EDIT: After reading one of the comments on the original question, I realized that there is a much more intuitive way to think about this. If you look at it as a standard PV calculation and hold each of the cashflows constant. Really what's happening is that because of inflation the discount rate isn't the full value of the interest rate. Really the discount rate is only the portion of the interest rate above the inflation rate. Hence in the standard perpetuity PV equation PV = A / r r becomes the interest rate less the inflation rate which gives you PV = A / (i - g). That seems like a much better way to get to the answer than all the machinations I was originally trying. Original Answer: I think I finally figured this out. The general term for this type of system in which the payments increase over time is a gradient series annuity. In this specific example since the payment is increasing by a percentage each period (not a constant rate) this would be considered a geometric gradient series. According to this link the formula for the present value of a geometric gradient series of payments is: Where P is the present value of this series of cashflows. A_1 is the initial payment for period 1 (i.e. the amount you want to withdraw adjusted for inflation). g is the gradient or growth rate of the periodic payment (in this case this is the inflation rate) i is the interest rate n is the number of payments This is almost exactly what I was looking for in my original question. The only problem is this is for a fixed amount of time (i.e. n periods). In order to figure out the formula for a perpetuity we need to find the limit of the right side of this equation as the number of periods (n) approaches infinity. Luckily in this equation n is already well isolated to a single term: (1 + g)^n/(1 + i)^-n}. And since we know that the interest rate, i, has to be greater than the inflation rate, g, the limit of that factor is 0. So after replacing that term with 0 our equation simplifies to the following: Note: I don't do this stuff for a living and honestly don't have a fantastic finance IQ. It's been a while since I've done any calculus or even this much algebra so I may have made an error in the math.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
4d631270fbac98831e6472b786bd4431
|
Compute average price even if I do not have the prices before
|
[
{
"docid": "3d1d75dd73777cd7cae0bd40897c4005",
"text": "What I do have is this (sample only): Stock X: Average Price of all I purchased before = 80 Total Shares = 200 So if Stock X's price today is 100 how do I know how much my average price will be? Using your sample if you buy 100 new shares and the price is 85 for the purpose of this example your previous total cost is $16,000 ($80 average cost * 200 shares). With the new example you are adding $8500 to your total cost (100 new shares * $85 example cost per share) that gives us a total cost of $24,500 and 300 shares. $24,500/300 gives us an average cost of $81.67 per share. As long as you have the average cost and the number of shares you can calculate a new average without knowing what the price was for each transaction. It may still become important to find the price information for tax purposes if you do not sell all of those shares at once and use FIFO for your taxes.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "d65931bcdd9257af1f8355851a61b1f3",
"text": "A day is a long time and the rate is not the same all day. Some sources will report a close price that averages the bid and ask. Some sources will report a volume-weighted average. Some will report the last transaction price. Some will report a time-weighted average. Some will average the highest and lowest prices for the interval. Different marketplaces will also have slightly different prices because different traders are present at each marketplace. Usually, the documentation will explain what method they use and you can choose the source whose method makes the most sense for your application.",
"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": "832fdc8c674902d98b80c697574456cb",
"text": "The price inflation isn't a percentage, it's a fixed amount. If the dealer adds $R to the price of both the trade-in and the purchased car, then everyone ends up with the right amount of money in their pockets. So your formula should be: D + T + R = 0.1 * (P + R)",
"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": "70d0915408fb98db5d2f5e7cb0c31731",
"text": "Assuming cell A1 contains the number of trades: will price up to A1=100 at 17 each, and the rest at 14 each. The key is the MAX and MIN. They keep an item from being counted twice. If X would end up negative, MAX(0,x) clamps it to 0. By extension, if X-100 would be negative, MAX(0, X-100) would be 0 -- ie: that number doesn't increase til X>100. When A1=99, MIN(a1,100) == 99, and MAX(0,a1-100) == 0. When A1=100, MIN(a1,100) == 100, and MAX(0,a1-100) == 0. When A1=101, MIN(a1,100) == 100, and MAX(0,a1-100) == 1. Of course, if the 100th item should be $14, then change the 100s to 99s.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0be66ae4d5867a95e9bfae09448c360a",
"text": "\"Probably the best way to investigate this is to look at an example. First, as the commenters above have already said, the log-return from one period is log(price at time t/price at time t-1) which is approximately equal to the percentage change in the price from time t-1 to time t, provided that this percentage change is not big compared to the size of the price. (Note that you have to use the natural log, ie. log to the base e -- ln button on a calculator -- here.) The main use of the log-return is that is a proxy for the percentage change in the price, which turns out to be mathematically convenient, for various reasons which have mostly already been mentioned in the comments. But you already know this; your actual question is about the average log-return over a period of time. What does this indicate about the stock? The answer is: if the stock price is not changing very much, then the average log-return is about equal to the average percentage change in the price, and is very easy and quick to calculate. But if the stock price is very volatile, then the average log-return can be wildly different to the average percentage change in the price. Here is an example: the closing prices for Pitchfork Oil from last week's trading are: 10, 5, 12, 5, 10, 2, 15. The percentage changes are: -0.5, 1.4, -0.58, 1, -0.8, 6.5 (where -0.5 means -50%, etc.) The average percentage change is 1.17, or 117%. On the other hand, the log-returns for the same period are -0.69, 0.88, -0.88, 0.69, -1.6, 2, and the average log-return is about 0.068. If we used this as a proxy for the average percentage change in the price over the whole seven days, we would get 6.8% instead of 117%, which is wildly wrong. The reason why it is wrong is because the price fluctuated so much. On the other hand, the closing prices for United Marshmallow over the same period are 10, 11, 12, 11, 12, 13, 15. The average percentage change from day to day is 0.073, and the average log-return is 0.068, so in this case the log-return is very close to the percentage change. And it has the advantage of being computable from just the first and last prices, because the properties of logarithms imply that it simplifies to (log(15)-log(10))/6. Notice that this is exactly the same as for Pitchfork Oil. So one reason why you might be interested in the average log-return is that it gives a very quick way to estimate the average return, if the stock price is not changing very much. Another, more subtle reason, is that it actually behaves better than the percentage return. When the price of Pitchfork jumps from 5 to 12 and then crashes back to 5 again, the percentage changes are +140% and -58%, for an average of +82%. That sounds good, but if you had bought it at 5, and then sold it at 5, you would actually have made 0% on your money. The log-returns for the same period do not have this disturbing property, because they do add up to 0%. What's the real difference in this example? Well, if you had bought $1 worth of Pitchfork on Tuesday, when it was 5, and sold it on Wednesday, when it was 12, you would have made a profit of $1.40. If you had then bought another $1 on Wednesday and sold it on Thursday, you would have made a loss of $0.58. Overall, your profit would have been $0.82. This is what the average percentage return is calculating. On the other hand, if you had been a long-term investor who had bought on Tuesday and hung on until Thursday, then quoting an \"\"average return\"\" of 82% is highly misleading, because it in no way corresponds to the return of 0% which you actually got! The moral is that it may be better to look at the log-returns if you are a buy-and-hold type of investor, because log-returns cancel out when prices fluctuate, whereas percentage changes in price do not. But the flip-side of this is that your average log-return over a period of time does not give you much information about what the prices have been doing, since it is just (log(final price) - log(initial price))/number of periods. Since it is so easy to calculate from the initial and final prices themselves, you commonly won't see it in the financial pages, as far as I know. Finally, to answer your question: \"\"Does knowing this single piece of information indicate something about the stock?\"\", I would say: not really. From the point of view of this one indicator, Pitchfork Oil and United Marshmallow look like identical investments, when they are clearly not. Knowing the average log-return is exactly the same as knowing the ratio between the final and initial prices.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1423a5b34e0ba05d007a623a2b02f8ec",
"text": "To calculate you take the Price and divide it by the Earnings, or by the Sales, or by the Free Cash Flow. Most of these calculations are done for you on a lot of finance sites if the data is available. Such sites as Yahoo Finance and Google Finance as well as my personal favorite: Morningstar",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1d7dd3d16b1dbe15092156bd866d1eef",
"text": "Right, that's my understanding of the problem too. I tried some of the indices last night (not necessarily the ones you are suggesting), but when pulling them into COMP it only provided the price return, not the total return including coupons. This latter part is still the challenge.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0e1634b86dc0379488255eb75820baf2",
"text": "\"I recently needed to compute a better balance that let us pick and choose what to include in the computed sum without losing information, so I revisited this topic and I'm pleased to say that I've found a solution that works (at least for our data - you may have transactions that this code doesn't recognize, but you can always modify it to match). My solution was written natively for MS SQL Server 2008 or later, it uses a scalar UDF, a VIEW, and a windowed aggregate (SUM OVER (ORDER BY ...) which means it should be almost-syntax compatible with PostgreSQL. MySQL does not support OVER but you can perform a running-sum using a variable with arithmetic addition directly in the SELECT clause. Create a database table with this schema (feel free to exclude columns you're not interested in, such as Option1Name): Create a UNIQUE index on TxnId - you could use it as a primary-key, I suppose. You might be tempted to create a Foreign-Key relationship between ReferenceTxnId and TxnId, however this will fail if you enforce it: we have many transactions where ReferenceTxnId points to a Transaction that doesn't exist. This is usually in the case of [Type] = 'Web Accept Payment Received' AND [Status] = 'Canceled'. We also have some TransactionId values longer than 17 characters: some TransactionIds start with \"\"U-\"\" - all pending money requests, I suspect this indicates the transaction is \"\"unfinished\"\". Re-download your entire PayPal History CSV files so that you have the latest retroactive updates. Import these CSV files into this PayPalHistory table. Do a simple test to see how bad PayPal's default data is: To find out where the differences are coming from, run this query: (The ORDER BY (...), RowId is to ensure consistent ordering when multiple transactions share the same timestamp) As you scroll through the results, you'll see how the naive SUM is thrown-off from the official PayPal-computed Balance column. So as you can see, the Net column value cannot always be trusted - what we need is to generate our own \"\"EffectiveNet\"\" value which is accurate - that is, the value is 0.00 for rows which do not affect the balance, instead of being what they are right now. The problem is, given a single row of data (such as any single row from the example table in my original Question) we have no way of inherently knowing what its \"\"EffectiveNet\"\" is. I have devised two functions to help solve this problem, the first function only looks at the ReferenceTxnId, Type and Status column values and generates accurate values for the vast majority of rows - indeed, in our dataset we only had one row for which this approach did not work. I recommend you try this one first and compare the running-sum value to ensure it works for your data: You can use this function in the query like so below, hopefully it should give you an accurate running-sum and balance figure at the end: 8. And here's the view that ties it all together: Used like so: I hope this helps anyone else wanting to do accurate bookkeeping with PayPal Transaction History files!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9921d8af2769d3036fad6452634e8cfe",
"text": "With near zero marginal cost, and infinite supply, your prices are going to be decided by entry cost, competition, and what the market will bear. Generally speaking, though, there are no accurate models for getting these kinds of optimal prices in advance - your best bet is to test, experiment, and then build a business and market specific model based on what you observe. Look at the Steam network, as an example. They are in the business of selling 0 marginal cost software (games), in a market with a significant but quickly decreasing entry cost, and with solid competition. Despite being around for years in a mature market, they're still discovering unexpected optimal price points when testing how their customers behave.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ac305c586c01762a2f7fedcdf4e4420e",
"text": "You can use Google Finance Stock Screener for screening US stocks. Apparently it doesn't have the specific criterion (Last Price % diff from 52 week low) you are (were!) looking for. I believe using its api you can get it, although it won't exactly be a very direct solution.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7e5b4f091f7a0e9f2328d42e944873bc",
"text": "I don't believe you would be able to with only Net Sales and COGS. Are you talking about trying to estimate them? Because then I could probably come up with an idea based on industry averages, etc. I think you would need to know the average days outstanding, inventory turnover and the terms they're getting from their vendors to calculate actuals. There may be other ways to solve the problem you're asking but thats my thoughts on it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cccddce7245c2fc6e6ab69142941c94c",
"text": "\"You have actually asked several questions, so I think what I'll do is give you an intuition about risk-neutral pricing to get you started. Then I think the answer to many of your questions will become clear. Physical Probability There is some probability of every event out there actually occurring, including the price of a stock going up. That's what we call the physical probability. It's very intuitive, but not directly useful for finding the price of something because price is not the weighted average of future outcomes. For example, if you have a stock that is highly correlated with the market and has 50% chance of being worth $20 dollars tomorrow and a 50% chance of being worth $10, it's value today is not $15. It will be worth less, because it's a risky stock and must earn a premium. When you are dealing with physical probabilities, if you want to compute value you have to take the probability-weighted average of all the prices it could have tomorrow and then add in some kind of compensation for risk, which may be hard to compute. Risk-Neutral Probability Finance theory has shown that instead of computing values this way, we can embed risk-compensation into our probabilities. That is, we can create a new set up \"\"probabilities\"\" by adjusting the probability of good market outcomes downward and increasing the probability of bad market outcomes. This may sound crazy because these probabilities are no longer physical, but it has the desirable property that we then use this set of probabilities to price of every asset out there: all of them (equity, options, bonds, savings accounts, etc.). We call these adjusted probabilities that risk-neutral probabilities. When I say price I mean that you can multiply every outcome by its risk-neutral probability and discount at the risk-free rate to find its correct price. To be clear, we have changed the probability of the market going up and down, not our probability of a particular stock moving independent of the market. Because moves that are independent of the market do not affect prices, we don't have to adjust the probabilities of them happening in order to get risk-neutral probabilities. Anyway, the best way to think of risk-neutral probabilities is as a set of bogus probabilities that consistently give the correct price of every asset in the economy without having to add a risk premium. If we just take the risk-neutral probability-weighted average of all outcomes and discount at the risk-free rate, we get the price. Very handy if you have them. Risk-Neutral Pricing We can't get risk-neutral probabilities from research about how likely a stock is to actually go up or down. That would be the physical probability. Instead, we can figure out the risk-neutral probabilities from prices. If a stock has only two possible prices tomorrow, U and D, and the risk-neutral probability of U is q, then Price = [ Uq + D(1-q) ] / e^(rt) The exponential there is just discounting by the risk-free rate. This is the beginning of the equations you have mentioned. The main thing to remember is that q is not the physical probability, it's the risk-neutral one. I can't emphasize that enough. If you have prespecified what U and D can be, then there is only one unknown in that equation: q. That means you can look at the stock price and solve for the risk neutral probability of the stock going up. The reason this is useful is that you can same risk-neutral probability to price the associated option. In the case of the option you don't know its price today (yet) but you do know how much money it will be worth if the stock moves up or down. Use those values and the risk-neutral probability you computed from the stock to compute the option's price. That's what's going on here. To remember: the same risk-neutral probability measure prices everything out there. That is, if you choose an asset, multiply each possibly outcome by its risk-neutral probability, and discount at the risk-free rate, you get its price. In general we use prices of things we know to infer things about the risk-neutral probability measure in order to get prices we do not know.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cce3a29cfc98b1f105ad4f548111501d",
"text": "\"You answered your own question \"\"whether someone buys is a different thing\"\". You can ask any price that you want. (Or given an electronic brokerage, you can enter the highest value that the system was designed to accept.) The market (demand) will determine whether anyone will buy at the price you are asking. A better strategy if you want to make an unreasonable amount of money is to put in a buy order at an unreasonably low price and hope a glitch causes a flash crash and allows you to purchase at that price. There may be rules that unravel your purchase after the fact, but it has a better chance of succeeding than trying to sell at an unreasonably high price.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0b2b5a994cca7939cf4143da8b2514a0",
"text": "\"I had both closing price and adjusted price of Apple showing the same amount after \"\"download data\"\" csv file was opened in excel. https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/AAPL/history?period1=1463599361&period2=1495135361&interval=div%7Csplit&filter=split&frequency=1d Its frustrating. My last option was to get the dividends history of the stock and add back to the adjusted price to compute the total return for a select stock for the period.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
54b970adb33ca98d26bd1f291c962172
|
Can one use dollar cost averaging to make money with something highly volatile?
|
[
{
"docid": "8d3c46645af4eaa9727fc0784df921fd",
"text": "As you mentioned in the title, what you're asking about comes down to volatility. DCA when purchasing stock is one way of dealing with volatility, but it's only profitable if the financial instrument can be sold higher than your sunk costs. Issues to be concerned with: Let's suppose you're buying a stock listed on the NYSE called FOO (this is a completely fake example). Over the last six days, the average value of this stock was exactly $1.00Note 1. Over six trading days you put $100 per day into this stockNote 2: At market close on January 11th, you have 616 shares of FOO. You paid $596.29 for it, so your average cost (before fees) is: $596.29 / 616 = $0.97 per share Let's look at this including your trading fees: ($596.29 + $30) / 616 = $1.01 per share. When the market opens on January 12th, the quote on FOO could be anything. Patents, customer wins, wars, politics, lawsuits, press coverage, etc... could cause the value of FOO to fluctuate. So, let's just roll with the assumption that past performance is consistent: Selling FOO at $0.80 nets: (616 * $0.80 - $5) - ($596.29 + $30) = $123.49 Loss Selling FOO at $1.20 nets: (616 * $1.20 - $5) - ($596.29 + $30) = $107.90 Profit Every day that you keep trading FOO, those numbers get bigger (assuming FOO is a constant value). Also remember, even if FOO never changes its average value and volatility, your recoverable profits shrink with each transaction because you pay $5 in fees for every one. Speaking from experience, it is very easy to paper trade. It is a lot harder when you're looking at the ticker all day when FOO has been $0.80 - $0.90 for the past four days (and you're $300 under water on a $1000 portfolio). Now your mind starts playing nasty games with you. If you decide to try this, let me give you some free advice: Unless you have some research (such as support / resistance information) or data on why FOO is a good buy at this price, let's be honest: you're gambling with DCA, not trading. END NOTES:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0c90a362a5ab130931027c1124414375",
"text": "if you know when and by how much something will fluctuate, you can always make money. Buy it when it's cheaper and sell it when it's more expensive. If you just know that it fluctuated a lot recently, then you don't know what it will do next. Most securities that go to zero or go much higher bounce all over the place for a while first. But you don't know when they'll move decisively lower or higher. So how could you figure out if you'll make money - you can't know. DCA will on average make you better off, unless the extra commissions are too high relative to your purchase sizes. But it will in retrospect make you worse off in many particular cases. This is true of many investment disciplines, such as rebalancing. They are all based on averages. If the volatility is random then on average you can buy more shares when the price is lower using DCA. But when the lowest price turns out to have been on a certain day, you'd have been better off with a single lump sum put in on that day. No way to know in advance. Degree of volatility shouldn't matter; any fluctuation is enough for DCA or rebalancing to get you ahead, though it's true they get you ahead farther if the fluctuations are larger, since there's then more difference between DCA and a lump purchase. I think the real reason to do DCA and rebalancing is risk control. They reduce the risk of putting a whole lump sum in on exactly the wrong day. And they can help keep a portfolio growing even if the market is stagnant.",
"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": "90a0d7e413f92d7ff344b6cf2db64f1f",
"text": "Dollar cost averaging is beneficial if you don't have the money to make large investments but are able to add to your holding over time. If you can buy the same monetary amount at regular intervals over time, your average cost per share will be lower than the stock's average value over that time. This won't necessarily get you the best price, but it will get you, on the whole, a good price and will enable you to increase your holdings over time. If you're doing frequent trading on a highly volatile stock, you don't want to use this method. A better strategy is to buy the dips: Know the range, and place limit orders toward the bottom of the range. Then place limit orders to sell toward the high end of the range. If you do it right, you might be able to build up enough money to buy and sell increasing numbers of shares over time. But like any frequent trader, you'll have to deal with transaction fees; you'll need to be sure the fees don't eat all your profit.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "6a54e644b5544df0d9b26eb811dd81af",
"text": "You can't tell for sure. If there was such a technique then everyone would use it and the price would instantly change to reflect the future price value. However, trade volume does say something. If you have a lemonade stand and offer a large glass of ice cold lemonade for 1c on a hot summer day I'm pretty sure you'll have high trading volume. If you offer it for $5000 the trading volume is going to be around zero. Since the supply of lemonade is presumably limited at some point dropping the price further isn't going to increase the number of transactions. Trade volumes reflect to some degree the difference of valuations between buyers and sellers and the supply and demand. It's another piece of information that you can try looking at and interpreting. If you can be more successful at this than the majority of others on the market (not very likely) you may get a small edge. I'm willing to bet that high frequency trading algorithms factor volume into their trading decisions among multiple other factors.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eca7b08aae740dccd9c59d0ec0679496",
"text": "Canadian Couch Potato has an article which is somewhat related. Ask the Spud: Can You Time the Markets? The argument roughly boils down to the following: That said, I didn't follow the advice. I inherited a sum of money, more than I had dealt with before, and I did not feel I was emotionally capable of immediately dumping it into my portfolio (Canadian stocks, US stocks, world stocks, Canadian bonds, all passive indexed mutual funds), and so I decided to add the money into my portfolio over the course of a year, twice a month. The money that I had not yet invested, I put into a money market account. That worked for me because I was purchasing mutual funds with no transaction costs. If you are buying ETFs, this strategy makes less sense. In hindsight, this was not financially prudent; I'd have been financially better off to buy all the mutual funds right at the beginning. But I was satisfied with the tradeoff, knowing that I did not have hindsight and I would have been emotionally hurt had the stock market crashed. There must be research that would prove, based on past performance, the statistically optimal time frame for dollar-cost averaging. However, I strongly suppose that the time frame is rather small, and so I would advise that you either invest the money immediately, or dollar-cost average your investment over the course of the year. This answer is not an ideal answer to your question because it is lacking such a citation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "818f4cb44f509dfe75279353ce92a310",
"text": "In general, lump sum investing will tend to outperform dollar cost averaging because markets tend to increase in value, so investing more money earlier will generally be a better strategy. The advantage of dollar cost averaging is that it protects you in times when markets are overvalued, or prior to market corrections. As an extreme example, if you done a lump-sum investment in late 2008 and then suffered through the subsequent market crash, it may have taken you 2-3 years to get back to even. If you began a dollar cost averaging investment plan in late 2008, it may have only taken you a 6 months to get back to even. Dollar cost averaging can also help to reduce the urge to time the market, which for most investors is definitely a good thing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "64e8a098d6ef3e03a3f2c464e91a5ec2",
"text": "As you point out, the moving average is just MA(k)t = (Pt-1 + … + Pt-k )/k and is applied in technical analysis (TA) to smooth out volatile (noise) price action. If it has any logic to it, you might want to think in terms of return series (Pt - Pt-1 / Pt-1) and you could hypothesize that prices are in fact predictable and will oscillate below and above a running moving average. Below is a link to a study on MA trading rules, published in the Journal of Finance, with the conclusion of predictive power and abnormal returns from such strategies. As with any decision made upon historical arguments, one should be aware of structural changes and or data mining. Simple technical trading rules and the stochastic properties of stock returns Brock, W., J. Lakonishok and B. Le Baron, 1992, Simple technical trading rules and the stochastic properties of stock returns, Journal of Finance, 47, 1731-64. MA rules betterthan chance in US stock market, 1897-1986 I don't know whether you are new to TA or not, but a great commercial site, with plenty of computer-generated signals is FinViz.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4b6da6db0482f0c3ee1f3176632c122c",
"text": "I frequently do this on NADEX, selling out-of-the-money binary calls. NADEX is highly illiquid, and the bid/ask is almost always from the market maker. Out-of-the-money binary calls lose value quickly (NADEX daily options exist for only ~21 hours). If I place an above-ask order, it either gets filled quickly (within a few minutes) due to a spike in the underlying, or not at all. I compensate by changing my price hourly. As Joe notes, one of Black-Scholes inputs is volatility, but price determines (implied) volatility, so this is circular. In other words, you can treat the bid/ask prices as bid/ask volatilities. This isn't as far-fetched as it seems: http://www.cmegroup.com/trading/fx/volatility-quoting-fx-options.html",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "1979822d496d842ae8f290bf237f6c14",
"text": "Depends on your time scale, but generally, I don't think it would work. What you'd really be betting on in this case is mean-reversal, which does not hold true in the equity universe (atleast not in the long run). If you look at the historical prices of the S&P, you'll notice it increases in terms of absolute dollar value. On the short term, however, if you feel the market has significantly undervalued or overvalued a security, then mean-reversal might be a reasonable bet to make. In that scenario, however, it seems to me that you are really looking for a volatility trade, in which case you might want to consider a straddle position using options. Here, the bet you'd be making is that the price at expiration will be inside a certain band (or outside the band, depending on your position).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ce6d317e89ec1170e735acd3e5886923",
"text": "\"Personally, I think you are approaching this from the wrong angle. You're somewhat correct in assuming that what you're reading is usually some kind of marketing material. Systematic Investment Plan (SIP) is not a universal piece of jargon in the financial world. Dollar cost averaging is a pretty universal piece of jargon in the financial world and is a common topic taught in finance classes in the US. On average, verified by many studies, individuals will generate better investment returns when they proactively avoid timing the market or attempting to pick specific winners. Say you decide to invest in a mutual fund, dollar cost averaging means you invest the same dollar amount in consistent intervals rather than buying a number of shares or buying sporadically when you feel the market is low. As an example I'll compare investing $50 per week on Wednesdays, versus 1 share per week on Wednesdays, or the full $850 on the first Wednesday. I'll use the Vanguard Large cap fund as an example (VLCAX). I realize this is not really an apples to apples comparison as the invested amounts are different, I just wanted to show how your rate of return can change depending on how your money goes in to the market even if the difference is subtle. By investing a common dollar amount rather than a common share amount you ultimately maintain a lower average share price while the share price climbs. It also keeps your investment easy to budget. Vanguard published an excellent paper discussing dollar cost averaging versus lump sum investing which concluded that you should invest as soon as you have funds, rather than parsing out a lump sum in to smaller periodic investments, which is illustrated in the third column above; and obviously worked out well as the market has been increasing. Ultimately, all of these companies are vying to customers so they all have marketing teams trying to figure out how to make their services sound interesting and unique. If they all called dollar cost averaging, \"\"dollar cost averaging\"\" none of them would appear to be unique. So they devise neat acronyms but it's all pretty much the same idea. Trickle your money in to your investments as the money becomes available to you.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cb4539d14a460c05bbedaebb6a7be667",
"text": "Trying to engage in arbitrage with the metal in nickels (which was actually worth more than a nickel already, last I checked) is cute but illegal, and would be more effective at an industrial scale anyway (I don't think you could make it cost-effective at an individual level). There are more effective inflation hedges than nickels and booze. Some of them even earn you interest. You could at least consider a more traditional commodities play - it's certainly a popular strategy these days. A lot of people shoot for gold, as it's a traditional hedge in a crisis, but there are concerns that particular market is overheated, so you might consider alternatives to that. Normal equities (i.e. the stock market) usually work out okay in an inflationary environment, and can earn you a return as they're doing so.... and it's not like commodities aren't volatile and subject to the whims of the world economy too. TIPs (inflation-indexed Treasury bonds) are another option with less risk, but also a weaker return (and still have interest rate risks involved, since those aren't directly tied to inflation either).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e54108f7f6de29e4d2c3706195a8385d",
"text": "Dollar Cost Averaging isn't usually the best idea for lump sum investment unless your risk tolerance is very low or your time horizons are low (in which case is the stock market the right place for your money). Usually you will do better by investing immediately. There are lots of articles around on the web about why DCA doesn't work over the long term. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollar_cost_averaging http://www.efmoody.com/planning/dollarcost.html",
"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": "473172c8942be1448d8003049b914273",
"text": "short answer: no, not to my knowledge long answer: why do you want to do that? crypto are very volatile and, in my opinion, if you are looking for a speculative exercise, you are better off seeking to understand basic technical analysis and trading stocks based on that",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "734dc1eac022f461a30d9161d3e9296a",
"text": "If you want to make money while European equities markets are crashing and the Euro itself is devaluing: None of these strategies are to be taken lightly. All involve risk. There are probably numerous ways that you can lose even though it seems like you should win. Transaction fees could eat your profits, especially if you have only a small amount of capital to invest with. The worst part is that they all involve timing. If you think the crash is coming next week, you could, say, buy a bunch of puts. But if the crash doesn't come for another 6 months, all of your puts are going to expire worthless and you've lost all of your capital. Even worse, if you sell short an index ETF this week in advance of next week's impending crash, and some rescue package arrives over the weekend, equity prices could spike at the beginning of the week and you'd be screwed.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c118a4ace670bb12c117ca5b19e52340",
"text": "Here is a deliberately simple example of Dollar Cost averaging: Day 1: Buy 100 shares at $10. Total value = $1,000. Average cost per share = $10.00/share (easy). Day 2: Buy 100 more shares at $9. Total value = $1,900. Average cost per share = $9.50/share (1,900/200). Notice how your average cost per share went from $10.00 to $9.50. Now instead of hoping the stock rises above $10.00 a share to make a profit, you only need it to go to $9.50 a share (assuming no commissions or transaction fees). It's easy to see how this could work to your advantage. The only catch is that you need buy more of a stock that is dropping (people might think you're crazy). This could easily backfire if the stock continues to drop.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "11c296332c95a014ec99e1c7587390cc",
"text": "I've worked at a bank, and even the best prop traders have low Sharpe ratios and large swings. I would advise that the average person without access to flow information does not a chance, and will end up losing eventually.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
bd98815cb85dc5d544fc5bbe370b525c
|
Does Technical Analysis work or is it just a pointless attempt to “time the market”?
|
[
{
"docid": "98c511623d1fdfd6d509115f9d468932",
"text": "Technical Analysis in general is something to be cognizant of, I don't use a majority of studies and consider them a waste of time. I also use quantitative analysis more so than technical analysis, and prefer the insight it gives into the market. The markets are more about predicting other people's behavior, psychology. So if you are trading an equity that you know retail traders love, retail traders use technical analysis and you can use their fabled channel reversals and support levels against them, as examples. Technical analysis is an extremely broad subject. So I suggest getting familiar, but if your historical pricing charts are covered in various studies, I would say you are doing it wrong. A more objective criticism of technical analysis is that many of the studies were created in the 1980s or earlier. Edges in the market do not typically last more than a few weeks. On the other side of that realization, some technical analysis works if everyone also thinks it will work, if everyone's charts say buy when the stock reaches the $90 price level and everyone does, the then stock will go higher. But the market makers and the actions of the futures markets and the actions of options traders, can undermine the collective decisions of retail traders using technical analysis.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "06b62c09e55c622ec61569b475874023",
"text": "The study of technical analysis is generally used (sometimes successfully) to time the markets. There are many aspects to technical analysis, but the simplest form is to look for uptrends and downtrends in the charts. Generally higher highs and higher lows is considered an uptrend. And lower lows and lower highs is considered a downtrend. A trend follower would go with the trend, for example see a dip to the trend-line and buy on the rebound. A simple strategy for this is shown in the chart below: I would be buying this stock when the price hits or gets very close to the trendline and then it bounces back above it. I would then have sold this stock once it has broken through below the trendline. This may also be an appropriate time if you were looking to short this stock. Other indicators could also be used in combination for additional confirmation of what is happening to the price. Another type of trader is called a bottom fisher. A bottom fisher would wait until a break above the downtrend line (second chart) and buy after confirmation of a higher high and possibly a higher low (as this could be the start of a new uptrend). There are many more strategies dealing with the study of technical analysis, and if you are interested you would need to find and learn about ones that suit your investment styles, whether you prefer short term trading or longer term investing, and your appetite for risk. You can develop strategies using various indicators and then paper trade or backtest these strategies. You can also manually backtest a strategy in most charting packages. You can go back in time on the chart so that the right side of the chart shows a date in the past (say one year ago or 10 years ago), then you can click forward one day at a time (or one week at a time if using weekly charts). With your indicators on the chart you can do virtual trades to buy or sell whenever a signal is given as you move forward in time. This way you may be able to check years of data in a day to see if your strategy works. Whatever you do, you need to document your strategies in writing in a written trading or investment plan together with a risk management strategy. You should always follow the rules in your written plan to avoid you making decisions based on emotions. By backtesting or paper trading your strategies it will give you confidence that they will work over the long term. There is a lot of work involved at the start, but once you have developed a documented strategy that has been thoroughly backtested, it will take you minimal time to successfully manage your investments. In my shorter term trading (positions held from a couple of days to a few weeks) I spend about half an hour per night to manage my trades and am up about 50% over the last 7 months. For my longer term investing (positions held from months to years) I spend about an hour per week and have been averaging over 25% over the last 4 years. Technical Analysis does work for those who have a documented plan, have approached it in a systematic way and use risk management to protect their existing and future capital. Most people who say that is doesn't work either have not used it themselves or have used it ad-hock without putting in the initial time and work to develop a documented and systematic approach to their trading or investing.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "a3c1598e7c8cc2ad85bf254e80449f30",
"text": "\"There are stocks that have held 100% of the exact same trend (bull or bear) on a date or date range for years. While history of course doesn't guarantee that the trend will hold for the current year, that fact itself is distinct from the question of whether history is an *indicator* worth building a thesis off of. The problem is if and when someone thinks \"\"indicator\"\" is equivalent to \"\"definitive answer\"\". Answer 2: A dozen big algo traders have disproven this notion. Answer 3: Price is not only price action itself. It's calendar, evens, binaries, cyclical psychology, etc.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "385dd431401de090763fb936ba01cea4",
"text": "The 'standard' in such moving average crossover systems is 50/200. The numbers are essentially arbitrary as long as the long term average is greater than the short term and there is some different between the averages in terms of the smoothing they provide (i.e. comparing a 74 day MA to a 75 day MA isn't what the system is intended for) There are plenty of software programs that will let you run through many possible values for the system over historical data. I concur with the other answers in that this system/indicator alone isn't very good. However, I disagree with their blanket brushing off of technical analysis. There are many successful traders out there. The moving average cross over system is perhaps the second most primitive example of technical strategies categorized as trend following systems (buying new recent highs and selling new recent lows being the most simple). This particular system isn't very powerful because of its poor use of simple moving averages. A simple moving average is intended to smooth out data, but smoothing comes at the cost of lagging from the present. A simple moving average essentially gives you an idealized smoothing of price action for the day at that is one half of their period ago. So your 200 day simple moving average shows you an idealized smoothing of price action 100 days ago. A lot can happen in 100 days and that is why this system is far from ideal.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8d62775b79b4fdda675c738fcc1a3ab2",
"text": "\"Assuming that you accept the premise that technical analysis is legitimate and useful, it makes sense that it might not work for a small market, or at the very least that it wouldn't be the same for a small market as it is for a large market. The reason for this is that a large stock market like the U.S. stock market is as close to a perfect market as you will find: Compare this to a small market in a small country. Market information is harder to get, because there are not as many media outlets covering the news. There aren't as many participants. And possibly it might be more expensive to participate in, and there might be more regulatory intervention than with the large market. All of these things can affect the prices. The closer you get to a perfect market, the closer you get to a point where the prices of the stocks reflect the \"\"true value\"\" of the companies, without external forces affecting prices.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f23e3365d2baf8d026f99b1755e53154",
"text": "\"Trying to \"\"time the market\"\" is usually a bad idea. People who do this every day for a living have a hard time doing that, and I'm guessing you don't have that kind of time and knowledge. So that leaves you with your first and third options, commonly called lump-sum and dollar cost averaging respectively. Which one to use depends on where your preferences lie on the risk/reward scpectrum. Dollar cost averaging (DCA) has lower risk and lower reward than lump sum investing. In my opinion, I don't like it. DCA only works better than lump sum investing if the price drops. But if you think the price is going to drop, why are you buying the stock in the first place? Example: Your uncle wins the lottery and gives you $50,000. Do you buy $50,000 worth of Apple now, or do you buy $10,000 now and $10,000 a quarter for the next four quarters? If the stock goes up, you will make more with lump-sum(LS) than you will with DCA. If the stock goes down, you will lose more with LS than you will with DCA. If the stock goes up then down, you will lose more with DCA than you will with LS. If the stock goes down then up, you will make more with DCA than you will with LS. So it's a trade-off. But, like I said, the whole point of you buying the stock is that you think it's going to go up, which is especially true with an index fund! So why pick the strategy that performs worse in that scenario?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "08d5925d71bac21221c3b6a39b518ede",
"text": "There is a difference between trading which is short term focussed and investing which is longterm focussed. On the long term what drives stock prices is still the overall economy and the performance of the underlying business aspects. I do not think that any trading algorithms will change this. These are more concerned with short term profits regardless of the underlying business economics. Therefore I think that longterm investing using index funds is still a viable strategy for most private investors.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "1fb411351d2d02445cefa0bd1b6cc91a",
"text": "Technical analysis is based more on psychology than anything else. As an example, if an analyst estimates or believes that a stock is undervalued, or simply wants to re-balance their portfolio, then they will buy some amount, moving the price up. Others in the market see the upwards move as the start of an upwards trend, an indication that the stock is undervalued or perhaps even that an insider is trading ahead of better than expected data from the firm. They then buy the stock creating a self-fulfilling prophecy and pulling more traders in as they see an upward trend being confirmed. This is even more pronounced in a bear market as fear is an even stronger driver. When a trader sees a stock is falling they are more likely to jump to the conclusion that it is due to expected poor performance of the firm and that the firm and the economy are both in trouble and going down than to think that it is simply a retrenching or a large investor re-balancing etc. To quote Credit Suisse [1] A chart is a mirror of the mood of the crowd and not of the fundamental factors. Thus, technical analysis is the analysis of human mass psychology. Therefore, it is also called behavioral finance. The underlying truth that makes technical analysis work is that people are predictably irrational, at least in the short run and tend to follow the same patterns of thought. references: [1] https://www.credit-suisse.com/pwp/pb/pb_research/technical_tutorial_de.pdf [2] http://www.amazon.com/The-Psychology-Technical-Analysis-Profiting/dp/1557385432 [3] CFA level 1 syllabus",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6a54e644b5544df0d9b26eb811dd81af",
"text": "You can't tell for sure. If there was such a technique then everyone would use it and the price would instantly change to reflect the future price value. However, trade volume does say something. If you have a lemonade stand and offer a large glass of ice cold lemonade for 1c on a hot summer day I'm pretty sure you'll have high trading volume. If you offer it for $5000 the trading volume is going to be around zero. Since the supply of lemonade is presumably limited at some point dropping the price further isn't going to increase the number of transactions. Trade volumes reflect to some degree the difference of valuations between buyers and sellers and the supply and demand. It's another piece of information that you can try looking at and interpreting. If you can be more successful at this than the majority of others on the market (not very likely) you may get a small edge. I'm willing to bet that high frequency trading algorithms factor volume into their trading decisions among multiple other factors.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b1e6e328ddefd77d0000e46e8212a7af",
"text": "To answer your original question: There is proof out there. Here is a paper from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis that might be worth a read. It has a lot of references to other publications that might help answer your question(s) about TA. You can probably read the whole article then research some of the other ones listed there to come up with a conclusion. Below are some excerpts: Abstract: This article introduces the subject of technical analysis in the foreign exchange market, with emphasis on its importance for questions of market efficiency. “Technicians” view their craft, the study of price patterns, as exploiting traders’ psychological regularities. The literature on technical analysis has established that simple technical trading rules on dollar exchange rates provided 15 years of positive, risk-adjusted returns during the 1970s and 80s before those returns were extinguished. More recently, more complex and less studied rules have produced more modest returns for a similar length of time. Conventional explanations that rely on risk adjustment and/or central bank intervention do not plausibly justify the observed excess returns from following simple technical trading rules. Psychological biases, however, could contribute to the profitability of these rules. We view the observed pattern of excess returns to technical trading rules as being consistent with an adaptive markets view of the world. and The widespread use of technical analysis in foreign exchange (and other) markets is puzzling because it implies that either traders are irrationally making decisions on useless information or that past prices contain useful information for trading. The latter possibility would contradict the “efficient markets hypothesis,” which holds that no trading strategy should be able to generate unusual profits on publicly available information—such as past prices—except by bearing unusual risk. And the observed level of risk-adjusted profitability measures market (in)efficiency. Therefore much research effort has been directed toward determining whether technical analysis is indeed profitable or not. One of the earliest studies, by Fama and Blume (1966), found no evidence that a particular class of TTRs could earn abnormal profits in the stock market. However, more recent research by Brock, Lakonishok and LeBaron (1992) and Sullivan, Timmermann an d White (1999) has provided contrary evidence. And many studies of the foreign exchange market have found evidence that TTRs can generate persistent profits (Poole 6 (1967), Dooley and Shafer (1984), Sweeney (1986), Levich and Thomas (1993), Neely, Weller and Dittmar (1997), Gençay (1999), Lee, Gleason and Mathur (2001) and Martin (2001)).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "27c4e69d2f392f68687ad026b2b9ae91",
"text": "The stock market's principal justification is matching investors with investment opportunities. That's only reasonably feasible with long-term investments. High frequency traders are not interested in investments, they are interested in buying cheap and selling expensive. Holding reasonably robust shares for longer binds their capital which is one reason the faster-paced business of dealing with options is popular instead. So their main manner of operation is leeching off actually occuring investments by letting the investors pay more than the recipients of the investments receive. By now, the majority of stock market business is indirect and tries guessing where the money goes rather than where the business goes. For one thing, this leads to the stock market's evaluations being largely inflated over the actual underlying committed deals happening. And as the commitment to an investment becomes rare, the market becomes more volatile and instable: it's money running in circles. Fast trading is about running in front of where the money goes, anticipating the market. But if there is no actual market to anticipate, only people running before the imagination of other people running before money, the net payout converges to zero as the ratio of serious actual investments in tangible targets declines. By and large, high frequency trading converges to a Ponzi scheme, and you try being among the winners of such a scheme. But there are a whole lot of people competing here, and essentially the net payoff is close to zero due to the large volumes in circulation as opposed to what ends up in actual tangible investments. It's a completely different game with different rules riding on the original idea of a stock market. So you have to figure out what your money should be doing according to your plans.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "70efccedd8237d35629ae1115d0767f9",
"text": "Your question is a bit odd in that you are mixing long-term fundamental analysis signals which are generally meant to work on longer time frames with medium term trading where these fundamental signals are mostly irrelevant. Generally you would buy-and-hold on a fundamental signal and ride the short-term fluctuations if you believe you have done good analysis. If you would like to trade on the 2-6 month time scale you would need a signal that works on that sort of time scale. Some people believe that technical analysis can give you those kind of signals, but there are many, many, many different technical signals and how you would trade using them is highly dependent on which one you believe works. Some people do mix fundamental and technical signals, but that can be very complicated. Learning a good amount about technical analysis could get you started. I will note, though, that studies of non-professionals continuously show that the more frequently people trade the more on they underperform on average in the long term when compared with people that buy-and-hold. An aside on technical analysis: michael's comment is generally correct though not well explained. Say Bob found a technical signal that works and he believes that a stock that costs $10 dollars should be $11. He buys it and makes money two months later when the rest of the market figures out the right price is $11 and he sells at that price. This works a bunch of times and he now publishes how the signal works on Stack Exchange to show everyone how awesome he is. Next time, Bob's signal finds a different stock at $10 that should be $11, but Anna just wrote a computer program that checks that signal Bob published faster than he ever could. The computer program buys as much as it can in milliseconds until the price is $11. Bob goes to buy, but now it is too late the price is already $11 and he can't make any money. Eventually, people learn to anticipate/adjust for this signal and even Anna's algorithms don't even work anymore and the hunt for new signals starts again.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dabc7412a6bb3aa6b04232e77185d57a",
"text": "\"The June 2014 issue of Barclays Wealth's Compass magazine had a very nice succinct article on this topic: \"\"Value investing – does a rules-based approach work?\"\". It examines the performance of value and growth styles of investment in the MSCI World and S&P500 arenas for a few decades back, and reveals a surprisingly complicated picture, depending on sector, region and time-period. Their summary is basically: A closer look however shows that the overall success of value strategies derives mainly from the 1970s and 1980s. ... in the US, value has underperformed growth for over 25 years since peaking in July 1988. Globally, value experienced a 30% setback in the late 1990s so that there are now periods with a length of nearly 13 years over which growth has outperformed. So the answer to \"\"does it beat the market?\"\" is \"\"it depends...\"\". Update in response to comment below: the question of risk adjusted returns is interesting. To quote another couple of fragments from the piece: Since December 1974, [MSCI world] value has outperformed growth by 2.6% annually, with lower risk. This outperformance on a risk-adjusted basis is the so-called value premium that Eugene Fama and Kenneth French first identified in 1992... and That outperformance has, however, come with more risk. Historical volatility of the pure style indices has been 21-22% compared to 16% for the market. ... From a maximum drawdown perspective, the 69% drop of pure value during the financial crisis exceeded the 51% drop of the overall market.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b5d4816f3537f902bd6f075b31278133",
"text": "Forecasting prices to the level of accuracy they purport is a fool's errand. Sell side analysts are there to get you to buy something, not to make you money. If they truly believed their analysis was significantly better than anyone else's in the market, they would trade on their own analysis. No one ever got rich by following analyst recommendations. Don't believe me? Track the buy/sell recommendations in a spreadsheet for 50+ stocks. I would be shocked if you significantly outperformed the market.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "080f1441ed2449ac0f8b491df7e1a3d0",
"text": "I'm talking about day trading here. Automated day trading never worked for me. But I will also admit I am terrible at automated day trading. I'm sorry if the premise of my post sounds off. I know it sounds like I'm being an idiot by not going the automated route, but it works for me and that's why I'm going to stick with my own techniques. Why change it if it's working?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "02de8f9825832eacaa6ba82514b7b636",
"text": "Nothing is wrong and it should be profitable - but it sounds too good to be true. The devil is in the details and you have not described how you found those stocks. For example, you may have scanned the 500 stocks in the S&P 500, and you may have found a few that exhibit that pattern over a given time window. But it doesn't mean that they will continue to do so. In other words they may just be random outliers. This is generically called overfitting. A more robust test would be to use a period, say 2000-2005 to find those stocks and check over a future period, say 2006-2014 if the strategy you describe is profitable. My guess is that it won't.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
3c161ec8b98f41f9268cfb32df8da66d
|
Why Demat/Stock Market Brokers don't support Credit Card Payin
|
[
{
"docid": "f858b32f420e644bcc515ce8d8da0566",
"text": "\"Most credit cards allow you to take \"\"cash advances\"\", but the fees and limits for cash advances are different than for regular purchases. You can buy stock after taking a cash advance from your credit card. When you make a cash advance, you normally pay the credit card company a fee. When you make a regular purchase, the merchant (ie, the stockbroker) pays a fee. Additionally, credit card companies can make merchants wait up to 3 months to actually receive the money, in case the transaction is disputed. Your stockbroker is unlikely to want to pay the fee, accept the delay in receiving the funds, and risking that you will dispute the transaction. Having said that, many FOREX brokers will accept credit card deposits (treated as purchases), although FOREX can be considerably riskier than the stock market. Of course, if you max out your credit cards and lose all your money, you can normally negotiate to pay back the debt for less than the original amount, especially since it's unsecured debt.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "971fa0f2e0225a6fc471fc34d6c4f1e7",
"text": "I can't speak for all brokerages but the one I use requires cash accounts to have cash available to purchase the stock in this situation. With the cash available you would be able to purchase the stock if the option was exercised. Hope this helps",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c2bdff4dc568acff61d69e43c42f0e50",
"text": "\"Forbes has an article investigating this. Here are the key parts: On line at the bottom of the list of funds there is an entire screen of grey-faded micro print which includes this telling disclosure: TD Ameritrade receives remuneration from certain ETFs (exchange-traded funds) that participate in the commission-free ETF program for shareholder, administrative and/or other services. In other words, TD Ameritrade is now enforcing a pay-to-play for their so-called commission-free exchange-traded funds. They are willing to forego their $6.95 trading commission in favor of remuneration directly from the ETF vendors. Because Vanguard refuses to pay such money to custodians, they are no longer being allowed to play. and Joseph Giannone, a TD Ameritrade spokesman, was quoted as saying, \"\"With any business decision, client needs are paramount, but the underlying economics of programs can’t be ignored. ... In line with industry practices, certain providers pay servicing, administrative or other fees. Vanguard elected not to be a part of the new program.\"\" So basically it sounds like Vanguard, and presumably iShares as well, were unwilling to pay TD Ameritrade to continue offering their ETFs commission-free.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6c5de5165e603a04b0787b43b08c245c",
"text": "In most cases, the brand on the card, eg Visa or MasterCard, is a middleman. The company processes the transaction, transferring $xx from the bank to the seller, and telling the bank to debit the buyer's account. The bank is at risk, not the company transacting the purchase. What's interesting is that American Express started as both. My first Amex card, issued in 1979 (long expired, but in my box of memorabilia) had no bank. American Express offered a card that offered no extended credit, it was pay in full each month. Since then, Amex started offering extended credit, i.e. with annual interest, and minimum payments, and more recently, offering transaction processing for banks which take on the credit risk, essentially becoming very similar to MasterCard and Visa.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "17128da1cfb30687aaaf4b34ddc9b3ce",
"text": "You need 2 things One a Demat Account and second a Broker Account. If you need to trade online, then an agreement [Power of Attorney] between Your Saving Bank Account, the Demat Account and the Trading Account. So there are quite a few forms that need signature and proof of identify. Physical presence is required.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e2c43bf2a8cae781baa20f76e00826ef",
"text": "\"Presumably it means they're paying with normal money rather than paying with stock. Shareholders will receive money rather than any shares of AMZN when the deal goes through. \"\"Cash\"\" doesn't necessarily mean \"\"currency\"\" a la bills and coins. When you have money in your brokerage that isn't tied up in a security, for example, you're holding \"\"cash\"\" even though you don't physically have \"\"currency\"\".\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1a6eca859a7f7153d84029bc32cdfaff",
"text": "There are numerous reasons that go beyond the immediate requirement for access to credit. Many people just plain don't like carrying cash. Before electronic debit cards became mainstream about the only way to pay for online services was with a credit card. This has now changed just about everywhere except a large number of airlines which still only sell online tickets via a credit card payment. And then there are all those countries where governments (and some banks) have decided to charge merchants more when customers use debit cards. If you don't like carrying cash then you may find that the only card you can use is a credit card. These concerns are gradually disappearing and at some stage someone is likely to offer a combined debit-credit card. At which point you'll probably get credit whether you like it or not.",
"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": "b428341dfada0d177ccdf968903c4f66",
"text": "\"Regarding \"\"Interest on idle cash\"\", brokerage firms must maintain a segregated account on the brokerage firm's books to make sure that the client's money and the firm's money is not intermingled, and clients funds are not used for operational purposes. Source. Thus, brokerage firms do not earn interest on cash that is held unused in client accounts. Regarding \"\"Exchanges pay firm for liquidity\"\", I am not aware of any circumstances under which an exchange will pay a brokerage any such fee. In fact, the opposite is the case. Exchanges charge participants to transact business. See : How the NYSE makes money Similarly, market makers do not pay a broker to transact business on their behalf. They charge the broker a commission just like the broker charges their client a commission. Of course, a large broker may also be acting as market maker or deal directly with the exchange, in which case no such commission will be incurred by the broker. In any case, the broker will pay a commission to the clearing house.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e6a5b1a28f9a16f547af83d7f15df226",
"text": "\"Banks often offer cash to people who open savings accounts in order to drive new business. Their gain is pretty much as you think, to grow their asset base. A survey released in 2008 by UK-based Age Concern declared that only 16% of the British population have ever switched their banks‚ while 45% of marriages now end in divorce. Yip, till death do most part. In the US, similar analysis is pointing to a decline in people moving banks from the typical rate of 15% annually. If people are unwilling to change banks then how much more difficult for online brokers to get customers to switch? TD Ameritrade is offering you 30 days commission-free and some cash (0.2% - 0.4% depending on the funds you invest). Most people - especially those who use the opportunity to buy and hold - won't make much money for them, but it only takes a few more aggressive traders for them to gain overall. For financial institutions the question is straightforward: how much must they pay you to overcome your switching cost of changing institutions? If that number is sufficiently smaller than what they feel they can make in profits on having your business then they will pay. EDIT TO ELABORATE: The mechanism by which any financial institution makes money by offering cash to customers is essentially one of the \"\"law of large numbers\"\". If all you did is transfer in, say, $100,000, buy an ETF within the 30-day window (or any of the ongoing commission-free ones) and hold, then sell after a few years, they will probably lose money on you. I imagine they expect that on a large number of people taking advantage of this offer. Credit card companies are no different. More than half of people pay their monthly credit balance without incurring any interest charges. They get 30 days of credit for free. Everyone else makes the company a fortune. TD Ameritrade's fees are quite comprehensive outside of this special offer. Besides transactional commissions, their value-added services include subscription fees, administration fees, transaction fees, a few extra-special value-added services and, then, when you wish to cash out and realise your returns, an outbound transfer fee. However, you're a captured market. Since most people won't change their online brokers any more often than they'd change their bank, TD Ameritrade will be looking to offer you all sorts of new services and take commission on all of it. At most they spend $500-$600 to get you as a customer, or, to get you to transfer a lot more cash into their funds. And they get to keep you for how long? Ten years, maybe more? You think they might be able to sell you a few big-ticket items in the interim? Maybe interest you in some subscription service? This isn't grocery shopping. They can afford to think long-term.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "628d5e85eae78da96540a2a6aab4c2f7",
"text": "I found this page at CNN Money, that lists 5 viable alternatives to Paypal, namely: I would suggest looking for unbiased sources like CNN rather than searching for alternatives and happening upon the merchant's sites themselves. Hope this helps!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ec01e6ad07bd6f63d716dde54886fb4c",
"text": "\"My broker (thinkorswim) offers this from the platform's trade tab. I believe this feature isn't crippled in the PaperMoney version which is effectively a \"\"free online service.\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "19db7d1ea4440024576bf59019233a4a",
"text": "Debit cards do not earn the bank any interest from you whereas credit cards do, so they want to give incentive to use credit over debit.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "769d27c645763928c956ad9de86d019b",
"text": "Prop (proprietary) traders trade using huge amounts of a bank's money (i.e. other people's money) so the reason why they have such low commissions (and they certainly do) is that the firms for which they work negotiate low commissions as the quantities and volumes (as they also trade very frequently) will be high and so the total commission will be very high. There is no such thing as a prop trading account unless you are a big bank with a very large bank roll (tens of millions of USD) so you cannot open one to enjoy those benefits unless you have enough money that you can negotiate your commission with brokers. 25k CAD is definitely not enough money to even start a conversation about those sorts of commissions. note: prop traders are generally banned from trading intraday with their own money by their employers and the law as it is a massive conflict of interests. Those who do and get caught face lengthy prison sentences.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8fa9f7fba80d6902b2465935b6e95795",
"text": "Yes Absolutely! You will need to provide Sharekhan with a cancelled cheque from OBC which has your account number and name on it. They will link that to your DMAT account, and any settlements/dividends paid will directly be deposited into your OBC bank account. Any time you need to deposit money into your DMAT account, you will need to provide Sharekhan with a checque from OBC and they will credit the amount and you can buy anything you like. Cheers.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c2ef4b2ccfc7d4cf242313750d63b89c",
"text": "I learned most of this stuff from 3 textbooks in school probably totaling $900 between the 3. I imagine you don't want to spend the cash on that. I would suggest finding a source online. A lot of the surface level stuff you are looking for can be found online on websites like Investopedia. They are a great resource and are free usually.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
52dc50bc2e4c5e9947b6901897322088
|
Pension or Property: Should I invest in more properties, or in a pension?
|
[
{
"docid": "2a4e0e930b1f26fb5c23824259d67121",
"text": "Diversification is one aspect to this question, and Dr Fred touches on its relationship to risk. Another aspect is leverage: So it again comes down to your appetite for risk. A further factor is that if you are successfully renting out your property, someone else is effectively buying that asset for you, or at least paying the interest on the mortgage. Just bear in mind that if you get into a situation where you have 10 properties and the rent on them all falls at the same time as the property market crashes (sound familiar?) then you can be left on the hook for a lot of interest payments and your assets may not cover your liabilities.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c517ef7ba52c41d23492de2239036a19",
"text": "Investing in property hoping that it will gain value is usually foolish; real estate increases about 3% a year in the long run. Investing in property to rent is labor-intensive; you have to deal with tenants, and also have to take care of repairs. It's essentially getting a second job. I don't know what the word pension implies in Europe; in America, it's an employer-funded retirement plan separate from personally funded retirement. I'd invest in personally funded retirement well before buying real estate to rent, and diversify my money in that retirement plan widely if I was within 10-20 years of retirement.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "865a5ea962ecbf23aa7d29e646c44738",
"text": "\"I think the real answer to your question here is diversification. You have some fear of having your money in the market, and rightfully so, having all your money in one stock, or even one type of mutual fund is risky as all get out, and you could lose a lot of your money in such a stock-market based undiversified investment. However, the same logic works in your rental property. If you lose your tennant, and are unable to find a new one right away, or if you have some very rare problem that insurance doesn't cover, your property could become very much not a \"\"break even\"\" investment very quickly. In reality, there isn't any single investment you can make that has no risk. Your assets need to be balanced between many different market-investments, that includes bonds, US stocks, European stocks, cash, etc. Also investing in mutual funds instead of individual stocks greatly reduces your risk. Another thing to consider is the benefits of paying down debt. While investments have a risk of not performing, if you pay off a loan with interest payments, you definitely will save the money you would have paid in interest. To be specific, I'd recommend the following plan -\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "47cea5f4c2bd6ef611d52e55975e7338",
"text": "I have done something similar to this myself. What you are suggesting is a sound theory and it works. The issues are (which is why it's the reason not everyone does it) : The initial cost is great, many people in their 20s or 30s cannot afford their own home, let alone buy second properties. The time to build up a portfolio is very long term and is best for a pension investment. it's often not best for diversification - you've heard not putting all your eggs in one basket? With property deposits, you need to put a lot of eggs in to make it work and this can leave you vulnerable. there can be lots of work involved. Renovating is a huge pain and cost and you've already mentioned tennants not paying! unlike a bank account or bonds/shares etc. You cannot get to your savings/investments quickly if you need to (or find an opportunity) But after considering these and deciding the plunge is worth it, I would say go for it, be a good landlord, with good quality property and you'll have a great nest egg. If you try just one and see how it goes, with population increase, in a safe (respectable) location, the value of the investment should continue to rise (which it doesn't in a bank) and you can expect a 5%+ rental return (very hard to find in cash account!) Hope it goes well!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2cd11f8d10fca96e0b515190f11ccc66",
"text": "I wouldn't go into a stock market related investment if you plan on buying a house in 4-5 years, you really need to tie money up in stocks for 10 years plus to be confident of a good return. Of course, you might do well in stocks over 4-5 years but historically it's unlikely. I'd look for a safe place to save some money for the deposit, the more deposit you can get the better as this will lower your loan to valuation (LTV) and therefore you may find you get a better interest rate for your mortgage. Regards the pension, are you paying the maximum you can into the company scheme? If not then top that up as much as you can, company schemes tend to be good as they have low charges, but check the documentation about that and make sure that is the case. Failing that stakeholder pension schemes can also have very low charges, have a look at what's available.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "786ec22cacdc9b9bb03b1d5b85bd57a0",
"text": "Invest in kids, not pension - they never inflate. Without kids your retirement will be miserable anyway. And with them you'll be good. Personally, I do not believe that that our current savings will be worth it in 30 years in these times.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "81f9e0cdef3a0e82ca2d085a310182fb",
"text": "The below assessment is for primary residences as opposed to income properties. The truth is that with the exception of a housing bubble, the value of a house might outpace inflation by one or two percent. According to the US Census, the price of a new home per square foot only went up 4.42% between 1963 and 2008, where as inflation was 4.4%. Since home sizes increased, the price of a new home overall outpaced inflation by 1% at 5.4% (source). According to Case-Shiller, inflation adjusted prices increased a measly .4% from 1890-2004 (see graph here). On the other hand your down payment money and the interest towards owning that home might be in a mutual fund earning you north of eight percent. If you don't put down enough of a down payment to avoid PMI, you'll be literally throwing away money to get yourself in a home that could also be making money. Upgrades to your home that increase its value - unless you have crazy do-it-yourself skills and get good deals on the materials - usually don't return 100% on an investment. The best tend to be around 80%. On top of the fact that your money is going towards an asset that isn't giving you much of a return, a house has costs that a rental simply doesn't have (or rather, it does have them, but they are wrapped into your rent) - closing costs as a buyer, realtor fees and closing costs as a seller, maintenance costs, and constantly escalating property taxes are examples of things that renters deal with only in an indirect sense. NYT columnist David Leonhart says all this more eloquently than I ever could in: There's an interactive calculator at the NYT that helps you apply Leonhart's criteria to your own area. None of this is to say that home ownership is a bad decision for all people at all times. I'm looking to buy myself, but I'm not buying as an investment. For example, I would never think that it was OK to stop funding my retirement because my house will eventually fund it for me. Instead I'm buying because home ownership brings other values than money that a rental apartment would never give me and a rental home would cost more than the same home purchase (given 10 years).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4647b65189f441f7930a360106a9f1bf",
"text": "I would go with the 2nd option (put down as little as possible) with a small caveat: avoid the mortgage insurance if you can and put down 20%. Holding your rental property(ies)'s mortgage has some benefits: You can write off the mortgage interest. In Canada you cannot write off the mortgage interest from your primary residence. You can write off stuff renovations and new appliances. You can use this to your advantage if you have both a primary residence and a rental property. Get my drift? P.S. I do not think it's a good time right now to buy a property and rent it out simply because the housing prices are over-priced. The rate of return of your investment is too low. P.S.2. I get the feeling from your question that you would like to purchase several properties in the long-term future. I would like to say that the key to good and low risk investing is diversification. Don't put all of your money into one basket. This includes real estate. Like any other investment, real estate goes down too. In the last 50 or so years real estate has only apprepriated around 2.5% per year. While, real estate is a good long term investment, don't make it 80% of your investment portfolio.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8a01424e83595065e20e56380b974ff5",
"text": "\"I don't know much about New Zealand, but here are just some general thoughts on things to consider. The big difference between buying a house and investing in stocks or the like is that it is fairly easy to invest in a diversified array of stocks (via a mutual fund), but if you buy a house, you are investing in a single piece of property, so everything depends on what happens with that specific property. This in itself is a reason many people don't invest in real estate. Shares of a given company or mutual fund are fungible: if you buy into a mutual fund, you know you're getting the same thing everyone else in the fund is getting. But every piece of real estate is unique, so figuring out how much a property is worth is less of an exact science. Also, buying real estate means you have to maintain it and manage it (or pay someone else to do so). It's a lot more work to accurately assess the income potential of a property, and then maintain and manage the property over years, than it is to just buy some stocks and hold them. Another difficulty is, if and when you do decide to sell the property, doing so again involves work. With stocks you can pretty much sell them whenever you want (although you may take a loss). With a house you have to find someone willing to buy it, which can take time. So a big factor to consider is the amount of effort you're prepared to put into your investment. You mention that your parents could manage the property for you, but presumably you will still have to pay for maintenance and do some managing work yourself (at least discussing things with them and making decisions). Also, if you own the property for a long time your parents will eventually become too old to take care of it, at which point you'll have to rethink the management aspect. So that's sort of the psychological side of things. As for the financial, you don't mention selling the house at any point. If you never sell it, the only gain you get from it is the rent it brings in. So the main factor to consider when deciding whether to buy it as a rental is how much you can rent it for. This is going to be largely determined by where it is located. So from the perspective of making an investment the big question --- which you don't address in the info you provided --- is: how much can you rent this house for, and how much will you be able to rent it for in the future? There is no way to know this for sure, and the only way to get even a rough sense of it is to talk with someone who knows the local real estate market well (e.g., a broker, appraiser, or landlord). If the property is in an \"\"up-and-coming\"\" area (i.e., more people are going to move there in the future), rents could skyrocket; if it's in a backwater, rents could remain stagnant indefinitely. Basically, if you're going to buy a piece of real estate as a long-term investment, you need to know a lot about that property in order to make any kind of comparison with another investment vehicle like a mutual fund. If you already live in the area you may know some things already (like how much you might be able to rent it for). Even so, though, you should try to get some advice from trustworthy people who know the local real estate situation.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ac29167b6acc16b82e5569c9733522b7",
"text": "\"Defined benefit pensions are generally seen as valuable, and hard to replace by investing on your own. So my default assumption would be to keep that pension, unless you think there's a significant risk the pension fund will become insolvent, in which case the earlier you can get out the better. Obviously, you need to look at the numbers. What is a realistic return you could get by investing that 115K? To compare like with like, what \"\"real\"\" investment returns (after subtracting inflation) are needed for it to provide you with $10800 income/year after age 60? Also, consider that the defined benefit insulates you from multiple kinds of risk: Remember that most of your assets are outside the pension and subject to all these risks already. Do you want to add to that risk by taking this money out of your pension? One intermediate strategy to look at - again for the purposes of comparison - is to take the money now, invest it for 10 years without withdrawing anything, then buy an annuity at age 60. If you're single, Canadian annuity rates for age 60 appear to be between 4-5% without index linking - it may not even be possible to get an index-linked annuity. Even without the index-linking you'd need to grow the $115K to about $240K in 10 years, implying taking enough risks to get a return of 7.6% per year, and you wouldn't have index-linking so your income would gradually drop in real terms.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "12b393f48f29a67fb2145c2685cdab24",
"text": "\"Some of the other answers recommended peer-to-peer lending and property markets. I would not invest in either of these. Firstly, peer-to-peer lending is not a traditional investment and we may not have enough historical data for the risk-to-return ratio. Secondly, property investments have a great risk unless you diversify, which requires a huge portfolio. Crowd-funding for one property is not a traditional investment, and may have drawbacks. For example, what if you disagree with other crowd-funders about the required repairs for the property? If you invest in the property market, I recommend a well-diversified fund that owns many properties. Beware of high debt leverage used to enhance returns (and, at the same time, risk) and high fees when selecting a fund. However, traditionally it has been a better choice to invest in stocks than to invest in property market. Beware of anyone who says that the property market is \"\"too good to not get into\"\" without specifying which part of the world is meant. Note also that many companies invest in properties, so if you invest only in a well-diversified stock index fund, you may already have property investments in your portfolio! However, in your case I would keep the money in risk-free assets, i.e. bank savings or a genuine low-cost money market fund (i.e. one that doesn't invest in corporate debt or in variable-rate loans which have short duration but long maturity). The reason is that you're going to be unemployed soon, and thus, you may need the money soon. If you have an investment horizon of, say, 10 years, then I would throw stocks into the mix, and if you're saving for retirement, then I would go all in to stocks. In the part of the world where I live in, money market funds generally have better return than bank savings, and better diversification too. However, your 2.8% interest sounds rather high (the money market fund I have in the past invested in currently yields at 0.02%, but then again I live in the eurozone), so be sure to get estimates for the yields of different risk-free assets. So, my advice for investing is simple: risk-free assets for short time horizon, a mixture of stocks and risk-free assets for medium time horizon, and only stocks for long time horizon. In any case, you need a small emergency fund, too, which you should consider a thing separate from your investments. My emergency fund is 20 000 EUR. Your 50 000 AUD is bit more than 30 000 EUR, so you don't really have that much money to invest, only a bit more than a reasonably sized emergency fund. But then again, I live in rental property, so my expenses are probably higher than yours. If you can foresee a very long time horizon for part of your investment, you could perhaps invest 50% of your money to stocks (preference being a geographically diversified index fund or a number of index funds), but I wouldn't invest more because of the need for an emergency fund.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9cb8d2713786a67c691618f992ccd148",
"text": "The assumption that house value appreciates 5% per year is unrealistic. Over the very long term, real house prices has stayed approximately constant. A house that is 10 years old today is 11 years old a year after, so this phenomenon of real house prices staying constant applies only to the market as a whole and not to an individual house, unless the individual house is maintained well. One house is an extremely poorly diversified investment. What if the house you buy turns out to have a mold problem? You can lose your investment almost overnight. In contrast to this, it is extremely unlikely that the same could happen on a well-diversified stock portfolio (although it can happen on an individual stock). Thus, if non-leveraged stock portfolio has a nominal return of 8% over the long term, I would demand higher return, say 10%, from a non-leveraged investment to an individual house because of the greater risks. If you have the ability to diversify your real estate investments, a portfolio of diversified real estate investments is safer than a diversified stock portfolio, so I would demand a nominal return of 6% over the long term from such a diversified portfolio. To decide if it's better to buy a house or to live in rental property, you need to gather all of the costs of both options (including the opportunity cost of the capital which you could otherwise invest elsewhere). The real return of buying a house instead of renting it comes from the fact that you do not need to pay rent, not from the fact that house prices tend to appreciate (which they won't do more than inflation over a very long term). For my case, I live in Finland in a special case of near-rental property where you pay 15% of the building cost when moving in (and get the 15% payment back when moving out) and then pay a monthly rent that is lower than the market rent. The property is subsidized by government-provided loans. I have calculated that for my case, living in this property makes more sense than purchasing a market-priced house, but your situation may be different.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8dd79db65f2185bdc8fe64923d0173c3",
"text": "\"Is the mortgage debt too high? The rental property is in a hot RE market, so could be easily sold with significant equity. However, they would prefer to keep it. Given the current income, there is no stress. However in absence of any other liquid [cash/near cash] assets, having everything locked into Mortgage is quite high. Even if real estate builds assets, these are highly illiquid investments. Have debt on such investments is risky; if there are no other investments. Essentially everything looks fine now, but if there is an crisis, unwinding mortgage debt is time consuming and if it forces distress sale, it would wipe out any gains. Can they afford another mortgage, and in what amount? (e.g. they are considering $50K for a small cabin, which could be rented out). I guess they can. But should they? Or diversify into other assets like stocks etc. Other than setting cash aside, what would be some good uses of funds to make sure the money would appreciate and outpace inflation and add a nice bonus to retirement? Mutual Funds / Stocks / bullions / 401K or other such retirement plans. They are currently in mid-30's. If there is ONE key strategy or decision they could make today that would help them retire \"\"early\"\" (say, mid-50's), what should it be? This opinion based ... it depends on \"\"what their lifestyle is\"\" and what would they want their \"\"lifestyle\"\" to be when they retire. They should look at saving enough corpus that would give an year on year yield equivalent to the retirement expenses.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7ba9327c8f024c08fa6c256cf3ec6196",
"text": "Which is generally the better option (financially)? Invest. If you can return 7-8% (less than the historical return of the S&P 500) on your money over the course of 25 years this will outperform purchasing personal property. If you WANT to own a house for other reason apart from the financial benefits then buy a house. Will you earn 7-8% on your money, there is a pretty good chance this is no because investors are prone to act emotionally.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7cfd122bd9fab80baa3b6d76c8f2a0c1",
"text": "Lucky you - here where I live that does not work, you put money on the table year 1. Anyhow... You HAVE to account for inflation. THat is where the gain comes from. Not investment increase (value of item), but the rent goes higher, while your mortgage does not (you dont own more moeny in 3 years if you keep paying, but likely you take more rent). Over 5 or 10 years the difference may be significant. Also you pay back the mortgage - that is not free cash flow, but it is a growth in your capital base. Still, 1 flat does not make a lot ;) You need 10+, so go on earning more down payments.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ef3df544d40cefb5109c5334ffe89341",
"text": "Can you wait until you retire before needing the money? Will you buy your first house sometime in the future? If yes, then favour an RRSP. Remember that you are rewarded by paying less tax for having the foresight and commitment to defer income taxes until your retirement, when you are presumably earning less income. Are your household expenses higher than 28% of your gross income? 35% of your net income? Does making your mortgage payments stress you? Are interest rates lower than their historical norm and an increase would cause you difficulty? If yes, then favour your mortgage. Do you need this money before your retire? Does your TFSA earn more interest than your mortgage costs your? If yes, then favour a TFSA. Does an alternative investment earn more than your TFSA? Can you handle an uptick in your mortgage interest rate? If yes, then favour the alternative investment and not your RRSP, mortgage or TFSA.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4ac2c64ce70259bde39978411a151518",
"text": "\"with 150K € to invest to \"\"become a landlord\"\" you have several options: Pay for 100% of one property, and you then will make a significant percentage of the monthly rent as profit each month. That profit can be used to invest in other things, or to save to buy additional properties. At the end of the 21 years in your example, you can sell the flat for return of principal minus selling expenses, or even better make a profit because the property went up in value. Pay 20% down on 5 flats, and then make a much a smaller profit per flat each month due to the mortgage payment for each one. At the end of the 21 years sell the flats. Assuming that a significant portion of the mortgage is paid off each flat will sell for more than the mortgage balance. Thus you will have 5 nice large profits when you sell. something in between 1 and 5 flats. Each has different risks and expenses. With 5 rental properties you are more likely to use a management company, which will add to your monthly cost.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f23416c0ae6956ee2796889c0c53fa72",
"text": "Fahad, in finance we make a distinction between investments that tend to grow in value and assets that hold value. Investments that grow in value are generally related to investing in well-thought out businesses. Investments can be done in retirement accounts through stocks and bonds but also owning part of a business directly. Good investments make more and more money off the money you put in. Common examples of assets include gold and other non-productive property like real-estate you don't rent or cars. You can even have some assets in your retirement account as many would argue government bonds behave like assets. All of these things tend to (more or less) go up in value as the cost of everything goes up in value, but don't tend to make you any excess money in the long run. There is certainly a place for both investments and assets. Especially as a young person it is good to lean toward investments as you likely have a lot of time for the money to grow as you get older. As RonJohn suggests, in the United States this is fairly easy as retirement accounts are common there is a long history of stable financial law even in crises. Pakistan's institutions are fairly stable and improving but still assets and investments of all types can be riskier. So, I recommend taking your father's advice... partially. Having some assets are good in riskier situations, but good investments are generally the way to grow comfortably wealthy. A good mix of the two is the way to grow wealthy slowly while protecting yourself from risk. You, your father and your neighbors know you local situation better than I, who has only visited a number of Pakistan's neighboring countries, so I can't really give more detailed advice but hopefully this gets you started.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
3760ac3556a040a67c3333bcedf04425
|
Where was the huge scandal in the Wells Fargo scandal?
|
[
{
"docid": "8e51af2592e18ae91ac29cdc1ae81fdc",
"text": "\"The Wells Fargo scandal was and still is a big deal because Wells Fargo opened over 1.5 million unauthorized bank and credit card accounts. The credit card accounts were opened without authorization, which means people's credit scores and reports were pulled without permission. That is considered fraud and identity theft. Other than the legal side of it, by opening more bank accounts without authorization, it was showing \"\"synthetic growth\"\", which resulted in an inflated number when quarterly and annual performance numbers were reported. This caused people to invest more in Wells Fargo stock, not knowing that the growth in stock was not organic. After the scandal was uncovered, stocks decreased. However, the root cause of this can be traced to the culture at Wells Fargo, where customer service reps (i.e. bank tellers, and store operations employees) were faced with the challenges of meeting quotas that could be considered a stretch. As a result, faced with pressure from upper management, they opened unauthorized accounts. In addition, these unauthorized accounts cost consumers money either because credit cards had balances, or bank accounts did not meet a minimum balance. It is not about ending \"\"up with 8 rows in their database instead of just 1 row\"\" as OP wrote. It is about stealing consumer money and committing fraud and stealing the consumer's identity. *Suggestions and constructive criticism are welcomed in improving my answer.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "cc4172dd8458e161b5d8cec0b7e8ba06",
"text": "Yet the underlying truth is the same. Bid fixing. We know it was done on a wide scale and we know it illegal. It doesn't matter what you think of the author you can verify that yourself and the court agreed. You can make all the excuse you want but if all you want to do is quibble about why he shot out one number for the total bond market instead of muni bonds from 2007-2008 (actually one of the least relevant points to the story no matter which number you use) then you're missing the forest for the trees or your going out of your way to excuse widespread illegal business activity. Bid fixing is bid fixing. That it only impacted the smaller mini bond market isn't something that negates the larger story here.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2c2b5675ead73a08d535df4876b8ea5c",
"text": "\"I can't find a citation, but from memory (EDIT: and reading the newspapers at the time it happened): up until around 1980, banks couldn't cross state borders. In my state, at least, they were also very local, only staying within one county. This was to enforce \"\"localness\"\", the thought being that local bankers would know local people and the local situation better than far away people who only see numbers and paperwork.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "746213ad410f6343982337e32c2410fe",
"text": "Thanks for the reply! Sadly, I have considered NYC, Chicago and even London, but my heart is set on Toronto. Also, I'm not quite sure I know what you mean by siphoning funds. I wasn't aware that financial engineers in Toronto do things differently than financial engineers in the US.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6411a80a4595c1392107cba72f9d5172",
"text": "This was at least in part payback for VW. But to be fair, the US has imposed huge fines on European banks for doing unethical stuff that's a lot more tolerated in Europe than the US. The EU fined Google for doing anti-competitive stuff that's a lot more tolerated in the US.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4f7ea4419f44786d580a62956411fb0d",
"text": "\"Not true! The government is much more outraged about the independent Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and its head, Richard Cordray, \"\"interfering with freedom of trade\"\". The CFPB fined various companies 12 Billion last year, for all kinds of shenanigans against consumers.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f1aa659a7156c76d636b010b375fa35a",
"text": "They'll never punish the people actually responsible. Because that would include people like current Treasury Secretary Jack Lew who was the Chief Operating Officer at Citigroup through the financial crisis. As much as I don't like the big banks, the current management, employees, and shareholders have very little to do with the fraud committed 7-10 years ago. If you put the previous generation of management in jail or if you bankrupt them with fines, then the current generation of management and employees will wise up and not do stupid/illegal shit. The settlement just shows the current generation that the next guy will pay for your crimes.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "beb9ba2e0ec713c60aa71a8f1a2f6346",
"text": "It is a simple case of breaking the wrong law. You can commit normal fraud all day long and the SEC won't life a finger. But even get within a hundred miles of a insider trading deal and they'll hit you like a ton of bricks. It is easy an easy case to prove, there is no question as to it being illegal (even the janitor is expected to take a class on it), and the SEC was specifically set up to stop it after the Great Depression. Really, it boggles my mind that anyone of that rank would think he can get away with it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "83b726abb06b3facfd6be7b430d842bc",
"text": "Good! The article says it was some kind of collateral protection insurance that customers were signed up for despite it being unrequired for the loan. The accusations is that WF racketeered about 800,000 loans by bundling in this bunk insurance cost as part of the loan structure. I'm glad you're not caught up in it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "90551d5a7418b1256a4f05b3fd51e286",
"text": "\"Whoops, responded to the wrong person. Reposting for you in case you didn't see it. Here's a source for the $3.7 trillion number. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-08/u-s-municipal-bond-market-28-larger-than-estimated-federal-reserve-says.html It's not 'incorrect data'. EDIT: Furthermore, in order to know the \"\"extent\"\" of the crime (your own admission) we NEED to know the size of the entire market otherwise you can't have any perspective or determine extent. So there's no reason it shouldn't be mentioned in the article.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e80ecc90a2504eb59cf6772db217a9bb",
"text": "I litigated several of these cases to settlement back in 2011-2013 (the cases that followed on the Wells Fargo settlement out in NDCA). Many many banks were using the same few consultants who were pitching the same few computer programs to re-order transactions in order to maximize fee revenue. It was becoming standard industry practice until Judge Alsup entered the $200mm+ judgment against Wells Fargo for their California customers. After that, lawyers did what we do and descended on any other bank doing the same thing. As part of the settlements, the banks agreed to stop reordering transactions to maximize fee revenue (typically agreeing to order deposits first, then debits as they were presented to the bank). Class action attorneys get a bad rap (sometimes justifiably so), but there are many more instances like this where we catch bad actors actually hurting people.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2c6acbc665d460e37b4837fd4b8c1462",
"text": "16/17 billion. Big deal in all they made around 85 billion dollars off subprime loans. So they gave up a fraction of what they made. Rob a bank get 10 year in jail. When the bank robs the people, they keep their money and get a slap on the wrist.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "890990165a54a7faf2eedc377de76272",
"text": "\"I know of at least one case where a person was convicted of \"\"structuring\"\". The person was depositing his own money into his own bank account and was found guilty of \"\"structuring\"\" since he made several deposits under $10K. The man did nothing illegal. He just felt it was safer to make several small deposits instead of one large deposit. From the article: Prosecutors did not offer evidence of any other motive for Gaskins' behavior. They said at trial that Gaskins should have known better. \"\"The point of the law is to make sure we don't have people who try to fool the bank,\"\" federal prosecutor Randall Galyon told jurors last week. \"\"The fact that he was trying is against the law.\"\" The law states the bank has to report any transactions over $10K so the government can investigate any suspicous monetary activity. Of course, if you make several deposits under $10K you'll also be investigated and you could actually be breaking \"\"intent\"\" of the law for depositing your own money into your own bank account.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c67f231e70e13cbf5da1610da96c394f",
"text": "Horrible comparison. The banks had a government plan save them. Plus, just because you may understand the top-down financial fuckery that went on, don't think that the average lay-person did. To the average person now however, he dun took drugs an' cheated",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1e22ae8222960cf579e71196582ae8a0",
"text": "That's fair, but given the calls in this thread for the share price to drop 15% off this, for wells Fargo to be treated as a criminal Enterprise, etc., these are pretty small numbers considering. About a third of a percent of annual profits is not exactly something to call for the share price to tank, and a lack of effective controls is not a reason to define a long-standing business as a criminal enterprise.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "812db18c83838e1253d7c7daeb38143c",
"text": "I remember when a private jet carrying a handful of Revel top executives crashed in Minnesota a few years killing them all. They were on a trip from AC to discuss the glass facade of the casino with a glass company. This wasnt too long before the opening if I recall.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
6773c9d4be83fcf7bf02847ae1cb2ed0
|
How to return 4 - 6% on savings / investments with little / no management?
|
[
{
"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": "e2f74d5da16c8fedf4baa825e11f13d7",
"text": "According to my reading, the Trinity study says you can withdraw 4% a year for 30 years without exhausting your nest egg, not necessarily that it won't shrink. In most cases, your nest egg will indeed grow. But unfortunately you can't plan to leave no estate while simultaneously preparing for worst-case scenarios in case you happen to pick a bad year to stop working. You can run simulations based on historical data on sites like cFIREsim. And once you're retired, you could potentially increase your spending if simulations show that you're likely to leave behind a large estate. You also probably want to look into things like charitable remainder trusts.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "24bde5cc34ca02716339d0bb8a4accbc",
"text": "I would not advise any stock-picking or other active management (even using mutual funds that are actively managed). There is a large body of knowledge that needs learning before you even attempt that. Stay passive with index funds (either ETFs or (even better) low-cost passive mutual funds (because these prevent you from buying/selling). But I have not problem saying you can invest 100% in equity as long as your stomach can handle the price swings. If you freek out after a 25% drop that does not recover within a year, so you sell at the market bottom, then you are better off staying with a lot less risk. It is personal. There are a lot of valid reasons for young people to accept more risk - and equally valid reason why not. See list at http://www.retailinvestor.org/saving.html#norisk",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b6378d779e2f23d5f7d55919906b65f9",
"text": "The iron-clad rule of investing is that risk and return are directly related. It is impossible to get a higher return than you are getting without putting principal at risk. Your emergency fund should be in cash, preferably in government insured cash (like a savings account). The best you could probably do is laddered 3-month CDs. That way, you could cash them out, one per month, as they mature.",
"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": "bc5d03f4ae31e5978697ba056decdfcc",
"text": "The typical deal is you can put 10% of your gross pay into the ESPP. The purchase will occur on the last deposit date, usually a 6 month period, at a 15% discount to the market price. So, the math is something like this: Your return if sold the day it's purchased is not 15%, it's 100/85 or 17.6%. Minor nitpick on my part, I suppose. Also the return is not a 6 month return, as the weekly or bi-weekly deductions are the average between the oldest (6 mo) and the most recent (uh, zero time, maybe a week.) This is closer to 3 months. The annualized rate is actually pretty meaningless since you don't have 4 opportunities to achieve this return, it's important only if the cash flow hit causes you to borrow to support the ESPP purchases. The risk is whether the stock drops the 15% before you can execute the sell to take advantage of the gain. Of course the return is gross, you need to net for taxes. Edit to respond to comment below - When I said meaningless, I meant that you can't take the 17.6%, annualize it to 91.2% per year and think your $1000 will compound to $1912. It's as meaningless as when an investor gets a 10% gain on a stock in one day, and (with 250 trading days per year) decides his $1000 will be worth $2 quadrillion dollars after a year. The 17.6% is significant in that it's available twice per year, for a true 38% return over a year, but if borrowing to help the cash flow, that rate is really over 3 months.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "948d14eeab77d845ae1466625081fe48",
"text": "By coincidence, I entered this position today. Ignore the stock itself, I am not recommending a particular stock, just looking at a strategy. The covered call. For this stock trading at $7.47, I am able, by selling an in-the-money call to be out of pocket $5.87/sh, and am obliged to let it go for $7.00 a year from now. A 19% return as long as the stock doesn't drop more than 6% over that time. The chart below shows maximum profit, and my loss starts if the stock trades 21% below current price. The risk is shifted a bit, but in return, I give up potential higher gains. The guy that paid $1.60 could triple his money if the stocks goes to $12, for example. In a flat market, this strategy can provide relatively high returns compared to holding only stocks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d8af6818d444883888868b92ad4c7dc6",
"text": "I just want to point out a couple of things, and I do not have enough reputation to comment. Saving 50% is totally possible. I know people saving 65%. For more see here EDIT: Let me repeat that 4% it the maximum you can assume if you want to be sure to have at least that return in the long term. It's not the average, it's the minimum, the value you can expect and plan with. Just to reinforce the claim, I can cite Irrational Exuberance of Robert Schiller, who explicitly says, on page 135 of the 2015 edition, that from January 1966 to January 1992 the real annual return was just 4.1%. Sure, this does not matter so much if you are investing all the way through, but it's still a 26 year period.",
"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": "13bb3594d0833e52ea096698f9bc2d70",
"text": "Basically, diversifying narrows the spread of possible results, raising the center of the returns bell-curve by reducing the likelihood of extreme results at either the high or low end. It's largely a matter of basic statistics. Bet double-or-nothing on a single coin flip, and those are the only possible results, and your odds of a disaster (losing most or all of the money) are 50%. Bet half of it on each of two coin flips, and your odds of losing are reduced to 25% at the cost of reducing your odds of winning to 25%, with 50% odds that you retain your money and can try the game again. Three coins divides the space further; the extremes are reduced to 12.5% each, with the middle being most likely. If that was all there was, this would be a zero-sum game and pure gambling. But the stock market is actually positive-sum, since companies are delivering part of their profits to their stockholder owners. This moves the center of the bell curve up a bit from break-even, historically to about +8%. This is why index funds produce a profit with very little active decision; they treat the variation as mostly random (which seems to work statistically) and just try to capture average results of a (hopefully) slightly above-average bucket of stocks and/or bonds. This approach is boring. It will never double your money overnight. On the other hand, it will never wipe you out overnight. If you have patience and are willing to let compound interest work for you, and trust that most market swings regress to the mean in the long run, it quietly builds your savings while not driving you crazy worrying about it. If all you are looking for is better return than the banks, and you have a reasonable amount of time before you need to pull the funds out, it's one of the more reliably predictable risk/reward trade-off points. You may want to refine this by biasing the mix of what you're holding. The simplest adjustment is how much you keep in each of several major investment categories. Large cap stocks, small cap stocks, bonds, and real estate (in the form of REITs) each have different baseline risk/return curves, and move in different ways in response to news, so maintaining a selected ratio between these buckets and adding the resulting curves together is one simple way to make fairly predictable adjustments to the width (and centerline) of the total bell curve. If you think you can do better than this, go for it. But index funds have been outperforming professionally managed funds (after the management fees are accounted for), and unless you are interested in spending a lot of time researching and playing with your money the odds of your doing much better aren't great unless you're willing to risk doing much worse. For me, boring is good. I want my savings to work for me rather than the other way around, and I don't consider the market at all interesting as a game. Others will feel differently.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f983c383262bb5e484be57c6f264612e",
"text": "In general, the higher the return (such as interest), the higher the risk. If there were a high-return no-risk investment, enough people would buy it to drive the price up and make it a low-return no-risk investment. Interest rates are low now, but so is inflation. They generally go up and down together. So, as a low risk (almost no-risk) investment, the savings account is not at all useless. There are relatively safe investments that will get a better return, but they will have a little more risk. One common way to spread the risk is to diversify. For example, put some of your money in a savings account, some in a bond mutual fund, and some in a stock index fund. A stock index fund such as SPY has the benefit of very low overhead, in addition to spreading the risk among 500 large companies. Mutual funds with a purchase or sale fee, or with a higher management fee do NOT perform any better, on average, and should generally be avoided. If you put a little money in different places regularly, you'll be fairly safe and are likely get a better return. (If you trade back and forth frequently, trying to outguess the market, you're likely to be worse off than the savings account.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aad7d81d0864ae51527e037701783ac4",
"text": "\"Your objectives are contradictory and/or not possible. Eliminating the non-taxable objective: You could divide the $100K in 5 increments, making a \"\"CD ladder\"\" $25K in 3mo CD (or savings a/c) $25K in 6 mo CD $25K in 9mo CD $25K in 1 yr CD or similar structure (6mo also works well) Every maturing CD you are able to access cash and/or invest in another longest maturity CD, and earn a higher rate of interest. This plan also works well to plan for future interest rates hikes. If you are forced to access (sell CD's) ALL the $$$ at any time, you will only lose accrued interest, none of the principal. All FDIC guaranteed. If non-taxable is the highest priority, \"\"invest\"\" in a tax-free money market fund....see Vanguard Funds. You will not have FDIC guarantee.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "816947f3eceb4fe3417ce1673e77d6ea",
"text": "\"If you want a Do-It-Yourself solution, look to a Vanguard account with their total market index funds. There's a lot of research that's been done recently in the financial independence community. Basically, there's not many money managers who can outperform the market index (either S&P 500 or a total market index). Actually, no mutual funds have been identified that outperform the market, after fees, consistently. So there's not much sense in paying someone to earn you less than a low fee index fund could do. And some of the numbers show that you can actually lose value on your 401k due to high fees. That's where Vanguard comes in. They offer some of the lowest fees (if not the lowest) and a selection of index funds that will let you balance your portfolio the way you want. Whether you want to go 100% total stock market index fund or a balance between total stock market index fund and total bond index fund, or a \"\"lazy 3 fund portfolio\"\", Vanguard gives you the tools to do it yourself. Rebalancing would require about an hour every quarter. (Or time span you declare yourself). jlcollinsnh A Simple Path to Wealth is my favorite blog about financial independence. Also, Warren Buffet recommended that the trustees for his wife's inheritance when he passes invest her trust in one investment. Vanguard's S&P500 index fund. The same fund he chose in a 10 year $1M bet vs. hedge fund managers. (proceeds go to charity). That was about 9 years ago. So far, Buffet's S&P500 is beating the hedge funds. Investopedia Article\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7b2b5680166af921079718e37b719cb9",
"text": "Just to offer another alternative, consider Certificates of Deposit (CDs) at an FDIC insured bank or credit union for small or short-term investments. If you don't need access to the money, as stated, and are not willing to take much risk, you could put money into a number of CDs instead of investing it in stocks, or just letting it sit in a regular savings/checking account. You are essentially lending money to the bank for a guaranteed length of time (anywhere from 3 to 60 months), and therefore they can give you a better rate of return than a savings account (which is basically lending it to them with the condition that you could ask for it all back at any time). Your rate of return in CDs is lower a typical stock investment, but carries no risk at all. CD rates typically increase with the length of the CD. For example, my credit union currently offers a 2.3% APY on a 5-year CD, but only 0.75% for 12 month CDs, and a mere 0.1% APY on regular savings/checking accounts. Putting your full $10K deposit into one or more CDs would yield $230 a year instead of a mere $10 in their savings account. If you go this route with some or all of your principal, note that withdrawing the money from a CD before the end of the deposit term will mean forfeiting the interest earned. Some banks may let you withdraw just a portion of a CD, but typically not. Work around this by splitting your funds into multiple CDs, and possibly different term lengths as well, to give you more flexibility in accessing the funds. Personally, I have a rolling emergency fund (~6 months living expenses, separate from all investments and day-to-day income/expenses) split evenly among 5 CDs, each with a 5-year deposit term (for the highest rate) with evenly staggered maturity dates. In any given year, I could close one of these CDs to cover an emergency and lose only a few months of interest on just 20% of my emergency fund, instead of several years interest on all of it. If I needed more funds, I could withdraw more of the CDs as needed, in order of youngest deposit age to minimize the interest loss - although that loss would probably be the least of my worries by then, if I'm dipping deeply into these funds I'll be needing them pretty badly. Initially I created the CDs with a very small amount and differing term lengths (1 year increments from 1-5 years) and then as each matured, I rolled it back into a 5 year CD. Now every year when one matures, I add a little more principal (to account for increased living expenses), and roll everything back in for another 5 years. Minimal thought and effort, no risk, much higher return than savings, fairly liquid (accessible) in an emergency, and great peace of mind. Plus it ensures I don't blow the money on something else, and that I have something to fall back on if all my other investments completely tanked, or I had massive medical bills, or lost my job, etc.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a7936490769afcc77d4e19a23c1f4eee",
"text": "Well, you probably already know this, but no-one can guarantee you results...in any economic climate. Even traditionally low risk investments now seem higher risk to people when the economic forecasts are grim. That being said, 0.5% is pretty low. So, where does that leave you? Why not start with a risk tolerance analysis for yourself. There's a bunch on them on the internet if you google it. Here's one: Rutgers Financial Risk Tolerance Quiz Based on the result you get back, and whether you agree with it or not, this may give you a starting point for determining if entering the stock market is right for you. I'm guessing you can get better than 0.5% return over 10 years pretty easily though.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "077fddb4e4e0666c457f5f65bdaf1150",
"text": "It depends on how much you save, how much your savings earns each year. You can model it with a very simple spreadsheet: Formula view: You can change this simple model with any other assumptions you wish to make and model. This spreadsheet presumes that you only make $50,000/year, never get a raise, that your savings earns 6% per year and that the market never has a crash like 2008. The article never states the assumptions that the author has made, and therefore we can't honestly determine how truthful the author is. I recommend the book Engineering Your Retirement as it has more detailed models and goes into more details about what you should expect. I wrote a slightly more detailed post that showed a spreadsheet that is basically what I use at home to track my retirement savings.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
4760780fb7c388f4a53db03c94713440
|
Should I sell my rental property or keep it if it has mold growth problems?
|
[
{
"docid": "35c7b6c9aa4a4c4b1663eb9baaa46b29",
"text": "I'm going to assume that you will spend the money to fix the mold problem correctly. Using your numbers, after that is done, the home is worth perhaps $280k. To evaluate whether or not to sell, the amount you have spent on the house is irrelevant. The only thing you need to ask yourself is this: Would I spend $280k to buy this house today? You might, if you were happy with the rental income that you were getting. If the house is fully rented, it earns you $24k/year, which is an 8.6% return if you had purchased the house today at $280k. Of course, you will have vacancies, taxes, and other expenses bringing that return number down. Figure out what that is, and see if you are happy with the return based on those numbers. If you decide it would be a bad investment for you at $280k, then sell the house. By the way, this question works for any investment, not just real estate. When deciding whether or not to sell stock, the same thing applies. It is irrelevant what your cost basis is. You only need to ask yourself if the stock would be a good buy for you at the current price.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "d01de865749f62ff09394ef2f320b50f",
"text": "Don't forget the risk of not finding tenants and having your property be empty. Or having bad tenants who destroy the place. Or just spending all your time (because time is money) on general upkeep/maintenance (or, if you subcontract that out, making sure a decent job was done)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0b946e8bec1ff86977fd5659852d9af4",
"text": "I assume having real estate in a good popular city is much more secure way of keeping money than having it in a bank account Not at all! Many things can go wrong with rental property. Renters can be late on rent, they can cause damage to property, you can have unexpected repairs. I'm not saying that you should just let it sit, but rental property is not risk-free my any means. Are you prepared to be a landlord as a part time job (for 500/mo?). Rental property is not passive income - it takes work to maintain. You can outsource this to a property manager, but that eats into the 500/mo that you are estimating). I want to stay flexible and have a possibility to change my location whenever I want. That's a perfectly reasonable reason not to buy a home, but what will you do with the rental when you move? It will still need maintenance, you'll still need to interact with renters, etc. I'm not saying you shouldn't do this, but I get the feeling that you are not fully aware of the risks involved in rental properties.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2ff18fce91f9e00ae614b18af671a83a",
"text": "More possible considerations: Comparability with other properties. Maybe properties that rent for $972 have more amenities than this one (parking, laundry, yard, etc) or are in better repair. Or maybe the $972 property is a block closer to campus and thus commands 30% higher rent (that can happen). Condition of property. You know nothing about this until you see it. It could be in such bad shape that you can't legally rent it until you spend a lot of money fixing it. Or it may just be run down or outdated: still inhabitable but not as attractive to renters, leading to lower rent and/or longer vacancy periods. Do you accept that, or spend a lot of money to renovate? Collecting the rent. Tenants don't necessarily always pay their rent on time, or at all. If a tenant quits paying, you incur significant expenses to evict them and then find a new tenant, and all the while, you collect no rent. There could be a tenant in place paying a much lower rent. Rent control or a long lease may prevent you from raising it. If you are able to raise it, and the tenant doesn't want to pay, see above. Maintenance and more maintenance. College students could be hard on the property; one good kegger could easily cause more damage than their security deposits will cover. Being near a university doesn't guarantee you an easy time renting it. It suggests the demand is high, but maybe the supply is even higher. Renting to college students has additional issues. They are less likely to have incomes large enough to satisfy you that they can pay the rent. Are you willing to deal with cosigners? If a student quits paying, are you willing to try to collect from their cosigning parents in another state? And you'll probably have many tenants (roommates) living in the house. They will come and go separately and unexpectedly, complicating your leasing arrangements. And you may well get drawn in to disputes between them.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6950d92f340ffdb328d15afac8299aba",
"text": "BLUF: Continue renting, and work toward financial independence, you can always buy later if your situation changes. Owning the house you live in can be a poor investment. It is totally dependent on the housing market where you live. Do the math. The rumors may have depressed the market to the point where the houses are cheaper to buy. When you do the estimate, don't forget any homeowners association fees and periodic replacement of the roof, HVAC system and fencing, and money for repairs of plumbing and electrical systems. Calculate all the replacements as cost over the average lifespan of each system. And the repairs as an average yearly cost. Additionally, consider that remodeling will be needful every 20 years or so. There are also intangibles between owning and renting that can tip the scales no matter what the numbers alone say. Ownership comes with significant opportunity and maintenance costs and is by definition not liquid, but provides stability. As long as you make your payments, and the government doesn't use imminent domain, you cannot be forced to move. Renting gives you freedom from paying for maintenance and repairs on the house and the freedom to move with only a lease to break.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "962a2ae56677cc7aa9e0ab8136392a97",
"text": "Don't let the tax tail wag the investment dog. There is risk in exchanging this (known) property for another (unknown) property. That risk may be more than $9000 worth of risk. Tax considerations are important, but most important is that your investments make money. If you intend to continue as a landlord, you had better be sure you are finding a better deal elsewhere if you are going to trade this property up. I should also mention that you have a 5 year window in which you need to have lived in the home for 2 years. You have time and might be able to sell for a higher price if you wait a little longer.",
"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": "77b59558c9d957cfd8149d31f8d1c34c",
"text": "Disadvantage is that tenant could sue you for something, and in an unfavorable judgement they would have access to your house as property to possess. You could lose the house. Even if you make an LLC to hold the house, they'll either sue you or the LLC and either way you could lose the house. This might be why the landlord is moving to Florida where their house cannot be possessed in a judgement because of the state's strong homestead exemption ;)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "665da3fdf06fdca87eb1d54a26e426fb",
"text": "\"Bad areas are tough to value as a owner-occupied property, because the business model for being a slumlord is to rent apartments in absentia, usually to tenants receiving goverment subsidies such as Section 8 vouchers. The vouchers are based on a prevailing rent, which are often on par with nice suburban apartment complexes due to how that \"\"prevailing\"\" rate is calculated. So the value of the house is really an annuity calculation. You figure out the potential rental cash flow and apply whatever your local market premium is. The point is, doing an apples to apples comparison is going to be tough, and justifying the cost of repairs that aren't remediating health and safety issues probably won't be recoverable from a home valuation standpoint. A buyer would probably rip out your central air conditioner and sell it! If I were in your shoes, I'd look at the time horizon that you think you're going to be there and amortize the cost over that period. Assuming your mortgage is small and you're staying for about 5 years, spending $10k costs you about $170 a month. Your reward is a modern A/C and heating system. Compare that cost to the cost of moving and your desires and see if it's worth it to you.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0abf18cc25a8320ef87516be5b2300af",
"text": "I would not claim to be a personal expert in rental property. I do have friends and family and acquaintances who run rental units for additional income and/or make a full time living at the rental business. As JoeTaxpayer points out, rentals are a cash-eating business. You need to have enough liquid funds to endure uncertainty with maintenance and vacancy costs. Often a leveraged rental will show high ROI or CAGR, but that must be balanced by your overall risk and liquidity position. I have been told that a good rule-of-thumb is to buy in cash with a target ROI of 10%. Of course, YMMV and might not be realistic for your market. It may require you to do some serious bargain hunting, which seems reasonable based on the stagnant market you described. Some examples: The main point here is assessing the risk associated with financing real estate. The ROI (or CAGR) of a financed property looks great, but consider the Net Income. A few expensive maintenance events or vacancies will quickly get you to a negative cash flow. Multiply this by a few rentals and your risk exposure is multiplied too! Note that i did not factor in appreciation based on OP information. Cash Purchase with some very rough estimates based on OP example Net Income = (RENT - TAX - MAINT) = $17200 per year Finance Purchase rough estimate with 20% down Net Income = (RENT - MORT - TAX - MAINT) = $7500 per year",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7a4517829633220b631b2b74684ce8d1",
"text": "\"Scenario 1: Assume that you plan to keep the parking space for the rest of your life and collect the income from the rental. You say these spaces rent for $250 per month and there are fees of $1400 per year. Are there any other costs? Like would you be responsible for the cost of repaving at some point? But assuming that's covered in the $1400, the net profit is 250 x 12 - 1400 = $1600 per year. So now the question becomes, what other things could you invest your money in, and what sort of returns do those give? If, say, you have investments in the stock market that are generating a 10% annual return and you expect that rate of return to continue indefinitely, than if you pay a price that gives you a return of less than 10%, i.e. if you pay more than $16,000, then you would be better off to put the money in the stock market. That is, you should calculate the fair price \"\"backwards\"\": What return on investment is acceptable, and then what price would I have to pay to get that ROI? Oh, you should also consider what the \"\"occupancy rate\"\" on such parking spaces is. Is there enough demand that you can realistically expect to have it rented out 100% of the time? When one renter leaves, how long does it take to find another? And do you have any information on how often renters fail to pay the rent? I own a house that I rent out and I had two tenants in a row who failed to pay the rent, and the legal process to get them evicted takes months. I don't know what it takes to \"\"evict\"\" someone from a parking space. Scenario 2: You expect to collect rent on this space for some period of time, and then someday sell it. In that case, there's an additional piece of information you need: How much can you expect to get for this property when you sell it? This is almost surely highly speculative. But you could certainly look at past pricing trends. If you see that the value of a parking space in your area has been going up by, whatever, say 4% per year for the past 20 years, it's reasonable to plan on the assumption that this trend will continue. If it's been up and down and all over the place, you could be taking a real gamble. If you pay $30,000 for it today and when the time comes to sell the best you can get is $15,000, that's not so good. But if there is some reasonable consistent average rate of growth in value, you can add this to the expected rents. Like if you can expect it to grow in value by $1000 per year, then the return on your investment is the $1600 in rent plus $1000 in capital growth equals $2600. Then again do an ROI calculation based on potential returns from other investments.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eae5196212863adcafc2e7e4646f6cf8",
"text": "first, let me reiterate what everyone else is saying about rental rates having nothing to do with your expenses. you should charge market rates. slightly higher if you want better tenants and slightly lower if you want to avoid prolonged vacancy. you can determine market rates by finding similar properties in your area and seeing what they are asking for rent. you will need to adjust for location, square footage, number of bathrooms, etc. now that that is out of the way, here is a quick checklist of expenses that you will need to calculate and/or estimate for your specific property in order to decide if you should rent or sell: if you add up all of the above expenses and it's more than the market rates for rent, you should sell. if the above expenses are below the market rates, then you need to consider if the profit margin is enough to justify the hassle and the risk.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9cb8d2713786a67c691618f992ccd148",
"text": "The assumption that house value appreciates 5% per year is unrealistic. Over the very long term, real house prices has stayed approximately constant. A house that is 10 years old today is 11 years old a year after, so this phenomenon of real house prices staying constant applies only to the market as a whole and not to an individual house, unless the individual house is maintained well. One house is an extremely poorly diversified investment. What if the house you buy turns out to have a mold problem? You can lose your investment almost overnight. In contrast to this, it is extremely unlikely that the same could happen on a well-diversified stock portfolio (although it can happen on an individual stock). Thus, if non-leveraged stock portfolio has a nominal return of 8% over the long term, I would demand higher return, say 10%, from a non-leveraged investment to an individual house because of the greater risks. If you have the ability to diversify your real estate investments, a portfolio of diversified real estate investments is safer than a diversified stock portfolio, so I would demand a nominal return of 6% over the long term from such a diversified portfolio. To decide if it's better to buy a house or to live in rental property, you need to gather all of the costs of both options (including the opportunity cost of the capital which you could otherwise invest elsewhere). The real return of buying a house instead of renting it comes from the fact that you do not need to pay rent, not from the fact that house prices tend to appreciate (which they won't do more than inflation over a very long term). For my case, I live in Finland in a special case of near-rental property where you pay 15% of the building cost when moving in (and get the 15% payment back when moving out) and then pay a monthly rent that is lower than the market rent. The property is subsidized by government-provided loans. I have calculated that for my case, living in this property makes more sense than purchasing a market-priced house, but your situation may be different.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "86037fccf598ea252711aeea7b786c87",
"text": "Another consideration and a reason to choose roof vents for your property is during winter, the vents will allow the hot and trapped air to escape before it condensates. This can save you fortunes of money, reducing the risk of mould and mildew damage.It is important that you have your vents professionally inspected on an annual basis.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7c3af0fe71d914d59ad6bde90873c13a",
"text": "Option A - you sell the house and then use the money to pay off a portion of your second mortgage. The return on that investment is 5.5% a year, or $1925 net. Option B - you rent it out, that will bring you $5220 (435 x 12), more than 2.5 times option A. That's not counting any money going towards the principal of the loan. Given that you'll be using a property management company, you can be fairly certain that there won't be any unexpected expenses (credit check, security deposit should take care of that) Option C - you invest the money somewhere else. You'll have to get 15% return in order to beat option B. I don't think that's sustainable. You should talk to a CPA about the tax implications, but I'm fairly certain that you'll do better tax wise to rent it out, since you can use depreciation to lower your tax bill. Finally, where do you think real estate prices will be in 4 years? If you think they'll increase that's another reason to hold onto the property and rent it. Finally finally, if you plan to rent it out long term (over 4 years), it will be a good idea to refinance and lock the current interest rate.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1996cb63df62a460f6fbd2a182ca33f5",
"text": "Also you would need to consider any taxation issues. As he will be paying you rent you will need to include this as income, plus any capital gains tax on the re-sale of the property may need to be paid.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
51cb2a2e36fa21be013223bd52b4eaaf
|
Investment fund or ETF sanity check / ideas
|
[
{
"docid": "0aa69b4fc675039d72ddbc6215f17bea",
"text": "Now I'm trying to decide whether to find a managed fund, or use Vanguard ETFs. With a new trading account I can keep at least the initial move free of transaction charges, but ongoing additions would cost me the standard fee. I may want to move half of those funds into a mortgage deposit in a year. (maybe?) Most ETFs, like the stock market, exhibit significant volatility and, over short periods of time, substantial down-side risk. In other words, there is a significant chance that the value of your investment will be worth substantially less in a year from now. The likelihood of this being the case in, say, 10 years from now is much lower, and vanishingly small for a diversified portfolio. If you aren't confident you'll at least have the option of keeping most of your money invested for over a year, consider that the stock market may not be right for you, at least not as an investment vehicle. Regarding the things you'd like to learn; as the commenter said - that's a huge topic and I think you need to clarify your questions.",
"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": "76afaac7c8e1c3c6bf35f3b9e83411a4",
"text": "Half VTI (Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF) and half VEU (Vanguard FTSE All-World ex-US ETF), and stop futzing. The US is roughly half the world market cap so this is like a total world equity index. Very low costs. VTI Expense ratio is 0.04% as of 04/27/2017. I don't know what you mean by RSG, but it could be either a waste processor or a gold miner. Either way it seems kind of speculative to hold even 10% of your wealth.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "db1d6dbabfd82180886694f24033d49f",
"text": "PST, or any of the Ultra Short/Long funds aren't actually holding any traditional securities -- just swaps that are betting on the underlying asset. They also don't track the value of the underlying security over time -- just for one day. (And they're not even guaranteed to do that!) IEF is an actual treasury bond fund that holds real-life treasury securities, not swaps. Shorting a fund like IEF is one option, another is to buy options on a fund like IEF. Be very careful investing with ETFs, and don't buy any until you fully read and understand the prospectus. I got burned by an Ultra Long ETF because I didn't do my homework.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ca8fac4806f4b0fd56b54a22da82a967",
"text": "ETFs are just like any other mutual fund; they hold a mix of assets described by their prospectus. If that mix fits your needs for diversification and the costs of buying/selling/holding are low, it's as worth considering as a traditional fund with the same mix. A bond fund will hold a mixture of bonds. Whether that mix is sufficiently diversified for you, or whether you want a different fund or a mix of funds, is a judgement call. I want my money to take care of itself for the most part, so most of the bond portion is in a low-fee Total Bond Market Index fund (which tries to match the performance of bonds in general). That could as easily be an ETF, but happens not to be.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dca3cf0140f34ac6c9cd6621379c2367",
"text": "In the case of VFIAX versus VOO, if you're a buy-and-hold investor, you're probably better off with the mutual fund because you can buy fractional shares. However, in general the expense ratio for ETFs will be lower than equivalent mutual funds (even passive index funds). They are the same in this case because the mutual fund is Admiral Class, which has a $10,000 minimum investment that not all people may be able to meet. Additionally, ETFs are useful when you don't have an account with the mutual fund company (i.e. Vanguard), and buying the mutual fund would incur heavy transaction fees.",
"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": "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": "7281e2011dcf9a28ad110b6fda9ae354",
"text": "\"The majority (about 80%) of mutual funds are underperforming their underlying indexes. This is why ETFs have seen massive capital inflows compared to equity funds, which have seen significant withdrawals in the last years. I would definitively recommend going with an ETF. In addition to pure index based ETFs that (almost) track broad market indexes like the S&P 500 there are quite a few more \"\"quant\"\" oriented ETFs that even outperformed the S&P. I am long the S&P trough iShares ETFs and have dividend paying ETFs and some quant ETFS on top (Invesco Powershares) in my portfolio.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c02e759961fc1045b5c3846be9ea8436",
"text": "The process would look something like: 1. Register your investment company with the SEC 2. Get the ETF approved by the SEC 3. Get a custodian bank (likely requires min assets of a few million) 4. Get listed on an exchange like NYSEARCA by meeting requirements and have an IPO 1 and 2 probably require a lot of time and fees and would be wise to have a lawyer advising, 3 is obviously difficult due to asset requirements and 4 would probably involve an investment bank plus more fees",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aa0ef326df4465ff87ce2aea2d17493a",
"text": "What is your time horizon? Over long horizons, you absolutely want to minimise the expense ratio – a seemingly puny 2% fee p.a. can cost you a third of your savings over 35 years. Over short horizons, the cost of trading in and trading out might matter more. A mutual fund might be front-loaded, i.e. charge a fixed initial percentage when you first purchase it. ETFs, traded daily on an exchange just like a stock, don't have that. What you'll pay there is the broker commission, and the bid-ask spread (and possibly any premium/discount the ETF has vis-a-vis the underlying asset value). Another thing to keep in mind is tracking error: how closely does the fond mirror the underlying index it attempts to track? More often than not it works against you. However, not sure there is a systematic difference between ETFs and funds there. Size and age of a fund can matter, indeed - I've had new and smallish ETFs that didn't take off close down, so I had to sell and re-allocate the money. Two more minor aspects: Synthetic ETFs and lending to short sellers. 1) Some ETFs are synthetic, that is, they don't buy all the underlying shares replicating the index, actually owning the shares. Instead, they put the money in the bank and enter a swap with a counter-party, typically an investment bank, that promises to pay them the equivalent return of holding that share portfolio. In this case, you have (implicit) credit exposure to that counter-party - if the index performs well, and they don't pay up, well, tough luck. The ETF was relying on that swap, never really held the shares comprising the index, and won't necessarily cough up the difference. 2) In a similar vein, some (non-synthetic) ETFs hold the shares, but then lend them out to short sellers, earning extra money. This will increase the profit of the ETF provider, and potentially decrease your expense ratio (if they pass some of the profit on, or charge lower fees). So, that's a good thing. In case of an operational screw up, or if the short seller can't fulfil their obligations to return the shares, there is a risk of a loss. These two considerations are not really a factor in normal times (except in improving ETF expense ratios), but during the 2009 meltdown they were floated as things to consider. Mutual funds and ETFs re-invest or pay out dividends. For a given mutual fund, you might be able to choose, while ETFs typically are of one type or the other. Not sure how tax treatment differs there, though, sorry (not something I have to deal with in my jurisdiction). As a rule of thumb though, as alex vieux says, for a popular index, ETFs will be cheaper over the long term. Very low cost mutual funds, such as Vanguard, might be competitive though.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6d2b745dfaeeaabafb6f16da256b750c",
"text": "Hedge fund idea: Cynic Capital 1. Create unclever, mostly-passive funds consisting of a sufficiently diverse array of holdings with historically* low volatility 2. Lever the shit out of it 3. Market it with excessive jargon to impress laymen 4. Attract investors with more money than sense 5. Make it up as you go along until you can hire actually smart, creative people down the road and pray that the market doesn't correct in the meantime Yeah it's stupid but why wouldn't it work? Furthermore, is this not basically what some hedge funds have done in the past? ^(*past performance not guaranteeing future performance yada yada yada)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b37971b421af08c8675b6b64c044e31f",
"text": "One thing to be aware of when choosing mutual funds and index ETFs is the total fees and costs. The TD Ameritrade site almost certainly had links that would let you see the total fees (as an annual percentage) for each of the funds. Within a category, the lowest fees percentage is best, since that is directly subtracted from your performance. As an aside, your allocation seems overly conservative to me for someone that is 25 years old. You will likely work for 40 or so years and the average stock market cycle is about 7 years. So you will likely see 5 or so complete cycles. Worrying about stability of principal too young will really cut into your returns. My daughter is your age and I have advised her to be 100% in equities and then to start dialing that back in about 25 years or so.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6dbb192aac9096a004b081e5518c1263",
"text": "There are a few ETFs that fall into the money market category: SHV, BIL, PVI and MINT. What normally looks like an insignificant expense ratio looks pretty big when compared to the small yields offered by these funds. The same holds for the spread and transaction fees. For that reason, I'm not sure if the fund route is worth it.",
"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": "0b4d041501b889e30080b61b2a31216c",
"text": "You could certainly look at the holdings of index funds and choose index funds that meet your qualifications. Funds allow you to see their holdings, and in most cases you can tell from the description whether certain companies would qualify for their fund or not based on that description - particularly if you have a small set of companies that would be problems. You could also pick a fund category that is industry-specific. I invest in part in a Healthcare-focused fund, for example. Pick a few industries that are relatively diverse from each other in terms of topics, but are still specific in terms of industry - a healthcare fund, a commodities fund, an REIT fund. Then you could be confident that they weren't investing in defense contractors or big banks or whatever you object to. However, if you don't feel like you know enough to filter on your own, and want the diversity from non-industry-specific funds, your best option is likely a 'socially screened' fund like VFTSX is likely your best option; given there are many similar funds in that area, you might simply pick the one that is most similar to you in philosophy.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
627a0001075f6f883b4494e0ee2285a7
|
Why does it look like my 401k loan default was not paid by my 401k account balance?
|
[
{
"docid": "62ab183a0ee33223a38d604ea465b3a0",
"text": "There are multiple reasons why this may have happened: 1.) I couldn't tell in your question whether or not you had already paid off the loan before requesting the rollover. But if the loan was defaulted - then the $9k left in your account is not distributable, but is there to pay back the remaining balance on your loan. The $9k will be treated as income, and will be taxed - you will receive a 1099-R detailing the taxes you'll owe. I don't know why this wasn't done when they did your rollover distribution. Typically it all happens at the same time - but it can vary depending on the administrator. 2.) Do you get some type of safe harbor discretionary match, or profit sharing contribution? If so - perhaps this contribution was made after your account was liquidated. So now there is residual money in your account and it is treated as a new distribution, which incurs a new $60 distribution fee. 3.) Stock - if some of your investments were in stock - these take a few extra days to liquidate. Typically a TPA/Recordkeeper would wait until ALL of the funds are liquidated before issuing the rollover. But some companies may be shady and do it separately - incurring an additional $60 distribution fee. If this was the case - I would go to your former employer's HR and tell them whats happening and to start looking for a new 401(k) administrator! I hope this helps :-) Good luck!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c9681bbf0ce16df874fb0042b8351a71",
"text": "When you leave an employer, 401(k) loans are immediately due (or within 30 days or 60 days). So maybe they are waiting to see if you will pay off your loan. If you wanted to transfer the loan as well, you need to talk to your new 401(k) plan administrator to find out if this even possible. If they say No and you don't pay off the loan, it will count as a premature distribution from your old 401(k) plan and possibly be subject to excise tax in addition to income tax.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "e3e58d223a5031306e05985a5cbdf450",
"text": "\"No idea what you are trying to say here. You default on a loan, student or otherwise, by not paying. That is what creates the default, but you still owe it. Student loans actually can be discharged, but it is very uncommon and an uphill battle. You have to prove \"\"undue hardship\"\" which has a rather high standard. The last firm I worked at did manage to get a large amount of student loans discharged for someone who was in a car wreck and became a quadriplegic after incurring the student loan. And even that was not an easy case, my old firm was actually rather pleased at their success.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0dc23efeefd8ea71f3452a4891b43d72",
"text": "I trust the 401(k) was a traditional, pre tax account. There was no tax paid, and any withdrawals would be taxable. The account could go to zero, and there's no write off, sorry. I have to ask - were there any withdrawals along the way? What was it invested in that lost 90% of its value? Edit - I'm sorry the OP came and went. It would be great to have closure on some of these issues. Here, I'm thinking as Duff said, malpractice, or perhaps a 401(k) that was 100% in company stock. Seems we'll never know.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aabcf90498394c77e1ceb55cb3be9619",
"text": "If you withdraw money, even under a hardship clause like for purchasing a house, you'll still own taxes and a penalty on it. If you are talking about a 401K loan, a loan will have no taxes/penalty, but you'll repay the loan with after-tax reduction of your salary. Max is 50k or 50% of the balance. It maybe up to the 401K administrator whether all of the funds need to go to the down payment and closing costs or whether some can go towards renovations.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5a97def62554a4c60d544b25f88a1ff2",
"text": "The company that sold of the debt, does write off the loan [and books loss on balance sheet]. Depending on the Company's policy the amount written of as loss varies. Some Companies only show loss on Principal for the outstanding period [The interest income and charges is not booked]. Some companies would show loss on Principal and the accrued unpaid interest ... So if the total outstanding is say 10,000 and it was sold to collector at say 3,000/- the balance 7,000 is written off as loss. There are multiple reasons, one they don't have time or there are only few cases. But most of the times when on initial delay in payment, it goes to a collection agency for follow-up [and the loan is not actually sold]. The agency gets a commission [around 10-15%] for every successful payment they recover.... its only after some period it actually gets sold completely to the agency for a heavy discount price. Often at 10% the actual value. The collection agency works on threat technique, if they get 50% of face value, they may loss that threat perception and everyone would not pay even if they can ... so it makes more sense for them to get 200% of face value [added interest, charges and other stuff] from one customer rather than get 50% from 4 customers ...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6656967ba487892e9921b4bb5f12ca72",
"text": "\"I believe no-one who's in a legal line of business would tell you to default voluntarily on your obligations. Once you get an offer that's too good to be true, and for which you have to do something that is either illegal or very damaging to you - it is probably a scam. Also, if someone requires you to send any money without a prior written agreement - its probably a scam as well, especially in such a delicate matter as finances. Your friend now should also be worried about identity theft as he voluntary gave tons of personal information to these people. Bottom line - if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck and looks like a duck, it is probably a duck. Your friend had all the warning signs other than a huge neon light saying \"\"Scam\"\" pointing at these people, and he still went through it. For real debt consolidation companies, research well: online reviews, BBB ratings and reviews, time in business, etc. If you can't find any - don't deal with them. Also, if you get promises for debtors to out of the blue give up on some of their money - its a sign of a scam. Why would debtors reduce the debt by 60%? He's paying, he can pay, he is not on the way to bankruptcy (or is he?)? Why did he do it to begin with?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d995044ad18c80b473c60f26809a2562",
"text": "\"I disagree with the previous answer based upon your particular situation. If the column states something like \"\"Amount Due to you\"\", and is a negative number, then you owe that amount. Much like the previous poster states that a Balance would be money you owe, and if it was negative then the school owes you the same can be said for the column in question. If the number was positive, the school would owe you that amount, if negative then you owe them. Keep in mind you could always post a pic of the document blacking out personal information.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "91284308cba499b85643f7b82623a40f",
"text": "Underwriting manager here. It's not a big deal. Call your processor or loan officer tomorrow to make sure it's been cleared. My guess is that the underwriter or loan officer noted the discrepancy and corrected it in their systems. You'll have to sign a updated 1003 and 4506T at closing with correct info. In other words...no biggie, no worries. Not a show stopper at all.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5a268df25ca84a71891e1500c3c182a8",
"text": "When you adjust your investments the following will happen: Initial condition: Modified condition: This means that after this change you will note that the amount of federal tax you pay each month via withholding will go up. You are now contributing less pre-tax, so your taxable income has increased. If you make no other changes, then in April you will either have increased your refund by 6 months x the additional $25 a month, or decreased the amount you owe by the same amount. There is no change in the total 401K balance at the end of the year, other than accounting for how much is held pre-tax vs. Roth post-tax. Keep in mind that employer contributions must be pre-tax. The company could never guess what your tax situation is. They withhold money for taxes based on the form you fill out, but they have no idea of your family's tax situation. If you fail to have enough withheld, you pay the penalty — not the company. *The tax savings are complex because it depends on marital status, your other pre-tax amounts for medical, and how much income your spouse makes, plus your other income and deductions.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "57c466f2f25afac249a67fe39378fde3",
"text": "No, 401(k) and IRA accounts are not at risk when you default on a mortgage, even in states that aren't non-recourse. In states where mortgages are non-recourse loans, the bank isn't allowed to go after you at all. They get the keys and whatever they recover from the house sale is it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7b2e8432ffa0c2ebae1abc87008fc1a2",
"text": "Ok, so if I have a 401k, when does it become mine? When I retire and start taking distributions from it? At that point, is the only thing I own what I actually take out or is the full balance mine? Who owns the 401k when I'm contributing? This is just raising more questions.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d20e19f97cb64de8d152d040b7ead706",
"text": "The way I read this, you've been effectively paying $100 per month toward a $5,000 loan at $10% per year. Excluding the fact that there is another balance attached to the loan. After 36 months there's roughly $2,718 remaining on the $5,000, assuming there have been no late fees etc and your $100 is all that's being applied to your balance.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3f19942416d82aad508dc98501458cb1",
"text": "Your assumption, the need for two distinct accounts is correct. Are you sure that the deposit was made to the same account? Since a 401(k) doesn't really have an account number, just your social security number, it may be they report it to you as though it were aggregated, but it's improper for it to be so. With respect (I mean this literally, I have the utmost respect) to littleadv's answer - the aggregation of the two accounts cannot be legitimate. If I wish to invest my Roth side into investments that grow far greater than the Traditional side, the mixing of accounts destroys this possibility. Something is either wrong, or misunderstood.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a0262e62400a430bc8aa3b783e8b4e84",
"text": "Maybe his accountant not taking care of things meant that there was a miscommunication about his debts. He could've had outstanding loans, back taxes, etc and he didn't have a clear enough picture about what his cash balance would be after his transaction.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6b6cdae0c954602c83294d03b2296053",
"text": "I had a situation like this also. A client deposited an IRA check to his local P.O. prior to collection p/up, thinking this meant it would be postmarked April 15. It may have been picked up, but wasn't postmarked until the next day, and my firm refused to consider it as timely. I do remember discussing it w/my Retirement Services Dept. Maybe they made an exception for me and my client, but maybe not. I don't remember. Good luck.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a49a54204023c175881cedcd8f91556f",
"text": "What is my best bet with the 401K? I know very little about retirement plans and don't plan to ever touch this money until I retire but could this money be of better use somewhere else? You can roll over a 401k into an IRA. This lets you invest in other funds and stocks that were not available with your 401k plan. Fidelity and Vanguard are 2 huge companies that offer a number of investment opportunities. When I left an employer that had the 401k plan with Fidelity, I was able to rollover the investments and leave them in the existing mutual funds (several of the funds have been closed to new investors for years). Usually, when leaving an employer, I have the funds transferred directly to the place my IRA is at - this avoids tax penalties and potential pitfalls. The student loans.... pay them off in one shot? If the interest is higher than you could earn in a savings account, then it is smarter to pay them off at once. My student loans are 1.8%, so I can earn more money in my mutual funds. I'm suspicious and think something hinky is going to happen with the fiscal cliff negotiations, so I'm going to be paying off my student loans in early 2013. Disclaimer: I have IRA accounts with both Fidelity and Vanguard. My current 401k plan is with Vanguard.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
234e64ff6a7961901c542959356b7691
|
What does “points” mean in such contexts (stock exchange, I believe)?
|
[
{
"docid": "f1c69ba86c03badba30673e8435ced1e",
"text": "\"What does \"\"points\"\" mean In any stock market, there are certain stocks that go up and certain stocks that go down. Hence if we want to find the generic health of stock market, i.e. on an average is it going up or down, we have no means to find out. A practise that has evolved over the years is take a set of companies and find if on average they have gone up or gone down. In very simple terms say in 1970 I take the Market Capitalization of a set of 50 companies, lets say its value is \"\"X\"\". I would now call this index as value of 100. Now after a month if the Market Capitalization is 2X, the index value would be 200. After another month if the Market Capitalization come down to 1.5X, then index value would be 150. So essentially now one is able to get the general trend more easily. S&P is an index of Select 500 companies based on various parameters. So in isolation 2000 does not mean anything. However as a comparison it does give quite a bit of insight. Note there are various adjustments made to factor, i.e. certain companies go bankrupt or are not doing well are removed from Index, share splits, mergers, etc. This ensure that the Index is neutral and does not show unwarranted spikes.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3beff2f050d4a1efb3f16ba20425ebde",
"text": "Points are the units of measurement of the index. They're calculated based on the index formula, which in turn based on the prices of the underlying stocks. Movement in points is not really interesting, the movement as a percentage of the base price (daily opening, usually) is more interesting since it gives more context.",
"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": "306e4dbc38dd9989c1d6bd8e12f8a6bc",
"text": "\"What you need to do is go to yahoo finance and look at different stock's P/E ratios. You'll quickly see that the stocks can be sorted by this number. It would be an interesting exercise to get an idea of why P/E isn't a fixed number, how certain industries cluster around a certain number, but even this isn't precise. But, it will give you an idea as to why your question has no answer. \"\"Annual earnings are $1. What is the share price?\"\" \"\"Question has no answer\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3294cc3ac110d2d7324b53bdd16c05e7",
"text": "Wikipedia is your friend: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stock_exchanges",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6b9aea189c196b6b10d6a57150dc113f",
"text": "Consider the mechanic which actually drives the 'price' of a stock. In simplest terms, the 'price' of a stock is the price at which the most recent trade occurred. ie: if the price of IBM is $100/share, that means the last time someone bought IBM stock, they paid $100. Above and below the 'spot price', are dozens/hundreds/thousands of buyers and sellers who have placed orders that no one is yet willing to match. ie: if IBM's spot price is at $100, there could still be 10,000 people willing to sell for $101 (called the 'ask' price, for the lowest price someone is currently willing to sell at), and 15,000 willing to buy for $99 (called the 'bid' price, for the highest price someone is currently willing to buy for). Until someone is willing to buy for $101, then no one will be able to sell at $101. Until someone is willing to sell for $99, no one will be able to buy for $99. Typically orders are placed in the market at a particular limit. Meaning that those orders to buy at $99/sell at $101 are already in the 'system', and will be matched immediately as soon as someone is willing to meet the price on the other side. Now consider general market economics: high demand drives up price, and high supply drives down price. If the details above for IBM were yesterday, and today some news came out that IBM was laying off employees, imagine that another 10,000 people who held shares wanted to sell. Now there would be 20,000 sellers and only 15,000 buyers. If those new sellers were aggressive about wanting to sell, they would have to drop their price to $99, to match the highest buyers in the market. Put together, this means that as more sellers enter the market, supply of shares increases, driving down price. Conversely, as more buyers enter the market, demand for shares increases, driving up share price. As a result of the above, you can say that (all else being equal) if price for a stock goes up, there were more buyers that day, and if price goes down, there were more sellers that day. On the face of it, that is not necessarily true, because you could have the same number of buyers and sellers, one side could have simply decreased/increased their acceptable price to match the other side.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dcfb68ac04560cc5455ac9725a74c2d2",
"text": "You could think of points 1 and 3 combined to be similar to buying shares and selling calls on a part of those shares. $50k is the net of the shares and calls sale (ie without point 3, the investor would pay more for the same stake). Look up convertible debt, and why it's used. It's basically used so that both parties get 'the best of both world's' from equity and debt financing. Who is he selling his share to in point 2 back to the business or to outside investors?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "67678b24e00d599afb2ad4f0fb52c905",
"text": "\"First, note that a share represents a % of ownership of a company. In addition to the right to vote in the management of the company [by voting on the board of directors, who hires the CEO, who hires the VPs, etc...], this gives you the right to all future value of the company after paying off expenses and debts. You will receive this money in two forms: dividends approved by the board of directors, and the final liquidation value if the company closes shop. There are many ways to attempt to determine the value of a company, but the basic theory is that the company is worth a cashflow stream equal to all future dividends + the liquidation value. So, the market's \"\"goal\"\" is to attempt to determine what that future cash flow stream is, and what the risk related to it is. Depending on who you talk to, a typical stock market has some degree of 'market efficiency'. Market efficiency is basically a comment about how quickly the market reacts to news. In a regulated marketplace with a high degree of information available, market efficiency should be quite high. This basically means that stock markets in developed countries have enough traders and enough news reporting that as soon as something public is known about a company, there are many, many people who take that information and attempt to predict the impact on future earnings of the company. For example, if Starbucks announces earnings that were 10% less than estimated previously, the market will quickly respond with people buying Starbucks shares lowering their price on the assumption that the total value of the Starbucks company has decreased. Most of this trading analysis is done by institutional investors. It isn't simply office workers selling shares on their break in the coffee room, it's mostly people in the finance industry who specialize in various areas for their firms, and work to quickly react to news like this. Is the market perfectly efficient? No. The psychology of trading [ie: people panicking, or reacting based on emotion instead of logic], as well as any inadequacy of information, means that not all news is perfectly acted upon immediately. However, my personal opinion is that for large markets, the market is roughly efficient enough that you can assume that you won't be able to read the newspaper and analyze stock news in a way better than the institutional investors. If a market is generally efficient, then it would be very difficult for a group of people to manipulate it, because someone else would quickly take advantage of that. For example, you suggest that some people might collectively 'short AMZN' [a company worth half a trillion dollars, so your nefarious group would need to have $5 Billion of capital just to trade 1% of the company]. If someone did that, the rest of the market would happily buy up AMZN at reduced prices, and the people who shorted it would be left holding the bag. However, when you deal with smaller items, some more likely market manipulation can occur. For example, when trading penny stocks, there are people who attempt to manipulate the stock price and then make a profitable trade afterwards. This takes advantage of the low amount of information available for tiny companies, as well as the limited number of institutional investors who pay attention to them. Effectively it attempts to manipulate people who are not very sophisticated. So, some manipulation can occur in markets with limited information, but for the most part prices are determined by the 'market consensus' on what the future profits of a company will be. Additional example of what a share really is: Imagine your neighbor has a treasure chest on his driveway: He gathers the neighborhood together, and asks if anyone wants to buy a % of the value he will get from opening the treasure chest. Perhaps it's a glass treasure chest, and you can mostly see inside it. You see that it is mostly gold and silver, and you weigh the chest and can see that it's about 100 lbs all together. So in your head, you take the price of gold and silver, and estimate how much gold is in the chest, and how much silver is there. You estimate that the chest has roughly $1,000,000 of value inside. So, you offer to buy 10% of the chest, for $90k [you don't want to pay exactly 10% of the value of the company, because you aren't completely sure of the value; you are taking on some risk, so you want to be compensated for that risk]. Now assume all your neighbors value the chest themselves, and they come up with the same approximate value as you. So your neighbor hands out little certificates to 10 of you, and they each say \"\"this person has a right to 10% of the value of the treasure chest\"\". He then calls for a vote from all the new 'shareholders', and asks if you want to get the money back as soon as he sells the chest, or if you want him to buy a ship and try and find more chests. It seems you're all impatient, because you all vote to fully pay out the money as soon as he has it. So your neighbor collects his $900k [$90k for each 10% share, * 10], and heads to the goldsmith to sell the chest. But before he gets there, a news report comes out that the price of gold has gone up. Because you own a share of something based on the price of gold, you know that your 10% treasure chest investment has increased in value. You now believe that your 10% is worth $105k. You put a flyer up around the neighborhood, saying you will sell your share for $105k. Because other flyers are going up to sell for about $103-$106k, it seems your valuation was mostly consistent with the market. Eventually someone driving by sees your flyer, and offers you $104k for your shares. You agree, because you want the cash now and don't want to wait for the treasure chest to be sold. Now, when the treasure chest gets sold to the goldsmith, assume it sells for $1,060,000 [turns out you underestimated the value of the company]. The person who bought your 10% share will get $106k [he gained $2k]. Your neighbor who found the chest got $900k [because he sold the shares earlier, when the value of the chest was less clear], and you got $104k, which for you was a gain of $14k above what you paid for it. This is basically what happens with shares. Buy owning a portion of the company, you have a right to get a dividend of future earnings. But, it could take a long time for you to get those earnings, and they might not be exactly what you expect. So some people do buy and sell shares to try and earn money, but the reason they are able to do that is because the shares are inherently worth something - they are worth a small % of the company and its earnings.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bd59a0d6be04b9e7ff8cc04436d98108",
"text": "\"What does it mean in terms of share price? Should the share price increase by 15 cents? No, but you're on the right track. In theory, the price of a share reflects it's \"\"share\"\" of time discounted future earnings. To put it concretely, imagine a company consistently earning 15 cents a share every year and paying it all out as dividends. If you only paid 25 cents for it, you could earn five cents a share by just holding it for two years. If you imagine that stocks are priced assuming a holding period of 20 years or so, so we'd expect the stock to cost less than 3 dollars. More accurately, the share price reflects expected future earnings. If everyone is assuming this company is growing earnings every quarter, an announcement will only confirm information people have already been trading based on. So if this 15 cents announcement is a surprise, then we'd expect the stock price to rise as a function of both the \"\"surprise\"\" in earnings, and how long we expect them to stay at this new profitability level before competition claws their earnings away. Concretely, if 5 cents a share of that announcement were \"\"earnings surprise,\"\" you'd expect it to rise somewhere around a dollar.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "74f5180f25f128a9c22aaf7654f0730f",
"text": "Essentially, yes, Peter Lynch is talking about the PEG Ratio. The Price/Earnings to Growth (PEG) Ratio is where you take the p/e ratio and then divide that by the growth rate (which should include any dividends). A lower number indicates that the stock is undervalued, and could be a good buy. Lynch's metric is the inverse of that: Growth rate divided by the p/e ratio. It is the same idea, but in this case, a higher number indicates a good value for buying. In either case, the idea behind this ratio is that a fairly priced stock will have the p/e ratio equal the growth rate. When your growth rate is larger than your p/e ratio, you are theoretically looking at an undervalued stock.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cfd44d1b8f2c9b7a99bb5efdee49d5a1",
"text": "The definition of market cap is exactly shares oustanding * share price, so something is wrong here. It seems that the share price is expressed in pence rather pounds. There's a note at the bottom: Currency in GBp. Note the 'p' rather than 'P'. So the share price of '544' is actually 544p, i.e. £5.44. However it's not really clear just from the annotations which figures are in pence and which are actually in pounds. It seems that the market cap is in pounds but the enterprise value is in pence, given that 4.37 billion is about the right value in pounds whereas 441 billion only really makes sense if expressed in pence. It looks like they actually got the enterprise value wrong by a factor of 100. Perhaps their calculation treated the share price as being denominated in pounds rather than pence.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ab0454cb97484b5aee38694219afe541",
"text": "\"I can see two possibilities. Either a deal is struck that someone (the company itself, or a large owner) buys out the remaining shares. This is the scenario @mbhunter is talking about, so I won't go too deeply into it, but it simply means that you get money in your bank account for the shares in question the same as if you were to sell them for that price (in turn possibly triggering tax effects, etc.). I imagine that this is by far the most common approach. The other possibility is that the stock is simply de-listed from a public stock exchange, and not re-listed elsewhere. In this case, you will still have the stock, and it will represent the same thing (a portion of the company), but you will lose out on most of the \"\"market\"\" part of \"\"stock market\"\". That is, the shares will still represent a monetary value, you will have the same right to a portion of the company's profits as you do now, etc., but you will not have the benefit of the market setting a price per share so current valuation will be harder. Should you wish to buy or sell stock, you will have to find someone yourself who is interested in striking a deal with you at a price point that you feel comfortable with.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d136f7a305f0ebe8718fdc3b590115ec",
"text": "As Chris pointed out in his comment, smaller stock exchanges may use open outcry. There are several exchanges that use open outcry/floor trading in the US, however, although they aren't necessarily stock exchanges. Having visited the three Chicago exchanges I mentioned, I can personally vouch for their continued use of a trading floor, although its use is declining in all three.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1e090411bf34d3e1a21c664640f3d881",
"text": "Graphs are nothing but a representation of data. Every time a trade is made, a point is plotted on the graph. After points are plotted, they are joined in order to represent the data in a graphical format. Think about it this way. 1.) Walmart shuts at 12 AM. 2.)Walmart is selling almonds at $10 a pound. 3.) Walmart says that the price is going to reduce to $9 effective tomorrow. 4.) You are inside the store buying almonds at 11:59 PM. 5.) Till you make your way up to the counter, it is already 12:01 AM, so the store is technically shut. 6.) However, they allow you to purchase the almonds since you were already in there. 7.) You purchase the almonds at $9 since the day has changed. 8.) So you have made a trade and it will reflect as a point on the graph. 9.) When those points are joined, the curves on the graph will be created. 10.) The data source is Walmart's system as it reflects the sale to you. ( In your case the NYSE exchange records this trade made). Buying a stock is just like buying almonds. There has to be a buyer. There has to be a seller. There has to be a price to which both agree. As soon as all these conditions are met, and the trade is made, it is reflected on the graph. The only difference between the graphs from 9 AM-4 PM, and 4 PM-9 AM is the time. The trade has happened regardless and NYSE(Or any other stock exchange) has recorded it! The graph is just made from that data. Cheers.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ea3648b0db4a1357b82c70a4842fbd43",
"text": "Pivots Points are significant levels technical analysts can use to determine directional movement, support and resistance. Pivot Points use the prior period's high, low and close to formulate future support and resistance. In this regard, Pivot Points are predictive or leading indicators. There are at least five different versions of Pivot Points. I will focus on Standard Pivot Points here as they are the simplest. If you are looking to trade off daily charts you would work out your Pivot Points from the prior month's data. For example, Pivot Points for first trading day of February would be based on the high, low and close for January. They remain the same for the entire month of February. New Pivot Points would then be calculated on the first trading day of March using the high, low and close for February. To work out the Standard Pivot Points you use the High, Low and Close from the previous period (i.e. for daily charts it would be from the previous month) in the following formulas: You will now have 5 horizontal lines: P, R1, R2, S1 and S2 which will set the general tone for price action over the next month. A move above the Pivot Point P suggests strength with a target to the first resistance R1. A break above first resistance shows even more strength with a target to the second resistance level R2. The converse is true on the downside. A move below the Pivot Point P suggests weakness with a target to the first support level S1. A break below the first support level shows even more weakness with a target to the second support level S2. The second resistance and support levels (R2 & S2) can also be used to identify potentially overbought and oversold situations. A move above the second resistance level R2 would show strength, but it would also indicate an overbought situation that could give way to a pullback. Similarly, a move below the second support level S2 would show weakness, but would also suggest a short-term oversold condition that could give way to a bounce. This could be used together with a momentum indicator such as RSI or Stochastic to confirm overbought or oversold conditions. Pivot Points offer a methodology to determine price direction and then set support and resistance levels, however, it is important to confirm Pivot Point signals with other technical analysis indicators, such as candle stick reversal patterns, stochastic and general Support and Resistance Levels in the price action. These pivot points can be handy but I actually haven’t used them for trade setups and entries myself. I prefer to use candle sticks together with stochastic to determine potential turning points and then take out trades based on these. You can then use the Pivot Points Resistance and Support levels to help you estimate profit targets or areas to start becoming cautious and start tightening your stops. Say, for example, you have gone long from a signal you got a few days ago, you are now in profit and the price is now approaching R2 whilst the Stochastic is approaching overbought, you might want to start tightening your stop loss as you might expect some weakness in the price in the near future. If prices continue up you keep increasing your profits, if prices do reverse then you keep the majority of your existing profits. This would become part of your trade management. If you are after finding potential market turning points and take out trades based on these, then I would suggest using candlestick charting reversal patterns for your trade setups. The patterns I like to use most in my trading can be described as either the Hammer or One White Soldier for Bullish reversals and Shooting Star or One Black Crow for Bearish reversals. Below are diagrams of where to place your entries and exits on both Bullish and Bearish reversal patterns. Bullish Reversal Pattern So after some period of weakness in the price you would look for a bullish day where the price closes above the previous day’s high, you place your buy order here just before market close and place your initial stop just below the low of the day. You would apply this either for an uptrending stock where the price has retracted from or near the trendline or Moving Average, or a ranging stock where price is bouncing off the support line. The trade is reinforced if the Stochastic is in or near the oversold and crossing back upwards, volume on the up day is higher than volume on the down days, and the market as a whole is moving up as well. The benefit with this entry is that you are in early so you capture any bullish move up at the open of the next day, such as gaps. The drawbacks are that you need to be in front of your screen before market close to get your price close to the market close and you may get whipsawed if prices reverse at the open of the next day, thus being stopped out with a small loss. As the price moves up you would move your stop loss to just below the low of each day. Alternative Bullish Reversal Entry An alternative, entry would be to wait for after market close and then start your analysis (easier to do after market close than whilst the market is open and less emotions involved). Place a stop buy order to buy at the open of next trading day just above the high of the bullish green candle. Your stop is placed exactly the same, just below the low of the green bullish candle. The benefits of this alternative entry include you avoid the trade if the price reverses at the open of next day, thus avoiding a potential small loss (in other words you wait for further confirmation on the next trading day), and you avoid trading during market open hours where your emotions can get the better of you. I prefer to do my trading after market close so prefer this alternative. The drawback with this alternative is that you may miss out on bullish news prior to and at the next open, so miss out on some potential profits if prices do gap up at the open. This may also increase your loss on the trade if the prices gaps up then reverses and hits your stop on the same day. However, if you choose this method, then you will just need to incorporate this into your trading plan as potential slippage. Bearish Reversal Pattern So after some short period of strength in the price you would look for a bearish day where the price closes below the previous day’s low, you place your sell short order here just before market close and place your initial stop just above the high of the day. You would apply this either for an downtrending stock where the price has retracted from or near the trendline or Moving Average, or a ranging stock where price is bouncing off the resistance line. The trade is reinforced if the Stochastic is in or near the overbought and crossing back downwards, volume on the up day is higher than volume on the up days, and the market as a whole is moving down as well. The benefit with this entry is that you are in early so you capture any bearish move down at the open of the next day, such as gaps. The drawbacks are that you need to be in front of your screen before market close to get your price close to the market close and you may get whipsawed if prices reverse at the open of the next day, thus being stopped out with a small loss. As the price moves down you would move your stop loss to just above the high of each day. Alternative Bearish Reversal Entry An alternative, entry would be to wait for after market close and then start your analysis (easier to do after market close than whilst the market is open and less emotions involved). Place a stop sell short order to sell at the open of next trading day just below the low of the bearish red candle. Your stop is placed exactly the same, just above the high of the red bearish candle. The benefits of this alternative entry include you avoid the trade if the price reverses at the open of next day, thus avoiding a potential small loss (in other words you wait for further confirmation on the next trading day), and you avoid trading during market open hours where your emotions can get the better of you. I prefer to do my trading after market close so prefer this alternative. The drawback with this alternative is that you may miss out on bearish news prior to and at the next open, so miss out on some potential profits if prices do gap down at the open. This may also increase your loss on the trade if the prices gaps down then reverses and hits your stop on the same day. However, if you choose this method, then you will just need to incorporate this into your trading plan as potential slippage. You could also trade other candle stick patterns is similar ways. And with the long entries you can also use them to get into the market with longer term trend following strategies, you would usually just use a larger stop for longer term trading. To determine the size of your order you would use the price difference between your entry and your stop. You should not be risking more than 1% of your trading capital on any one trade. So if your trading capital is $20,000 your risk per trade should be $200. If you were looking to place your buy at 5.00 and had your initial stop at $4.60, you would divide $200 by $0.40 to get 500 stocks to buy. Using this form of money management you keep your losses down to a maximum of $200 (some trades may be a bit higher due to some slippage which you should allow for in your trading plan), which becomes your R-multiple. Your aim is to have your average win at 3R or higher (3 x your average loss), which will give you a positive expectancy even with a win ratio under 50%. Once you have written down your trading rules you can search stock charts for potential setups. When you find one you can backtest the chart for similar setup over the past few years. For each setup in the past jot down the prices you would have entered at, where you would have set your stop, work out your R, and go day by day, moving your stop as you go, and see where you would have been stopped out. Work out your profit or loss in terms of R for each setup and then add them up. If you get a positive R multiple, then this may be a good stock to trade on this setup. If you get a negative R multiple, then maybe give this stock a miss and look for the next setup. You can setup watch-lists of stocks that perform well for both long setups and short setups, and then trade these stocks when you get a new signal. It can take some time starting off, but once you have got your watch-lists for a particular setup, you just need to keep monitoring those stocks. You can create other watch-lists for other type of setups you have backtested as well.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a3230014b1ba3c859fe79f9b1a38077e",
"text": "The meaning is quite literal - a representative stock list is a list of stocks that would reasonably be expected to have about the same results as the whole market, i.e. be representative of an investment that invests in all those stocks. Of course, you don't want to invest in all stocks individually, that would be impractical, but you can either choose a diverse array of stocks that are (should be) representative, as the article recommends, or alternatively choose to invest in an index fund which offers a practical way to invest in all the stocks in the index at once.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7ccebb6bcea7089d89b1fd72e66e3b81",
"text": "Thank you for replying. I'm not sure I totally follow though, aren't you totally at mercy of the liquidity in the stock? I guess I'm havinga hard time visualizing the value a human can add as opposed to say vwapping it or something. I can accept that you're right, just having a difficult time picturing it",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
bb1fa12883aeecf70d79d00892c7389b
|
What software do you recommend for Creating a To-The-Penny, To-The-Day Budget?
|
[
{
"docid": "929cc868870e45ef33de54abb9d7320c",
"text": "\"I've tried Mint, and I've tried Quicken. Now, I think Quicken is an annoying, crashy little piece of software, but it is also quite capable; overall I think it has the features you want. You can enter your bills, broken down by category, in advance. You can enter your paychecks, broken down by category (gross income, federal income tax, state income tax, social security, SDI, transfers to tax-protected 401(k) account, etc) in advance. You can enter in your stock trades and it can tell you how much you'll need to end up paying in capital gains taxes. You can even enter in your stock option vesting schedule in advance (it's a royal pain because you can't go back and change anything without deleting everything, but you can do it). It'll forecast your bank account balance in all of your bank accounts in advance with a shiny chart. It'll even model your loans, if you set it up right. I didn't do too much with the \"\"budgeting\"\" tools per se, but the account-balances-daily features sound like the closest thing to what you're looking for that's likely to exist. The only thing that's a trifle tricky is that transfers from one account to another may take multiple days (hello, ACH) and you'll have to decide whether to record them at departure or arrival.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b0b0209cce89a409525fed36fbf330e2",
"text": "I really don't know about will it help you, but here is what I do: It is not classic solution, but maybe it will work for you (works for me very well).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c6fa632a4fe912a3d78b7a6592e82079",
"text": "\"I wrote a little program one time to try to do this. I think I wrote it in Python or something. The idea was to have a list of \"\"projected expenses\"\" where each one would have things like the amount, the date of the next transaction, the frequency of the transaction, and so on. The program would then simulate time, determining when the next transaction would be, updating balances, and so on. You can actually do a very similar thing with a spreadsheet where you basically have a list of expenses that you manually paste in for each month in advance. Simply keep a running balance of each row, and make sure you don't forget any transactions that should be happening. This works great for fixed expenses, or expenses that you know how much they are going to be for the next month. If you don't know, you can estimate, for instance you can make an educated guess at how much your electric bill will be the next month (if you haven't gotten the bill yet) and you can estimate how much you will spend on fuel based on reviewing previous months and some idea of whether your usage will differ in the next month. For variable expenses I would always err on the side of a larger amount than I expected to spend. It isn't going to be possible to budget to the exact penny unless you lead a very simple life, but the extra you allocate is important to cushion unexpected and unavoidable overruns. Once you have this done for expenses against your bank account, you can see what your \"\"low water mark\"\" is for the month, or whatever time period you project out to. If this is above your minimum, then you can see how much you can safely allocate to, e.g. paying off debt. Throwing a credit card into the mix can make things a bit more predictable in the current month, especially for unpredictable amounts, but it is a bit more complicated as now you have a second account that you have to track that has to get deducted from your first account when it becomes due in the following month. I am assuming a typical card where you have something like a 25 day grace period to pay without interest along with up to 30 days after the expense before the grace period starts, depending on the relationship between your cut-off date and when the actual expense occurs.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "ccde069c7755ed62ee56a93b5a2fb5fd",
"text": "I would suggest that you try ClearCheckbook. It is kind of like Mint, but you can add and remove things (graphs, features, modules) to make it as simple or diverse as you need it to be. It should be a workable solution for simply tracking both income and expenses, yet it will also provide extra features as needed. There is a free option as well as a paid option with added features. I have not used ClearCheckbook before, but according to their features page it looks like you may have to upgrade to the paid option if you want to have complete tagging/custom field flexibility.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e60126f35b17cfb92270360e7ec36ea1",
"text": "I like Pocketsmith for simple cashflow forecasting. I use Moneycenter for more complex tracking.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b30aed3b8b3704d3ea740b6a90195a5a",
"text": "\"It comes down to the resolution you want to have on your personal finances. A package like GNUCash allows you to easily answer questions like \"\"Exactly how much do I spend on interest per month/year/decade.\"\" Same with pretty much any other expense, liability or asset you have whether it be taxes, utilities, your home equity or your net worth. The other tools you mention are nice, and certainly convenient, but they tend to lump things together in broad strokes and omit many categories altogether (taxes). Ultimately by having such a fine grained accounting tool, you can target small or large things to better budget your money. Another thing a package like GNUCash provides is a single, private place to consolidate all of your finances. This is nice for things like net worth and asset accounts that you might not want to give a company access to. Finally, GNUcash in particular helps normal people think like accountants. Rather than lump everything into 'income' and 'expenses', once you start using GNUCash you'll start thinking in terms of equity, liabilities, net-worth and assets in addition to income and expenses. This gives me a much more accurate view of my finances and helps me better target areas for improvement. In short, it helps me to see the broader picture which helps me to keep my eye on the prize - which of course is to not have to worry about money at all.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3bda3e210ba9b35e0f5b54f23bb862c4",
"text": "I use MoneyStrands (formerly called Expensr), but mostly just to track expenses and look at reports on my spending habits. It has some really pretty charts, with the ability to drill down into categories and sub-categories, or graph monthly spending for any custom date range. It does a half-decent job of auto-categorizing the imported bank transactions, and you can set up additional rules for common vendors, but I still have to do some manual work after each import. It does a good job of integrating my credit cards, bank accounts, and I can even manually add cash transactions. It has some basic budgeting capabilities, but they're not very useful for someone who needs to carefully budget thier monthly spending. Another one I've heard about is mint.com, but it only supports American banks (last I heard, anyway).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cd78bc9c9eaffdab15fa29d6837f52a5",
"text": "I can personally recommend MoneyWell. I've been using it for about a month now, and version 1.5 that was just released is a great upgrade from the previous version. The developer was very responsive during the open beta period, and from what I understand an iPhone version is in the works. (and no, I don't work for the publisher!) That aside, I've used a few other packages. I tried out iBank, which was fairly nice, but the account downloading functionality left a lot to be desired. I come from a MS Money background, and I am used to a seamless, reliable download scheme, and iBank's was (unfortunately) neither. Otherwise the interface was very nice. I had settled on MoneyDance before I found MoneyWell, and it's a pretty nice package. Unfortunately it's a Java application and doesn't adhere to most OSX interface practices. While the account downloading is substantially better than iBank's, the ugly interface made moving away from it fairly easy once I found something that had feature parity.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0d677d7273bc13db6a9d56469fb9e711",
"text": "Determining how much you should budget to spend on any area of your budget is one of those hard topics to find good information about. Part of the problem is that everyone has different priorities and needs, and incomes and expenses vary greatly depending upon where you live and your career choices. The best thing you can do is track your spending for 1-3 months (you can use the envelope system if you need to, to track and control how much you spend on miscellaneous things like lunches, coffee, etc). The precision is important, though you probably dont need to measure to the penny, however you should capture all the areas where you spend money (even if you later gather them into more broad areas). Split your spending into three broad areas, and try to limit the spending for each of those areas to the stated percentages (adjust for your preferences). You state net Income $2600, and you stated you have $1731 of known expenses, so you are spending another $870 on groceries, debt payments, restaurants, unplanned expenses, and emergencies. Essentials (50%,$1300) - rent, transportation, food, utilites Total $972+groceries (you probably spend $400-600 on groceries, so your essentials are higher by $100-300 than you can afford. You should try to cut your electricity usage ($30-50), and you may be able to find cheaper car insurance (save $20). Financial Priorities (30%,$780) - savings, debt payments Total $376, nearly 15% before you pay for credit cards and savings. Please focus on paying off your debts (credit cards, window loan, student loans). You are spending almost 10% of your income on student loans, and you cannot afford much other debt. Lifestyle (20%,$520) Total $279, over 10% of your income on communications! Please try to cut cellphone, and DirectTV costs, at least until you have reduced debt. Since you have internet, your wife could use a voip provider (vonage, ooma telo, etc) or get an ipod touch and use skype or similar, at least until you get out of debt. You might consider trying to find a way to earn extra money, until you have paid off either the loan for windows, your credit card debt, or one of your student loans.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ef506aaf7991f3030af9a786ba6f7094",
"text": "\"Aside from the fundamental points brought up in other answers (which is important), there are a number of choices when it comes to budgeting software. Software like this can help you organize fixed reoccurring costs (rent and phone) as well as variable costs (food and events). Mint is probably the most popular, but just search \"\"budgeting software\"\" to get an idea of what's out there. Some can also help you visualize your spending with reports and dashboards. Some help out with paying bills on a schedule (this may help avoiding late payments). Some even link up with your bank/credit card accounts.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a3ac3834ecfdcdd0f6bcca73ae4e4620",
"text": "First: great job on getting it together. This is good for your family in any respect I can think of. This is a life long process and skill, but it will pay off for you and yours if you work on it. Your problem is that you don't seem to know where you money goes. You can't decide how whacky your expenses are until you know what they are. Looking at just your committed expenses and ignore the other stuff might be the problem here. You state that you feel you live modestly, but you need to be able to measure it completely to decide. I would suggest an online tool like mint.com (if you can get it in your country) because it will go back for 90 days and get transactions for you. If you primarily work in cash, this isn't helpful, but based on your credit card debt I am hoping not. (Although, a cash lifestyle would be good if you tend to overspend.) Take the time and sort your transactions into categories. Don't setup a budget, just sort them out. I like to limit the number of categories for clarity sake, especially to start. Don't get too crazy, and don't get too detailed at first. If you buy a magazine at the grocery store, just call it groceries. Once you know what you spend, then you can setup a budget for the categories. If somethings are important, create new categories. If one category is a problem, then break it down and find the specific issue. The key is that you budget not be more than you earn but also representative of what you spend. Follow up with mint every other day or every weekend so the categorization is a quick and easy process. Put it on your iPhone and do it at every lunch break. Share the information with your spouse and talk about it often.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1ca480847c8abfafbf8136bc97e2d5e0",
"text": "I would investigate mint.com further. Plenty of people have written off using them because Intuit purchased them, but that seems like cutting of your nose to spite your face. I think mint.com is worth it for its Trends functionality alone, not to mention its automatic categorization of your purchases, reminders when bills are due, notifications of increased credit card interest rates, and overdraft notices. I don't think mint.com schedules bills & deposits, but it tracks stocks & mutual fund investments and compares your portfolio returns against Dow Jones, S&P 500, or NASDAQ if you wish. I'm not sure I see the advantage of manual transaction entry, but you can add cash or check transactions manually. As I mentioned earlier, automated categorization is a great feature. In addition, you can tag certain transactions as reimbursable or tax-related. If the primary feature you're interested in is stock quotes, maybe something like Yahoo Finance or Google Finance will be enough.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d2ecc077203c74417c448dd706889ea5",
"text": "hledger is a free software, cross-platform double-entry accounting tool I've been working on for a while. It has command-line and web-based interfaces to your local data, and some other interesting features. There's also ledger (http://wiki.github.com/jwiegley/ledger/) which is command-line only. These are.. different, but worth a look for some folks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "65c0e3b68efbc4fd3788f304e00d70b7",
"text": "\"I'm currently using You Need A Budget for this. It lets you track spending my category and \"\"save\"\" money in particular accounts from month to month. They also have some strong opinions about how one should manage one's cashflow, so check it out to see if it'll work for you. It's neither web-based nor free, but the licensing terms are very reasonable.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6ab84a4012b949349f3fa5c4f201402e",
"text": "I use iBank for Mac to keep track of my expenses. I also use the iPhone version since they can sync over Wi-Fi and I can capture expenses right on the spot instead of trying to remember what I spent on when I turn on my laptop.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8d50c2156d049c162fca11446aa0de00",
"text": "If held in one savings account, how can I easily manage what percentage is planned for which purpose? I used a spreadsheet for some years, but found it clumsy for everyday use. Thus I wrote some software which my wife and I use for our short-term as well as long-term planning, available at http://budgeter.sourceforge.net. It specifically helps with splitting the money in one or several accounts into logical categories. (The software is not the most user-friendly ever, so there may be better suggestions that follow, but it works well for us. Please feel free to suggest improvements to it as well.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2bbd207ade9c324b174bc676472a60f6",
"text": "YNAB runs on Mac, Win, and Linux.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "acd9a181cdb5204856ef8ff054d77951",
"text": "A bond fund has a 5% yield. You can take 1/.05 and think of it as a 20 P/E. I wouldn't, because no one else does, really. An individual bond has a coupon yield, and a YTM, yield to maturity. A bond fund or ETF usually won't have a maturity, only a yield.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
56b11d154bbf7f36f5a2d5434775a4b9
|
Is it possible to lower the price of a stock while buying?
|
[
{
"docid": "b146e4424d5e595a6da88bcf9c996c68",
"text": "\"You can choose to place successively lower buy limit orders, but whether they get filled or not is not a given; it depends on whether sellers care to accept your bid. In your example of a 49.98 / 50.01 spread, if you place a buy with limit of 49.99, it won't get filled (if the order reaches the market while still at 49.98 / 50.01) immediately, but will be added to the order book. By being added to the order book, the markets bid and ask become 49.99 / 50.01. Your order won't get filled until some seller places a market order or a sell limit order of 49.99 or less. No guarantee that that will happen, and even if it does, there's nothing to say that your follow-up buy at 49.98 will ever be filled. In fact, your 49.98 buy order queues up at the \"\"end of the line\"\" behind all previously pending 49.98 bids, since your order arrived after those other bids. Since the initial conditions you supposed had a 49.98 bid, such an order exists (or at least did exist; it might have been cancelled in the intervening moment. Basically, your first buy at 49.99, if it happens, has essentially no influence on whether your second buy at 49.98 will happen. You can't expect to move the market lower by making a bid that is higher (49.99) than the existing best bid (49.98). Whatever influence your 49.99 order has is to raise the market's price, not lower it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c1d1d1731885d263af747739da2f2a3b",
"text": "The strategy could conceivably work if you had sufficient quantity of shares to fill all of the outstanding buy orders and fill your lower buy orders. But in this case you are forcing the market down by selling and reinforcing the notion that there is a sell off by filling ever lower buy orders. There is the potential to trigger some stop loss orders if you can pressure it low enough. There is a lot of risk here that someone sees what you are doing and decides to jump in and buy forcing the price back up. Could this work sure. But it is very risky and if you fail to create the panic selling then you risk losing big. I also suspect that this would violate SEC Rules and several laws. And if the price drops too far then trading on the stock would be halted and is likely to return at the appropriate price. Bottom line I can not see a scenario where you do not trigger the stop, net a profit and end up with as many or more stock that you had in the first place.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "eeb476540810014f56d055b895dba62b",
"text": "In the US, it is perfectly legal to execute what you've described. However, since you seem to be bullish on the stock, why sell? How do you KNOW the price will continue downwards? Aside from the philosophical reasoning, there can be significant downside to selling shares when you're expecting to repurchase them in the near future, i.e. you will lose your cost basis date which determines whether or not your trade is short-term (less than 1 year) or long-term. This cost basis term will begin anew once you repurchase the shares. IF you are trying to tax harvest and match against some short-term gains, tax loss harvesting prior to long-term treatment may be suitable. Otherwise, reexamine your reasoning and reconsider the sale at all, since you are bullish. Remember: if you could pick where stock prices are headed in the short term with any degree of certainty you are literally one of a kind on this planet ;-). In addition, do remember that in a tax deferred account (e.g. IRA) the term of your trade is typically meaningless but your philosophical reasoning for selling should still be examined.",
"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": "6840ddecbf02e8c564ec38036cce7563",
"text": "You can execute block trades on the options market and get exercised for shares to create a very large position in Energy Transfer Partners LP without moving the stock market. You can then place limit sell orders, after selling directly into the market and keep an overhang of low priced shares (the technical analysis traders won't know what you specifically are doing, and will call this 'resistance'). If you hit nice even numbers (multiples of 5, multiples of 10) with your sell orders, you can exacerbate selling as many market participants will have their own stop loss orders at those numbers, causing other people to sell at lower and lower prices automatically, and simultaneously keep your massive ask in effect. If your position is bigger than the demand then you can keep a stock lower. The secondary market doesn't inherently affect a company in any way. But many companies have borrowed against the price of their shares, and if you get the share price low enough they can get suddenly margin called and be unable to service their existing debt. You will also lose a lot of money doing this, so you can also buy puts along the way or attempt to execute a collar to lower your own losses. The collar strategy is nice because it is unlikely that other traders and analysts will notice what you are doing, since there are calls, puts and share orders involved in creating it. One person may notice the block trade for the calls initially, but nobody will notice it is part of a larger strategy with multiple legs. With the share position, you may also be able to vote on some things, but that solely depends on the conditions of the shares.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "2ab1b49e63a3dba39eff858cce1d5227",
"text": "Ignoring brokerage fees and the wash-sale rule (both of which are hazardous to your health), and since the 15% LTCG tax is only on the gain, the stock would have to drop 15% of the gain in price since you originally purchased it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3958b9cb8e53f34f5db3249b09a9fa1e",
"text": "No, this isn't possible, especially not when you're trading a highly liquid stock like Apple. When you put in your buy order at $210, any other traders that have open limit sell orders with the correct parameters, e.g. price and volume, will have their order(s) filled. This will occur before you can put in your own sell order and purchase your own shares because the other orders are listed on the order book first. In the US, many tax-sheltered accounts like IRA's have specific rules against self-dealing, which includes buying and selling assets with yourself, so such a transaction would be prohibited by definition. Although I'm not entirely sure if this applies to stocks, the limitation described in the first paragraph still applies regardless. If this were possible, rest assured that high-frequency traders would take advantage of this tactic to manipulate share prices. (I've heard critics say that this does occur, but I haven't researched it myself or seen any data about it)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bbc616ead23979dbfb6b2f964398e6d1",
"text": "In order: A seller of the stock (duh!). You don't know who or why this stock was sold. It could be any reason, and is of no concern of yours. It doesn't matter. Investors (pension funds, hedge funds, individual investors, employees, management) sell stock for many reasons: need cash, litigation, differing objectives, sector rotation, etc. To you, this does not matter. Yes, it does affect stock market prices: If you were not willing to buy that amount of shares, and there were no other buyers at that price, the seller would likely choose to lower the price offered. By your purchase, you are supporting the price.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eea50bac643f16c661a5f92a666659a4",
"text": "The 'normal' series of events when trading a stock is to buy it, time passes, then you sell it. If you believe the stock will drop in price, you can reverse the order, selling shares, waiting for the price drop, then buying them back. During that time you own say, -100 shares, and are 'short' those shares.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "4046514c9c1f46c97d5cbb109400ba6e",
"text": "It depends completely on the current order book for that security. There is literally no telling how that buy order would move the price of a stock in general.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7bbd043eabc228898ea2466c0b459b6e",
"text": "There are 2 approaches. One of them is already mentioned by @Afforess. If the approach by @Afforess is not feasible, and you can not see yourself making an unbiased decision, close the position. By closing the position you will not get the best price. But by removing a distraction you will reduce amount of mistakes you make in the other stocks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "885c2fe86964f417fb835bfe6bb68713",
"text": "How would this trade behave IRL? I don't know how the simulation handles limit orders and bid/ask spreads to know it's feasible, but buying at 4.04 when the current ask is 8.00 seems unlikely. That would mean that all other sell orders between 8.00 and 4.04 were fulfilled, which means that there were very few sellers or that sell pressure spiked, both of which seem unlikely. In reality, it seems more likely that your order would have sat there until the ask dropped to $4.04 (if it ever did), and then you'd have to wait until the bid rose to $7.89 in order to sell them at that price. However, that kind of swing in option prices in not unrealistic. Options near at-the-money tend to move in price at about 50% of the change in the underlying, so if amazon suddenly dropped by $5, the option price could drop by $2.60 (from 6.66 to $4.04), and then rise back to $7.89 if the price rose $8 (which would be 1% swing and not unheard of intra-day). But it sounds like you got very lucky (or the simulation doesn't handle option trading realistically) - I've traded options in the past and have had some breaks similar to yours. I've also had bad breaks where I lost my entire investment (the options expire out-of-the money). So it should be a very limited part of your portfolio, and probably only used for risk management (e.g. buying put options to lock in some gains but keeping some upside potential).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b04e1cc171182a103c9df4a5b8c04f3c",
"text": "\"Stock prices are set by bidding. In principle, a seller will say, \"\"I want $80.\"\" If he can't find anyone willing to buy at that price, he'll either decide not to sell after all, or he'll lower his price. Likewise, a buyer will say, \"\"I'll pay $70.\"\" If he can't find anyone willing to pay that price, he'll either decide not to buy or he'll increase his price. For most stocks there are many buyers and many sellers all the time, so there's a constant interplay. The typical small investor has VERY little control of the price. You say, \"\"I want to buy 10 shares of XYZ Corporation and my maximum price is $20.\"\" If the current trending price is below $20, your broker will buy it for you. If not, he won't. You normally have some time limit on the order, so if the price falls within your range within that time period, your broker will buy. That is, your choice is basically to buy or not buy, or sell or not sell, at the current price. You have little opportunity to really negotiate a better price. If you have a significant percentage of a company's total stock, different story. In real life, most stocks are being traded constantly, so buyers and sellers both have a pretty good idea of the current price. If the last sale was ten minutes ago for $20, it's unlikely anyone's going to now bid $100. They're going to bid $20.50 or $19.25 or some such. If the last sale was for $20 and your broker really came to the floor and offered to buy for $100, I suppose someone would sell to him very quickly before he realized what an outrageous price this was. I use TD Ameritrade, and on their web site, if I give a price limit on a buy that's more than a small percentage above the last sale, they reject it as an error. I forget the exact number but they won't even accept a bid of $80 if the stock is going for $40. They might accept $41 or $42, something like that.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d7818ae9d9068f5953344459e340be74",
"text": "\"In a way yes but I doubt you'd want that. A \"\"Stop-Limit\"\" order has both stop and limit components to it but I doubt this gives you what you want. In your example, if the stock falls to $1/share then the limit order of $3/share would be triggered but this isn't quite what I'd think you'd want to see. I'd suggest considering having 2 orders: A stop order to limit losses and a limit order to sell that are separate rather than fusing them together that likely isn't going to work.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4c7101cd989b37312b6a37d355b9d967",
"text": "A stop-loss does not guarantee a sale at the given price; it just automatically triggers an unlimited sale as soon as the market reaches the limit. Depending on the development, your sale could be right at, slightly under, or deeply under the stop-loss limit you gave - it could even be it is never executed, if there are no further deals. The point is that each sell needs a partner that buys for that price, and if nobody is buying, no sale happens, no matter what you do (automated or manually) - your stop loss cannot 'force' a sale. Stop-loss works well for minor corrections in liquid shares; it becomes less useful the less liquid a share is, and it will not be helpfull for seldomly traded shares.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
54558a9d91a01b8fef83ad001d19eb9a
|
Does Apple have $0 of treasury stock?
|
[
{
"docid": "b08954541826ede87341a0bc377e552b",
"text": "\"Treasury stock is not really represented in the Balance Sheet as a \"\"Treasury stock\"\" line item in the assets. Some companies will break out Treasury Shares as a line item in the \"\"Shareholders Equity\"\" heading of the balance sheet but Apple hides it in the \"\"Shares Issued and Outstanding\"\" counts under the \"\"Shareholders Equity\"\" heading. As of the most recent Q2 2017 quarterly report There are 5,205,815,000 shares issued against 5,336,166,000 shares outstanding. This indicates that Apple is retaining about 130,351,000 shares in treasury. On the Q1 10-Q you can see that Apple had 5,255,423,000 shares issued which indicates roughly 49mm shares were repurchased by the end of Q2. You can roughly verify this by looking at page 18 of the Q2 filing in the summary of the share repurchase program. Repurchased as part of an Accelerated Share Repurchase arrangement bleeds between quarters but from February 2017 through May 2017 there have been 17.5mm shares repurchased. 31mm shares were also repurchased on the open market in Q2. The \"\"shares issued\"\" total is on a downward trend as part of Apple's share repurchase initiative that has been underway for the last couple of years.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "3e29cffd92873ce7bd0d57d81102cb04",
"text": "You need to do a few things to analyze your results. First, look at the timing of the deposits, and try to confirm the return you state. If it's still as high as you think, can you attribute it to one lucky stock purchase? I have an account that's up 863% from 1998 till 2013. Am I a genius? Hardly. That account, one of many, happened to have stocks that really outperformed, Apple among them. If you are that good, a career change may be in order. Few are that good. Joe",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "764546861d56bdb5f695573a8b26477b",
"text": "When you own a share, you also own a vote (in most cases). That vote is your means of controlling the assets and management of the company. If you had enough votes and wanted to trade a share for an iPhone or liquidate the company entirely, you could do it. The only thing that prevents you from doing that is that companies are not set up to handle the transaction that way. Stock holders are usually trying to buy investments, not iPhones. There are companies that have more cash in the bank than the market cap (total value) of their stock. They usually don't remain as public companies for long in that case. An investor or group of investors buy them up and split the cash. If you had enough shares of Apple, you could do that to; or, just trade one for an iPhone.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "34fe0e8515510f12280e18062282851d",
"text": "This is a good example of why it's in the public interest to prevent companies like Apple and Google from both hoarding cash and using it to payback investors, rather than use it for R&D and capital improvements. While the mechanism can be argued, we need a way to prevent this accumulation of wealth from sitting idle, or remain with a select few.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b6e009ec30f69b32a49996716bf36410",
"text": "\"The psychology of investing is fascinating. I buy a stock that's out of favor at $10, and sell half at a 400% profit, $50/share. Then another half at $100, figuring you don't ever lose taking a profit. Now my Apple shares are over $500, but I only have 100. The $10 purchase was risky as Apple pre-iPod wasn't a company that was guaranteed to survive. The only intelligent advice I can offer is to look at your holdings frequently, and ask, \"\"would I buy this stock today given its fundamentals and price?\"\" If you wouldn't buy it, you shouldn't hold it. (This is in contrast to the company ratings you see of buy, hold, sell. If I should hold it, but you shouldn't buy it to hold, that makes no sense to me.) Disclaimer - I am old and have decided stock picking is tough. Most of our retirement accounts are indexed to the S&P. Maybe 10% is in individual stocks. The amount my stocks lag the index is less than my friends spend going to Vegas, so I'm happy with the results. Most people would be far better off indexing than picking stocks.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8c0a103b711ecf32e3c82c69669e9b6f",
"text": "I'm not sure it is the best idea, but you can buy only 4 stocks generally. As you alluded to, you should take notice of the fees. Also note that many stocks trade at significantly lower prices than Apple's per shares, so you might want to factor that into your decision. You could probably get a better feel for transactions if you bought say 50 shares of a $30 stock; then it might be easier to see what it's like to sell some, etc. Note that specific trading sites might have various limits in place that would pose as barriers to this sort of behavior though.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3be9de325005a3b81d2802bac87ba204",
"text": "Take a look at apple. It has no debt. So the ev is basically mkt cap - cash. Also remember market cap is the float * share price nothing else. Obviously share price takes into account the assets of the firm into perpituituy but the way you phrased it, adding debt , didnt sound quite right to me. We remove cash since someone buying a company isn't going to pay for your cash. In the transaction cash is distributed to share holders then the company is sold.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b731769f380d1dbc187594d1070e9701",
"text": "I was thinking that the value of the stock is the value of the stock...the actual number of shares really doesn't matter, but I'm not sure. You're correct. Share price is meaningless. Google is $700 per share, Apple is $100 per share, that doesn't say anything about either company and/or whether or not one is a better investment over the other. You should not evaluate an investment decision on price of a share. Look at the books decide if the company is worth owning, then decide if it's worth owning at it's current price.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "609438c89b7e86434faeb8530fa73eb2",
"text": "\"Expanding like crazy compared to what? Apple? You mean the company that has maintained a 25% operating margin while growing top line by 160% since 2010? No company has EVER had a market cap of $1T, let alone maintained it. What is your point? All you're talking about is relative price and \"\"history\"\" which has little to no bearing on what is going to happen in the future. I see no indication of any argument related to the actual valuation of Apple stock. It is still, at $650B, pretty reasonably valued considering the facts, e.g., ability to generate cash, maintain margins, grow revenues, and for management to make sound financial moves, i.e., return $ to shareholders. You come off extremely condescending yet you seem not to have much of an understanding in regards to what dictates stock price over the long term.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2cb116b7138656269772ea1ef0834246",
"text": "This is something I love about only investing in tech. Every company I'd want to invest in has a great balance sheet anyway, that's just how their economics work, so I don't have to worry about this. I actually work in reverse. Like with AAPL, I'm deducting their cash from their market cap to get an even more attractive valuation*. As opposed to trying to work out all the complex debt and liabilities of a bank or something. *AAPL actually does have some debt now but it's dead simple to deduct and only a workaround to their offshore cash.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9d2bb70f6a167a8caf248fd761df13be",
"text": "\">It was a discussion about revenue recognition from the sales of iPhones, and whether it would be better for Apple if the regulation was changed to allow immediate recognition rather than deferring the income... My argument is that it didn't matter one bit, because nothing is changing about how the company is actually run. Cash flow in and out of the company doesn't change... The Accounting majors largely disagreed with me, while the Finance majors largely agreed. There are too many ways to \"\"buy\"\" an iPhone. While some assumptions could be made to make revenue recognition more uniform, cash flow could be wildly different and isn't guaranteed based on the number of units sold. If everyone paid in full with cash, this wouldn't be the case. However, the large majority of iPhone owners acquire their phones via carrier subsidy with another major group buying them on payment plans either from their carrier or directly from Apple.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bf6022bc93687e36f52a30b212aea8d4",
"text": "I think it's safe to say that Apple cannot grow in value in the next 20 years as fast as it did in the prior 20. It rose 100 fold to a current 730B valuation. 73 trillion dollars is nearly half the value of all wealth in the world. Unfortunately, for every Apple, there are dozens of small companies that don't survive. Long term it appears the smaller cap stocks should beat large ones over the very long term if only for the fact that large companies can't maintain that level of growth indefinitely. A non-tech example - Coke has a 174B market cap with 46B in annual sales. A small beverage company can have $10M in sales, and grow those sales 20-25%/year for 2 decades before hitting even $1B in sales. When you have zero percent of the pie, it's possible to grow your business at a fast pace those first years.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2cb9a246d864f7488d094115ae0de85f",
"text": "\"> StockTwits Chairman Howard Lindzon, who is long Apple stock, dismissed the IDC report, arguing that what matters is that the company's \"\"products are great, the stores are great, and new products are coming.\"\" What the what. Samsung has now 25% of the market, Huawei may very well reach 10% in mid 2015, if not sooner, yet their shares are up 20% since the beginning of the year. I'm fond of Apple products, but I just can't see them resisting against State-backed Samsung for one or two more years. And the $9bn market for the iWatch is pure speculation.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f068810e0366ba6a9244f41e7f374873",
"text": "If a company doesn't take out loans to buy back the shares, is it still a bad move? I don't necessarily see the problem with companies retiring shares. If the shares of say Apple have a P/E ratio of 10 and the price to book value max of 1. Wouldn't it be a smart move by the company and the share holders assuming the projected net revenue will hold for at least ten years if not increase. I guess I don't know the true practice of buying back shares but at its core (could be more corrupt), I just don't see it as inherently bad.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0be3e7b32d05ab1ef1f071af7c254fbd",
"text": "My point is that investors can assume whatever they want, it doesn't make it a fact. If I think Apple should be selling at 1,000 a share because the I assume the US government will pass a law giving them a huge tax advantage, does that mean that there is now a government subsidy in effect? Until the government explicitly states that they will not allow a systemically important bank to go the way of Lehman, there is no government subsidy.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fb60f1c81d5d9f3a858a3dbb56eb72af",
"text": "Alphabet has about 40% on shore or 60%. I know it is 60/40 but forget which way. So way, way more than they really need. What Apple does is borrow against the offshore money when needed, Apple now has over $90b in debt and Google less than $4b. So Google would not have any problem.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
b755a576ef97c96552040c3a37abfac4
|
What is a good asset allocation for a 25 year old?
|
[
{
"docid": "19f37287f0b6ceedea5983d467e71c5d",
"text": "Check out some common portfolios compared: Note that all these portfolios are loosely based on Modern Portfolio Theory, a theory of how to maximize reward given a risk tolerance introduced by Harry Markowitz. The theory behind the Gone Fishin' Portfolio and the Couch Potato Portfolio (more info) is that you can make money by rebalancing once a year or less. You can take a look at 8 Lazy ETF Portfolios to see other lazy allocation percentages. One big thing to remember - the expense ratio of the funds you invest in is a major contributor to the return you get. If they're taking 1% of all of your gains, you're not. If they're only taking .2%, that's an automatic .8% you get. The reason Vanguard is so often used in these model portfolios is that they have the lowest expense ratios around. If you are talking about an IRA or a mutual fund account where you get to choose who you go with (as opposed to a 401K with company match), conventional wisdom says go with Vanguard for the lowest expense ratios.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f0a717cb3d03349eff74c42a58816337",
"text": "The standard advice is that stocks are all over the place, and bonds are stable. Not necessarily true. Magazines have to write for the lowest common denominator reader, so sometimes the advice given is fortune-cookie like. And like mbhunter pointed out, the advertisers influence the advice. When you read about the wonders of Index funds, and see a full page ad for Vanguard or the Nasdaq SPDR fund, you need to consider the motivation behind the advice. If I were you, I would take advantage of current market conditions and take some profits. Put as much as 20% in cash. If you're going to buy bonds, look for US Government or Municipal security bond funds for about 10% of your portfolio. You're not at an age where investment income matters, you're just looking for some safety, so look for bond funds or ETFs with low durations. Low duration protects your principal value against rate swings. The Vanguard GNMA fund is a good example. $100k is a great pot of money for building wealth, but it's a job that requires you to be active, informed and engaged. Plan on spending 4-8 hours a week researching your investments and looking for new opportunities. If you can't spend that time, think about getting a professional, fee-based advisor. Always keep cash so that you can take advantage of opportunities without creating a taxable event or make a rash decision to sell something because you're excited about a new opportunity.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "477a605449039c21d7351f3051997b01",
"text": "\"First, I'd recommend that you separate \"\"short-term\"\" assets from \"\"long-term\"\" assets in your head. Short-term assets are earmarked for spending on something specific in the near future or are part of your emergency fund. These should be kept in cash or short bond funds. Long-term assets are assets that you can take some risks with and aren't going to spend in the next few years. Under normal circumstances, I'd recommend 80% stocks/20% bonds or even 70/30 for someone your age, assuming you're saving mainly for retirement and thus have a correspondingly long time horizon. These portfolios historically are much less risky than 100% stock and only return slightly less. Right now, though, I think that anyone who doesn't absolutely need safety keep 100% of their long-term assets in stocks. I'm 26 and this is my asset allocation. Bond yields are absolutely pathetic by historical standards. Even ten year treasury yields are comparable to S&P 500 dividend yields and likely won't outperform inflation if held to maturity. The stock market is modestly undervalued when measured by difference between current P/E ratio and the historical average and more severely undervalued when you account for the effects of reduced inflation, transaction costs and capital gains taxes on fair valuation. Therefore, the potential reward for taking risk is much higher now than it usually is.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b9c8d3c506651f311a01f6d3161206f8",
"text": "Those are all predictions. To the core. With anything, I'd consider the source carefully before taking any kind of advice. If it's from a financial magazine, who advertises with them? What are they selling? How well do they recognize which side of the bread is buttered? That, and I'd get a lot of advice, see how it matches with your goals, and choose. All of that being said, you do have time to recover should you blow it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2af86f5c7fc58a640287b49f990fc161",
"text": "\"In my opinion, the key variable for you (and others) is not age, but \"\"vintage.\"\" Your \"\"age\"\" suggests that you were born in the mid-1980s, in the middle of a bull market. The most remunerative investing periods for you are likely to be in your childhood (past) and middle age (forties and early fifties). Also your, \"\"old-old\"\" period (around age 80, in the 2060s), if you live that long. For now, you can, and perhaps should invest cautiously, like today's 40-year olds, with a heavy emphasis on bonds. The main difference between you and them is that you can shift to stocks in about ten years, in your mid to late 30s, while they will find it harder to do so when approaching old age.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "c164f3698cace48ad15cbebf89a3c733",
"text": "Nowhere. To back up a bit, mutual funds are the stock market (and the bond market). That is, when you invest in a mutual fund, your money is ultimately buying stocks on the open market. Some of it might be buying bonds. The exact mix of stocks and bonds depends on the mutual fund. But a mutual fund is just a basket of stocks and/or bonds (and/or other, more exotic investments). At 25, you probably should just be investing your Roth IRA in index stock mutual funds and index bond mutual funds. You probably shouldn't even be doing peer-to-peer lending (unless you're willing to think of any losses as the cost of a hobby); the higher interest rate you're getting is a reflection of the risk that your borrowers will default. I'm not even sure if peer-to-peer lending is allowed in Roth IRA's. Investing in just stocks, bonds, and cast is boring, but these are easy investments to understand. The harder the investment is to understand, the easier it is for it to be a scam (or just a bad investment). There's not necessarily anything wrong with boring.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "27122403a91aab99ad832d75a39d8e1f",
"text": "It is difficult to actually 'answer' your (or any other) investment question as investment outlook and objectives are different from one individual to another. I shall put down some of my thoughts and probably you shall be able to factor them in while you take your decision. As for your last paragraph, in general from investment perspective, the younger you are more kisk you can take and bond gives a stable base to a portfolio. One good way to estimate the proportionality of bond:stock is (your age):(100-your age). However for 2-3 years you could ignore the above and invest in good quality stocks for long term.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ad3f4ad517e76e988202279128dd35d6",
"text": "In your case, you could very well leave it in something like FFFFX, which for readers is a self balancing fund with a target retirement date of 2040. These funds are a conglomeration of other funds that tend to move more conservatively as time passes. However, I like to put no more than 10% of my portfolio in one fund with exceptions made for balances less than 20K. So If I had 18K it really wouldn't matter if it was in FUSEX a S&P 500 index fund. However by investing in FFFFX you pretty much meet that requirement. So you are golden if that fund meets your goals. For me, I kind of hate bonds and despite being of similar age, I have almost no money invested in bonds.",
"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": "b623b6274302c11d05991d92406e35c8",
"text": "\"I didn't even have access to a 401(k) at age 24. You're starting early and that's good. You're frugal and that's good too. Retirement savings is really intended to be a set it and forget it kind of arrangement. You check in on it once a year, maybe adjust your contributions. While I applaud your financial conservatism, you're really hamstringing your retirement if you're too conservative. At age 24 you have a solid 30 years before retirement will even approach your radar and another 10 years after that before you have to plan your disbursements. The daily, monthly, quarterly movements of your retirement account will have literally zero impact on your life. There will be money market type savings accounts, bond funds, equity funds, and lifecycle funds. The lifecycle fund rolls your contributions to favor bonds and other \"\"safer\"\" investments as you age. The funds available in retirement accounts will all carry something called an expense ratio. This is the amount of money that the fund manager keeps for maintaining the fund. Be mindful of the expense ratios even more than the published performance of the fund. A low fee fund will typically have an expense ratio around 0.10%, or $1 per $1,000 per year in expense. There will be more exotic funds targeting this or that segment, they can carry expense ratios nearing 1% and some even higher. It's smart to take advantage of your employer's match. Personally, at age 24, at a minimum I would contribute the match to a low-fee S&P index fund.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d3fa67f6d512004eb69580e49b12485e",
"text": "\"Do you recall where you read that 25% is considered very good? I graduated college in 1984 so that's when my own 'investing life' really began. Of the 29 years, 9 of them showed 25% to be not quite so good. 2013 32.42, 2009 27.11, 2003 28.72, 1998 28.73, 1997 33.67, 1995 38.02, 1991 30.95, 1989 32.00, 1985 32.24. Of course this is only in hindsight, and the returns I list are for the S&P index. Even with these great 9 years, the CAGR (compound annual growth) of the S&P from 1985 till the end of 2013 was 11.32% Most managed funds (i.e. mutual funds) do not match the S&P over time. Much has been written on how an individual investor's best approach is to simply find the lowest cost index and use a mix with bonds (government) to match their risk tolerance. \"\"my long term return is about S&P less .05%\"\" sounds like I'm announcing that I'm doing worse than average. Yes, and proud of it. Most investors (85-95% depending on survey) lag by far more than this, many percent in fact)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e5721cba909291bba46948d3e9801e4e",
"text": "As others have pointed out your bond funds should have short durations, preferably not more than about 2 years. If you are in a bond fund for the long haul meaning you do not have to draw on your bond fund a short time after interest rates have gone up, it is not a big issue. The fund's holdings will eventually turn over into higher interest bearing paper. If bonds do go down, you might want to add more to the fund(s) (see my comment on age-specific asset allocation below). Keep in mind that some stocks are interest sensitive, for example utility stocks which are used as an income source and their dividends compete with rates on CDs which are much safer. Right now CD rates are very low. This could change. It's possible that we may be in an unusually sensitive interest rate period that might have large effects on the stock market, yet to be determined. The reason is that rates have been so low for such a long time that folks that normally would have obtained income streams from bonds have turned to dividend bearing stocks. Some believe that recent market rises are due to such people seeking dividends to enhance cash inflows. If, and emphasis on if, this is true, we could see a sharp drop in the market as sell offs occur as those who want cash streams move from stocks to ultra safe, government insured CDs. Only time will tell if this is going to play out. If retirement for you is 15+ years in the future and the market goes down (bonds or equities), good stuff - it's a buying opportunity in whatever category has dropped. Most important is to keep an eye on your asset allocation and make sure it is appropriate to your age. You did not state the percentages in each category, so further discussion is impossible on that topic. With more than 15 years to go, I personally would be heavily weighted on the equity side, mostly mid-cap and some small equity funds or ETFs in both domestic and international markets. As you age, shuffle some equities into fixed income (bonds, CDs and the like). Work up an asset allocation plan - start thinking about it now. Don't wait.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c7b99052068ae7cb6abb83d7591cd932",
"text": "Theoretically there is limited demand for risky investments, so higher-risk asset classes should outperform lower-risk asset classes over sufficiently long time periods. In practice, I believe this is true, but it could be several decades before a risky portfolio starts to outperform a more conservative one. Stocks are considered more risky than most assets. Small-cap stocks and emerging market stocks are particularly high-risk. I would consider low-fee ETFs in these areas, like VB or VWO. If you want to seek out the absolute riskiest investments, you could pick individual stocks of companies in dire financial situations, as Bank of America was a couple years ago. Most importantly, if you don't expect to need the money soon, I would maximize your contribution to tax-advantaged accounts since they will grow exponentially faster than taxable accounts. Over 50 years, a 401(k) or IRA will generally grow at least 50% more than a taxable account, maybe more depending on the tax-efficiency of your investments. Try to contribute the maximum ($17,500 for most people in 2014) if you can. If you can save more than that, I'd suggest contributing a Roth 401k rather than a traditional 401(k) - since Roth contributions are post-tax, the effective contribution limit is higher. Also contribute to a Roth IRA (up to $5,500 in 2014), using a backdoor Roth if necessary.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "252851bb2da3621d7ad059dcc0ae87fb",
"text": "\"Say you have $15,000 of capital to invest. You want to put the majority of your capital into low risk investments that will yield positive gains over the course of your working career. $5,000: Government bonds and mutual funds, split how you want. $9,500: Low risk, trusted companies with positive historical growth. If the stock market is very unfamiliar for you, I recommend Google Finance, Yahoo Finance, and Zack's to learn about smart investments you can make. You can also research the investments that hedge fund managers and top investors are making. Google \"\"Warren Buffett or Carl Icahn portfolio\"\", and this will give you an idea of stocks you can put your money into. Do not leave your money into a certain company for more than 25 years. Rebalance your portfolio and take the gains when you feel you need them. You have no idea when to take your profits now, but 5 years from now, you will be a smart and experienced investor. A safe investment strategy to start is to put your money into an ETF that mimics the S&P 500. Over the past 20 years, the S&P 500 has yielded gains of about 270%. During the financial crisis a few years back, the S&P 500 had lost over 50% of its value when it reached its low point. However, from when it hit rock bottom in 2009, it has had as high percentage gains in six years as it did in 12 years from 1995 to 2007, which about 200%. The market is very strong and will treat your money well if you invest wisely. $500: Medium - High risk Speculative Stocks There is a reason this category accounts for only approximately 3% of your portfolio. This may take some research on the weekend, but the returns that may result can be extraordinary. Speculative companies are often innovative, low priced stocks that see high volatility, gains or losses of more than 10% over a single month. The likelihood of your $500 investment being completely evaporated is very slim, but if you lose $300 here, the thousands invested in the S&P 500, low risk stocks, government bonds, and mutual funds will more than recuperate the losses. If your pick is a winner, however, expect that the $500 investment could easily double, triple, or gain even more in a single year or over the course of just a few, perhaps, 2-4 years will see a very large return. I hope this advice helps and happy investing! Sending your money to smart investments is the key to financial security, freedom, and later, a comfortable retirement. Good luck, Matt McLaughlin\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3a5755429ce5a8ff290d050eff64cd2e",
"text": "I recommend that you just leave the 401K where it is - a S&P 500 is a nice simple fund with very low expenses, and over the long term, I think that's a good choice for a 401K. I don't think it makes sense to put money in bonds at your age.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d1fef638e2048f8124f66b42fa701b0c",
"text": "One year is short term -- short enough that trying to predict returns is a crap shoot. Frankly, if you will need the money in one year I wouldn't touch anything riskier than a money market account. $5000 also isn't enough to give you much flexibility in achieving a balanced portfolio, since the minimal initial purchase for mutual funds is often around $2500. (I'm not sure whether ETFs would give you any more flexibility.) So on grounds of both size and time horizon, I have to recommend against this plan. The risk of losing money, with insufficient time for gains to balance that risk, is simply too high. Others may feel differently, of course. But that's the best advice I can offer.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "86424e3b0f6ecfdf466db2b35b6e74e4",
"text": "To me it depends on things like your net worth, debt, and how other assets are invested. Currently you have 25K invested in the company you work for. If you have 100K in student loans, are a renter, and 12K in your 401K, then I would recommend exercising almost all of your options. In that case you have a much to large part of your world wrapped up in your company. If you have 250K in your 401K, own a home and have an emergency fund with no debt then you are fine with letting it ride. You can afford to absorb a loss of 25K without wrecking your net worth. More than likely, you are somewhere in between (just statistics speaking there). So why not exercise some of them now with the purpose of improving your financial situation? Say do a 1/3 now and when they come available. When 401ks were first invented people put almost all of their money in their company stock. They lost just about everything when the company went down in value and were often a victim of layoffs exasperating the issue. This is akin to the same situation. Most financial advisers recommend against putting any 401K money to company stock, or at least limiting the amount.",
"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": "f95f6b5332818507075b52f5b406e60d",
"text": "\"I'd encourage you to use rules of thumb and back-of-the-envelope. Here are some ideas that could be useful: The problem with any kind of detailed calculations is the number of unknowns: There are some really complex calculators out there, for example see ESPlanner (http://www.esplanner.com/) (caution: horrible user interface, but seemed to work), that will include all kinds of factors and run monte carlo and the whole thing. But in my opinion, it's just as good or better to say save at least 15% of income until you have 25x what you spend, or some other such rule of thumb. Here's my little blog post on savings and investing fwiw: http://blog.ometer.com/2010/11/10/take-risks-in-life-for-savings-choose-a-balanced-fund/ Another note, there's sort of an \"\"ideology of how to live\"\" embedded in any retirement recommendation, and you might want to take the time to reflect on that and consciously choose. A book on this topic is Your Money or Your Life by Robin & Dominguez, http://www.amazon.com/Your-Money-Life-Transforming-Relationship/dp/0143115766 which is a sort of radical \"\"you should save everything possible to achieve financial independence as early as possible\"\" argument. I didn't go for their plan, but I think it's thought-provoking. A newer book that may be more appealing is called The Number and it's about your question exactly. It's more designed to get you thinking, while Your Money or Your Life has a particular answer in mind. Both have some math and some rules of thumb, though they aren't focused on that. A kind of general takeaway from these books might be: first think about your expenses. What are you trying to accomplish in life, how would you like to spend your time? And then ask how much money you absolutely need to accomplish that, and focus on accomplishing your goals, spending your time (as much as you can) on what you'd like to spend it on. I'm contrasting this with a generic recommendation to save enough to spend 80% of your income in retirement, which embeds this idea that you should spend as much as possible every year, before and after you retire. Lots of people do like that idea, but it's not a law of the universe or something, it's just one popular approach.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a589d967d83742869cd39a96735dd4fd",
"text": "The S&P report (aka STARS report) for each company has 10 years of financial data. These reports are available free at several online brokers (like E-Trade) if you have an account with the brokerage.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
5f7630389475531c68bd5ba47777fb37
|
What are your experiences with 'self directed' 401ks?
|
[
{
"docid": "07c75adfe6ef2da84f3e05878e67e85f",
"text": "My employer matches 6% of my salary, dollar for dollar. So you have a great benefit. The self-directed side has no fees but $10 trades. No option trading. Yours basically allows you to invest your own funds, but not the match. It's a restriction, agreed, but a good plan.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7656ef45cba6e4625dec01393a52132b",
"text": "My employer matches 1 to 1 up to 6% of pay. They also toss in 3, 4 or 5 percent of your annual salary depending on your age and years of service. The self-directed brokerage account option costs $20 per quarter. That account only allows buying and selling of stock, no short sales and no options. The commissions are $12.99 per trade, plus $0.01 per share over 1000 shares. I feel that's a little high for what I'm getting. I'm considering 401k loans to invest more profitably outside of the 401k, specifically using options. Contrary to what others have said, I feel that limited options trading (the sale cash secured puts and spreads) can be much safer than buying and selling of stock. I have inquired about options trading in this account, since the trustee's system shows options right on the menus, but they are all disabled. I was told that the employer decided against enabling options trading due to the perceived risks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b36177c86a000963a421bfef2ab82829",
"text": "I use the self-directed option for the 457b plan at my job, which basically allows me to invest in any mutual fund or ETF. We get Schwab as a broker, so the commissions are reasonable. Personally, I think it's great, because some of the funds offered by the core plan are limited. Generally, the trustees of your plan are going to limit your investment options, as participants generally make poor investment choices (even within the limited options available in a 401k) and may sue the employer after losing their savings. If I was a decision-maker in this area, there is no way I would ever sign off to allowing employees to mess around with options.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c7efc2dd021ddf9a2a03b9622a11cf2a",
"text": "I have managed two IRA accounts; one I inherited from my wife's 401K and my own's 457B. I managed actively my wife's 401 at Tradestation which doesn't restrict on Options except level 5 as naked puts and calls. I moved half of my 457B funds to TDAmeritrade, the only broker authorized by my employer, to open a Self Directed account. However, my 457 plan disallows me from using a Cash-secured Puts, only Covered Calls. For those who does not know investing, I resent the contention that participants to these IRAs should not be messing around with their IRA funds. For years, I left my 401k/457B funds with my current fund custodian, Great West Financial. I checked it's current values once or twice a year. These last years, the market dived in the last 2 quarters of 2015 and another dive early January and February of 2016. I lost a total of $40K leaving my portfolio with my current custodian choosing all 30 products they offer, 90% of them are ETFs and the rest are bonds. If you don't know investing, better leave it with the pros - right? But no one can predict the future of the market. Even the pros are at the mercy of the market. So, I you know how to invest and choose your stocks, I don't think your plan administrator has to limit you on how you manage your funds. For example, if you are not allowed to place a Cash-Secured Puts and you just Buy the stocks or EFT at market or even limit order, you buy the securities at their market value. If you sell a Cash-secured puts against the stocks/ETF you are interested in buying, you will receive a credit in fraction of a dollar in a specific time frame. In average, your cost to owning a stock/ETF is lesser if you buy it at market or even a limit order. Most of the participants of the IRA funds rely too much on their portfolio manager because they don't know how to manage. If you try to educate yourself at a minimum, you will have a good understanding of how your IRA funds are tied up to the market. If you know how to trade in bear market compared to bull market, then you are good at managing your investments. When I started contributing to my employer's deferred comp account (457B) as a public employee, I have no idea of how my portfolio works. Year after year as I looked at my investment, I was happy because it continued to grow. Without scrutinizing how much it grew yearly, and my regular payroll contribution, I am happy even it only grew 2% per year. And at this age that I am ready to retire at 60, I started taking investment classes and attended pre-retirement seminars. Then I knew that it was not totally a good decision to leave your retirement funds in the hands of the portfolio manager since they don't really care if it tanked out on some years as long at overall it grew to a meager 1%-4% because they managers are pretty conservative on picking the equities they invest. You can generalize that maybe 90% of IRA investors don't know about investing and have poor decision making actions which securities/ETF to buy and hold. For those who would like to remain as one, that is fine. But for those who spent time and money to study and know how to invest, I don't think the plan manager can limit the participants ability to manage their own portfolio especially if the funds have no matching from the employer like mine. All I can say to all who have IRA or any retirement accounts, educate yourself early because if you leave it all to your portfolio managers, you lost a lot. Don't believe much in what those commercial fund managers also show in their presentation just to move your funds for them to manage. Be proactive. If you start learning how to invest now when you are young, JUST DO IT!",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "90766eb89e7b14ba266fbcc81ccffeb6",
"text": "\"There are a lot of false claims around the internet about this concept - the fact of the matter is you are giving yourself the ability to have money in a tax favored environment with consistent, steady growth as well as the ability to access it whenever you want. Compare this to a 401k plan for example....money is completely at risk, you can't touch it, and you're penalized if you don't follow the government's rules. As far as commissions to the agent - an agent will cut his commission in half by selling you an \"\"infinite banking\"\" style policy as opposed to a traditional whole life policy. @duffbeer703 clearly doesn't understand life insurance in the slightest when he says that the first three years of your premium payements will go to the agents pocket. And as usual offers no alternative except \"\"pick some high yielding dividen stocks and MLPs\"\" - Someone needs to wake up from the Dave Ramsey coma and realize that there is no such thing as a 12% mutual fund....do your research on the stock market (crestmont research). don't just listen to dave ramseys disciples who still thinking getting 12-15% year in and year out is possible. It's frustrating to listen to people who are so uneducated on the subject - remember the internet has turned everyone into \"\"experts\"\" if you want real advice talk to a legitimate expert that understands life insurance and how it actually works.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9cd06ae32ff149087f213ba7ce9abff8",
"text": "\"If it was me, I would drop out. You can achieve a better kind of plan when there is no match. For example Fidelity has no fee accounts for IRAs and Roths with thousands of investment choices. You can also setup automatic drafts, so it simulates what happens with your 401K. Not an employee of Fidelity, just a happy customer. Some companies pass the 401K fees onto their employees, and all have limited investment choices. The only caveat is income. There are limits to the deductibility of IRAs and Roth contributions if you make \"\"too much\"\" money. For Roth's the income is quite high so most people can still make those contributions. About 90% of households earn less than $184K, when Roths start phasing out. Now about this 401K company, it looks like the labor department has jurisdiction over these kinds of plans and I would research on how to make a complaint. It would help if you and other employees have proof of the shenanigans. You might also consult a labor attourney, this might make a great class.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9d67e11a7c3b69dc6f4b90c0aaaa9054",
"text": "I don't know what you mean by 'major'. Do you mean the fund company is a Fidelity or Vanguard, or that the fund is broad, as in an s&P fund? The problem starts with a question of what your goals are. If you already know the recommended mix for your age/risk, as you stated, you should consider minimizing the expenses, and staying DIY. I am further along, and with 12 year's income saved, a 1% hit would be 12% of a year's pay, I'd be working 1-1/2 months to pay the planner? In effect, you are betting that a planner will beat whatever metric you consider valid by at least that 1% fee, else you can just do it yourself and be that far ahead of the game. I've accepted the fact that I won't beat the average (as measured by the S&P) over time, but I'll beat the average investor. By staying in low cost funds (my 401(k) S&P fund charges .05% annual expense) I'll be ahead of the investors paying planner fees, and mutual fund fees on top of that. You don't need to be a CFP to manage your money, but it would help you understand the absurdity of the system.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "56290eb39d292df78b8af33f4e308903",
"text": "Mostly you nailed it. It's a good question, and the points you raise are excellent and comprise good analysis. Probably the biggest drawback is if you don't agree with the asset allocation strategy. It may be too much/too little into stocks/bonds/international/cash. I am kind of in this boat. My 401K offers very little choices in funds, but offers Vanguard target funds. These tend to be a bit too conservative for my taste, so I actually put money in the 2060 target fund. If I live that long, I will be 94 in 2060. So if the target funds are a bit too aggressive for you, move down in years. If they are a bit too conservative, move up.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9a56cf08aa0055bd8866c3a1cc7284ba",
"text": "Our company does a lot of research on the self-directed IRA industry. We also provide financial advice in this area. In short, we have seen a lot in this industry. You mentioned custodian fees. This can be a sore spot for many investors. However, not all custodians are expensive, you should do your research before choosing the best one. Here is a list of custodians to help with your research Here are some of the more common pros and cons that we see. Pros: 1) You can invest in virtually anything that is considered an investment. This is great if your expertise is in an area that cannot be easily invested in with traditional securities, such as horses, private company stock, tax liens and more. 2) Control- you have greater control over your investments. If you invest in GE, it is likely that you will not have much say in the running of their business. However, if you invest in a rental property, you will have a lot of control over how the investment should operate. 3) Invest in what you know. Peter lynch was fond of saying this phrase. Not everyone wants to invest in the stock market. Many people won't touch it because they are not familiar with it. Self-directed IRAs allow you to invest in assets like real estate that you know well. Cons: 1) many alternative investments are illiquid. This can present a problem if you need to access your capital for withdrawals. 2) Prohibited transactions- This is a new area for many investors who are unfamiliar with how self-directed IRAs work 3) Higher fees- in many cases, the fees associated with self-directed IRA custodians and administrators can be higher. 4) questionable investment sponsors tend to target self-directed IRA owners for fraudulent investments. The SEC put out a good PDF about the risks of fraud with self-directed IRAs. Self Directed IRAs are not the right solution for everyone, but they can help certain investors focus on the areas they know well.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "61983126d87c9525df8f5091a81f81dd",
"text": "Even ignoring the match (which makes it like a non-deductible IRA), the 401k plans that I know all have a range of choices of investment. Can you find one that is part of the portfolio that you want? For example, do you want to own some S&P500 index fund? That must be an option. If so, do the 401k and make your other investments react to it-reduce the proportion of S&P500 because of it(remember that the values in the 401k are pretax, so only count 60%-70% in asset allocation). The tax deferral is huge over time. For starters, you get to invest the 30-40% you would have paid as taxes now. Yes, you will pay that in taxes on withdrawal, but any return you generate is (60%-70%) yours to keep. The same happens for your returns.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "720391beff1d2c84391ee0a7328a2c1f",
"text": "\"Oddly enough, I started to research the \"\"Bank on Yourself\"\" strategy today as well (even before I'd ran across this question!). I'd heard an ad on the radio for it the other day, and it caught my attention because they claimed that the strategy isn't prone to market fluctuations like the stock market. It seemed in their radio ad that their target market was people who had lost serious money in their 401k's. So I set about doing some research of my own. It seems to me that the website bankonyourself.com gives a very superficial overview of the strategy without truly ever getting to the meat of it. I begin having a few misgivings at the point that I realized I'd read through a decent chunk of their website and yet I still didn't have a clear idea of the mechanism behind it all. I become leery any time I have to commit myself to something before I can be given a full understanding of how it works. It's shady and reeks of someone trying to back you into a corner so they can bludgeon you with their sales pitch until you cry \"\"Mercy!\"\" and agree to their terms just to stop the pain (which I suspect is what happens when they send an agent out to talk to you). There were other red flags that stood out to me, but I don't feel like getting into them. Anyway, through the use of google I was able to find a thread on another forum that was a veritable wealth of knowledge with regard to the mechanism of \"\"Bank on Yourself\"\" how it works. Here is the link: Bank on Yourself/Infinite Banking... There are quite a few users in the thread who have excellent insights into how all of it works. After reading through a large portion of the thread, I came away realizing that this strategy isn't for me. However, it does appear to be a potential choice for certain people depending upon their situation.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3a4d4a1b2146a202c55a6995119675bd",
"text": "\"Technically, this doesn't seem like a scam, but I don't think the system is beneficial. They use a lot of half-truths to convince you that their product is right for you. Some of the arguments presented and my thoughts. Don't buy term and invest the rest because you can't predict how much you'll earn from the \"\"rest\"\" Also Don't invest in a 401k because you can't predict how much you'll earn They are correct that you won't know exactly how much you'll have due to stock market, but that doesn't mean the stock market is a bad place to put your money. Investing in a 401k is risky because of the harsh 401k withdrawal rules Yes, 401ks have withdrawal rules (can't typically start before 59.5, must start by 70.5) but those rules don't hamper my investing style in any way. Most Term Life Insurance policies don't pay out They are correct again, but their conclusions are wrong. Yes, most people don't die while you have a term insurance policy which is why Term life insurance is relatively cheap. But they aren't arguing you don't need insurance, just that you need their insurance which is \"\"better\"\" You need the Guaranteed growth they offer The chart used to illustrate their guaranteed growth includes non-guaranteed dividends. They invest $10,000 per year for 36 years and end up with $1,000,000. That's a 5% return! I use 10% for my estimate of stock market performance, but let's say it's only 8%. The same $10,000 per year results in over $2 Million dollars. Using 10.5% (average return of the S&P 500 over it's lifetime) the result is a staggering $3.7 MILLION. So if I'm looking at $3.7M vs. $1M, It costs me $2.7 Million dollars to give me the same coverage as my term life policy. That's one expensive Term Life Insurance policy. My personal favorite: Blindly following the advice of Wall Street and financial “gurus” such as Dave Ramsey and Suze Orman got you where you are. Are you happy with the state of your finances? Do you still believe their fairytale, “Buy Term (insurance) and Invest the Difference”? Yes, I sure do believe that fairytale and I'm prospering quite well thank you. :) While I don't think this is a scam, it's outrageously expensive and not a good financial choice.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0bc6398c3f04ee3f1e4c7f8cf593ea0e",
"text": "There is nothing wrong with self directed IRA's the problem is that most of the assets they specialize in are better done in other ways. Real estate is already extremely tax advantaged in the US. Buying inside a Traditional IRA would turn longterm capital gains (currently 15%) into ordinary income taxed at your tax rate when you withdraw this may be a plus or minus, but it is more likely than not that your ordinary income tax rate is higher. You also can't do the live in each house for 2 years before selling plan to eliminate capital gains taxes (250k individual 500k married couple). The final problem is that you are going to have problems getting a mortgage (it won't be a conforming loan) and will likely have to pay cash for any real estate purchased inside your IRA. Foreign real estate is similar to above except you have additional tax complexities. The key to the ownership in a business is that there are limits on who can control the business (you and maybe your family can't control the business). If you are experienced doing angel investing this might be a viable option (assuming you have a really big IRA you want to gamble with). If you want to speculate on precious metals you will probably be better offer using ETF's in a more traditional brokerage account (lower transactions costs more liquidity).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "126b716be4a8d598b0d3a01391be7562",
"text": "You read it right. Todd's warning is well taken. I don't know the numbers involved, but have a brilliant suggestion that may help. A Solo 401(k) is simple to qualify for. Any bit of declared side income will do. Once the account is set up, a transfer from IRAs is simple. The Solo 401(k) can offer a loan provision as any other 401(k), and you can borrow up to 50% (max of $50K) for any reason with a 5 year payback. The standard rate is Prime+1%, the fee is minimal usually $50-$100. All the warnings of IRA 'loans' apply, but the risk of job loss (the largest objection to 401 loans) isn't there. The fact that you have 6 months to set this up is part of what prompts this suggestion. Note: Any strategies like this aren't for everyone. There are folk who need to access quick cash, and this solves the issue in two ways, both low rate and simple access. Phil already stated he is confident to return the money, the only thing that prompted my answer is there's real risk the 60 days a bit too short for any business deal.",
"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": "1ca3177affb79852e18be3648597ccfe",
"text": "Considering it's all to risky for me, outside of a blind 401k, just having money to try it with is a bigger risk than I'm willing to take. I see this complaint a lot and my response is about the same every time, if you know of something better, please share, so next time we can make it more realistic.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c8dee8604abe737c83388711bbc7a2cc",
"text": "Don’t do anything that causes taxes or penalties, beyond that it’s entirely personal choice and other posters have already done a great job enumerating then. I recently switched jobs in June and rolled over a 401k from my old company to new company and the third party managing the account at the new company was much more professional and walked me through all the required steps and paperwork.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d5a728a9343d324f805da3dee3ef082c",
"text": "Your example shows a 4% dividend. If we assume the stock continues to yield 4%, the math drops to something simple. Rule of 72 says your shares will double in 18 years. So in 18 years, 1000 shares will be 2000, at whatever price it's trading. Shares X (1.04)^N years = shares after N years. This is as good an oversimplification as any.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d2ec2555cc2ad70761dec8b1d77383c1",
"text": "\"There are always little tricks you can play with your credit card. For example, the due date of your statement balance is not really set in stone as your bank would like you to believe. Banks have a TOS where they can make you liable to pay interest from the statement generation date (which is a good 25 days before your due date) on your balance, if you don't pay off your balance by your due date. However, you can choose to not pay your balance by your due date upto 30 days and they will not report your late payment to credit agencies. If they ask you to pay interest, you can negotiate yourself out of it as well (although not sure if it will work every-time if you make it a habit!) Be careful though: not all banks report your credit utilization based on your statement balance! DCU for example, reports your credit utilization based on your end-of-the-month balance. This can affect your short term credit score (history?) and mess around with your chances of pulling off these tricks with the bank CSRs. These \"\"little tricks\"\" can effectively net you more than 60 days of interest free loans, but I am not sure if anyone will condone this as a habit, especially on this website :-)\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
7835604afbe053c75f670ec8ceed45bc
|
How to invest in a specific market without investing in a specific company?
|
[
{
"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": "acb6e6d7f95d9ac772e446bd016d6d85",
"text": "Let's say you've got an idea for an instrument that could be used to hedge non-depreciating assets (commodities for instance) with benefits including getting rid of the basis risks associated with the futures market. What would be some suggestions on how to market the idea without being left out of the loop? I work neither in a bank nor at a trading house, but as an analyst in the shipping sector and therefore don't stand to benefit directly from my own idea if I were to share it with a party that could make use of it. Hope this is the sort of question that's within the scope of this thread. Any insight in how such issues can be dealt with would be much appreciated.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0ca405224c5eb80b97e9c9a2ecccc177",
"text": "\"Yes, this is possible with some companies. When you buy shares of stock through a stock broker, the shares are kept in \"\"street name.\"\" That means that the shares are registered to the broker, not to you. That makes it easy to sell the stock later. The stock broker keeps track of who actually owns which shares. The system works well, and there are legal protections in place to protect the investors' assets. You can request that your broker change the stock to your name and request a certificate from the company. However, companies are no longer required to do this, and some won't. Your broker will charge you a fee for this service. Alternatively, if you really only want one share for decoration, there are companies that specialize in selling shares of stock with certificates. Two of them are giveashare.com and uniquestockgift.com, which offer one real share of stock with a stock certificate in certain popular companies. (Note: I have no experience with either one.) Some companies no longer issue new stock certificates; for those, these services sell you a replica stock certificate along with a real share of electronic stock. (This is now the case for Disney and Apple.) With your stock certificate, you are an actual official stockholder, entitled to dividends and a vote at the shareholder meeting. If this is strictly an investment for you, consider the advantages of street name shares: As to your question on buying stock directly from a company and bypassing a broker altogether, see Can I buy stocks directly from a public company?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "22d57b67ca815daf49301d978bbff5b9",
"text": "\"You may want to look into robo-investors like Wealthfront and Betterment. There are many others, just search for \"\"robo investor\"\".\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7c69c1b2b0e3b0843a3c06ab45855ff3",
"text": "\"You want to \"\"begin building a nice portfolio\"\" comprised of \"\"real estate\"\" and \"\"solar and wind\"\". There are ways to do that without starting your own solar power farm or buying giant wind turbines, or whole apartment complexes. They're called ETFs. They're diversified and it's unlikely that you'll use the entirety of your initial investment.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "06751b2ebb3968321add81106b3b0186",
"text": "I don't think investing in only one industry, which you may know well, is very wise. You may want to invest in that industry but you should not restrict yourself from investing solely in that industry. There are many times when your chosen industry may not be performing very well and other industries are performing much better. If you restrict yourself to just one industry you may be either out of the market for long periods of time or your portfolio may show negative returns for extended periods of time. You may want to know an industry or a number of companies very well but do not fall in love with them. The worst thing you can do is get emotional about an investment, an investment is there to make you money not for you to get emotional about. Don't restrict yourself, instead look to maximise your returns with investments that are performing better at the time.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bb301699c1b1d2af9ab15db1823ae5fe",
"text": "Also VW has more brands, i.e. is more diversified This isn't necessarily a good thing for investing. It makes the company less likely to go down, but it limits your portfolio. For example, say you think that Hyundai is a good alternative to Volkswagen (VW) but really like Audi. If you buy VW, you get some Audi but a lot more of the rest of VW. Then if you bought Hyundai, you'd be overrepresented in that segment of the market. Audi may not be structured uniquely, but it is still the only company selling Audi brand cars. Perhaps someone thinks that those models will do well. That person may think that Audi will do exceptionally well in its niche. Having many brands isn't necessarily great. General Motors had something like sixteen brands before declaring bankruptcy. It only has twelve now. Now, it sounds like you feel the opposite about it. You don't particularly like Audi as a stock and like VW better. Your reasons sound perfectly reasonable (I know little about either company). It may even be that VW is the only one buying Audi stock, because everyone else has the same view as you.",
"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": ""
},
{
"docid": "09e980bf943b6eeb7b8dbbbff9bf7cc0",
"text": "\"Hmm, this would seem to be impossible by definition. The definition of an \"\"index fund\"\" is that it includes exactly the stocks that make up the index. Once you say \"\"... except for ...\"\" then what you want is not an index fund but something else. It's like asking, \"\"Can I be a vegetarian but still eat beef?\"\" Umm, no. There might be someone offering a mutual fund that has the particular combination of stocks that you want, resembling the stocks making up the index except with these exclusions. That wouldn't be an index fund at that point, but, etc. There are lots of funds out there with various ideological criteria. I don't know of one that matches your criteria. I'd say, search for the closest approximation you can find. You could always buy individual stocks yourself and create your own pseudo-index fund. Depending on how many stock are in the index you are trying to match and how much money you have to invest, it may not be possible to exactly match it mathematically, if you would have to buy fractions of shares. If the number of shares you had to buy was very small you might get killed on broker fees. And I'll upvote @user662852's answer for being a pretty close approximation to what you want.\"",
"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": "06983316e10baed1be3506c87865051b",
"text": "In theory you can buy shares directly from someone else who owns them. In practise, if the stock is listed on an exchange, they are unlikely to own them directly, they are likely to own them through an intermediary. You will have to pay fees to that intermediary to transfer the shares to your name. There are thousands of small companies owned by the guy who started it and a few other investors. You can buy stock in that kind of company directly from the existing owners, as long as they are willing to sell you some. It's a super-high risk investment strategy, though. This is the kind of deal that happens on Dragons Den.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "424e2f75897201bd354f7f3e56b09a66",
"text": "\"Mutual funds invest according to their prospectus. If they declare that they match the investments to a certain index - then that's what they should do. If you don't want to be invested in a company that is part of that index, then don't invest in that fund. Short-selling doesn't \"\"exclude\"\" your investment. You cannot sell your portion of the position in the fund to cover it. Bottom line is that money has no smell. But if you want to avoid investing in a certain company and it is important to you - you should also avoid the funds that invest in it, and companies that own portions of it, and also probably the companies that buy their products or services. Otherwise, its just \"\"nice talk\"\" bigotry.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bc7049dedd2b6a9084368e230498afc2",
"text": "\"Simply put, you cannot deterministically beat the market. If by being informed and following all relevant news, you can arrive at the conclusion that company A will likely outperform company B in the future, then having A stocks should be better than having B stocks or any (e.g., index based) mix of them. But as the whole market has access to the very same information and will arrive at the same conclusion (provided it is logically sound), \"\"everybody\"\" will want A stocks, which thus become expensive to the point where the expected return is average again. Your only options of winning this race are to be the very first to have the important information (insider trade), or to arrive at different logical conclusions than the rest of the world (which boils down do making decisions that are not logically sound - good luck with that - or assuming that almost everybody else is not logically sound - go figure).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "60a9f5107226f646e8d26736cf930801",
"text": "\"Don't do it until you have educated yourself enough to know what you are doing. I hope you won't take this personally, but given that you are wandering around asking random strangers on the Internet how to \"\"get into investing,\"\" I feel safe in concluding that you are by no means a sophisticated enough investor to be choosing individual investments, nor should you be trusting financial advisors to choose investments for you. Believe me, they do not have your interests at heart. I usually advise people in your position to start by reading one book: A Random Walk Down Wall Street by Burton Malkiel. Once you've read the book by Malkiel you'll understand that the best strategy for all but the most sophisticated investors is to buy an index fund, which simply purchases a portfolio of ALL available stocks without trying to pick winners and losers. The best index funds are at Vanguard (there is also a Vanguard site for non-US residents). Vanguard is one of the very, very, very few honest players in the business. Unlike almost any other mutual fund, Vanguard is owned by its investors, so it has no profit motive. They never try to pick individual stocks, so they don't have to pay fancy high-priced analysts to pick stocks. If you find it impossible to open a Vanguard account from wherever you're living, find a local brokerage account that will allow you to invest in the US stock market. Many Vanguard mutual funds are available as ETFs which means that you buy and sell them just like any other stock on the US market, which should be easy to do from any reasonably civilized place.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "967bf01a924c0fb08a38f726e314c831",
"text": "As a corollary to this; the average investor will never know more than the market. Buffett can buy mispriced securities because he runs a multi-billion dollar company dedicated to finding these mispricings. My advice for the common man: 1. Invest in both Stocks (for growth) & Bonds (for wealth preservation) 2. Stocks should be almost exclusively Index Funds That's it. The stock market has a 'random walk with a positive drift' which means that in general, the market will increase in value. Index funds capture this value and will protect you against the inevitable BoA, AIG, Enron, etc. It's fine to invest in index funds with a strategy as well, for instance emerging market ETFs could capture the growth of a particular region. Bear ETFs are attractive if you think the market is going to hit a downturn in the future.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0c809eb59878358e22c01f99dc8b64c5",
"text": "I wouldn't recommend trying to chase a good return on this money. I'd just put it into a savings account of some sort. If you can get a better interest rate with an online account, then feel free to do that. I'd recommend using this money to pay for as much of college out of pocket as you can. The more student loans you can avoid, the better. As @John Bensin said, trying to make money in the stock market in such a short time is too risky. For this money, you want to preserve the principal to pay for school, or to pay down your loans when you get out. If you find you have more money than you need to finish paying for school, then I'd suggest setting some aside for an emergency fund, setting aside enough to pay your loans off when you're out of school, saving for future purchases (house, car, etc), and then start investing (maybe for retirement in a Roth IRA or something like that).",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
c7122274882ede32125fc9b2f3758e92
|
Where can I invest for the Short Term and protect against Inflation?
|
[
{
"docid": "b951581481716127c2df5bc1a90db315",
"text": "Emergency funds, car funds etc tend to have to be accessible quickly (which tends to rule out CDs unless you have the patience to work something like a monthly CD ladder, an I don't) and you'll want your principal protected. The latter pretty much rules out any proper investment (ETFs, mutual funds, stock market directly, Elbonian dirt futures etc). It's basically a risk-vs-return calculation. Not much risk, not much return but at least you're not losing from a nominal standpoint). Another consideration is that you normally aren't able to decide freely if and when you want to pull money out of an emergency fund. If it is an emergency, waiting three weeks to see if the stock market goes up a little further isn't an option so you might end up having to take a hit that would be irrelevant if you were investing long term but might hurt badly because you're left with no choice. I'd stick that sort of money into a money market account and either add to it if necessary to keep up with inflation or make sure that my non-retirement investments over and above these funds are performing well, as those will and should become a far bigger part of your wealth in the longer run.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dca1559289fffc177eda19252b171f5f",
"text": "Your goals are mutually exclusive. You cannot both earn a return that will outpace inflation while simultaneously having zero-risk of losing money, at least not in the 2011 market. In 2008, a 5+% CD would have been a good choice. Here's a potential compromise... sacrifice some immediate liquidity for more earnings. Say you had $10,000 saved: In this scheme, you've diversified a little bit, have access to 50% of your money immediately (either through online transfer or bringing your bonds to a teller), have an implicit US government guarantee for 50% of your money and low risk for the rest, and get inflation protection for 75% of your money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7c8efa7e30d1a1a11545c2646d55c6bd",
"text": "\"If you are concerned about inflation, here are a couple of \"\"TIPS\"\". You can buy a mutual fund or ETF which adjusts for inflation. Here is one link which you may find useful: http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/the-smarter-mutual-fund-investor/2010/12/02/etf-basics-how-to-fight-inflation\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "948ee5b44eff4a2789c3ac703ce5d2e9",
"text": "Firstly, sorry about the accident. I am afraid you will need to do your own legwork, because you cannot trust other people with your money. It's a good thing you do not need to rush. Take your time to learn things. One thing is certain, you cannot let your money sit in a bank - inflation will digest them. You need to learn about investing yourself, or you run a risk of someone taking advantage of you. And there are people who specialise in exploiting people who have money and no idea what to do with them. There is no other way, if you have money, you need to know how to deal with it, or you are likely to lose it all. Since you need to have monthly income and also income that makes more money to make further investments, you need to look at two most common investments that are safe enough and also give good returns on investment: Property and index funds. You might also have a look at National bonds as this is considered safest investment possible (country has to go bust for you to lose money), but you are too young for that. Young = you can take more risk so Property and shares (indexes). You want to have your property investments in a country that is stable and has a good ROI (like Netherlands or Lithuania). Listen to some audio lectures: https://www.audible.co.uk/pd/Health-Personal-Development/Investing-in-Real-Estate-6th-Edition-Audiobook/B008SEH1R0 https://www.audible.co.uk/pd/Business/The-Secrets-of-Buy-to-Let-Success-Audiobook/B00UVVM222 https://www.audible.co.uk/pd/Non-fiction/Economics-3rd-Edition-Audiobook/B00D8J7VUC https://www.audible.co.uk/pd/Advanced-Investments-Part-1-Audiobook/B00HU81B80 After you sorted your investment strategy, you might want to move to a country that is Expat friendly and has lower living costs than US and you should be able to live like a king... best of luck.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eaebffd293050e762ef8bfc5cf653fc2",
"text": "Generally, you need something that goes up over time during periods of index decline, but otherwise holds some value. Historically, people tend to use gold for that purpose. But with gold also set up for possible declines, that raises questions. Silver has dropped a bit more than gold in terms of percentages. If you think the downward motion will be in the form of sudden jumps, you can look at putting some of your money in puts away from the current price, but you can easily wind up paying too much for this protection. In the case of a deflation, most things lose value vs. money, and you want all cash. These things might already be obvious. I don't think there is a clear answer to your question. But if the future were clear, the present market could possibly anticipate and adjust... one reason the future of the market always seems a bit murky.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "435c3470e17746d6233f856852a9e7d9",
"text": "After retirement nobody want to get low on cash. So, the best way to stay safe is to make some investments. Compare the saving with regular expenses and invest the rest. You can put some money in short-term reserves such as bank accounts, market funds, and deposit certificates. You will not be able to make much money on it but, it will ensure the financing of at least two to three years. There’s no need to take the money out from stocks but, if the stocks are doing good and there is a possibility that there will be no further profits then you can think of taking them out otherwise leave it alone.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fd76bf49f90e365dbefa44a87fbeae98",
"text": "You could buy shares of an Exchange-Traded Fund (ETF) based on the price of gold, like GLD, IAU, or SGOL. You can invest in this fund through almost any brokerage firm, e.g. Fidelity, Etrade, Scotttrade, TD Ameritrade, Charles Schwab, ShareBuilder, etc. Keep in mind that you'll still have to pay a commission and fees when purchasing an ETF, but it will almost certainly be less than paying the markup or storage fees of buying the physical commodity directly. An ETF trades exactly like a stock, on an exchange, with a ticker symbol as noted above. The commission will apply the same as any stock trade, and the price will reflect some fraction of an ounce of gold, for the GLD, it started as .1oz, but fees have been applied over the years, so it's a bit less. You could also invest in PHYS, which is a closed-end mutual fund that allows investors to trade their shares for 400-ounce gold bars. However, because the fund is closed-end, it may trade at a significant premium or discount compared to the actual price of gold for supply and demand reasons. Also, keep in mind that investing in gold will never be the same as depositing your money in the bank. In the United States, money stored in a bank is FDIC-insured up to $250,000, and there are several banks or financial institutions that deposit money in multiple banks to double or triple the effective insurance limit (Fidelity has an account like this, for example). If you invest in gold and the price plunges, you're left with the fair market value of that gold, not your original deposit. Yes, you're hoping the price of your gold investment will increase to at least match inflation, but you're hoping, i.e. speculating, which isn't the same as depositing your money in an insured bank account. If you want to speculate and invest in something with the hope of outpacing inflation, you're likely better off investing in a low-cost index fund of inflation-protected securities (or the S&P500, over the long term) rather than gold. Just to be clear, I'm using the laymen's definition of a speculator, which is someone who engages in risky financial transactions in an attempt to profit from short or medium term fluctuations This is similar to the definition used in some markets, e.g. futures, but in many cases, economists and places like the CFTC define speculators as anyone who doesn't have a position in the underlying security. For example, a farmer selling corn futures is a hedger, while the trading firm purchasing the contracts is a speculator. The trading firm doesn't necessarily have to be actively trading the contract in the short-run; they merely have no position in the underlying commodity.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a747f397b3e354d4128fc189b485e4c1",
"text": "First off, inflation doesn't necessarily imply that goods and services will rise in price. The amount of goods & services increases over time as well, and this is balanced (partly), by an increase in the money supply. Without inflation you lose the incentive to invest, as your dollar would become more valuable over time. Why invest in a risky venture if I know that my dollar will buy more if I just wait it out. Might as well stick the money under the mattress. (This is bad)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "695a4021c1cf2de1f21f58272eb7eafc",
"text": "Devaluation is a relative term, so if you want to protect yourself against devaluation of your currency against dollars - just buy dollars. Inflation is something you cannot protect yourself against because it is something that describes the purchasing power of the money. You will still need to purchase, and usually with money. A side effect of inflation is usually devaluation against other currencies. So one of the ways to deal with inflation is not to keep the money in your currency over time, and only convert from a more stable currency when you need to make purchases. Another way is to invest in something tangible that can easily be sold (for example, jewelery and precious metals, but it has other risks). Re whats legal and illegal in your country - we don't really know because you didn't tell what country that is to begin with, but the usual channels like travelers' checks or bank transfer should work. Carrying large amounts of cash are usually either illegal or strictly regulated.",
"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": "0339acde124bc7d1ff0f4bbec49f66dc",
"text": "\"To begin with, bear in mind that over the time horizon you are talking about, the practical impact of inflation will be quite limited. Inflation for 2017 is forecast at 2.7%, and since you are talking about a bit less than all of 2017, and on average you'll be withdrawing your money halfway through, the overall impact will be <1.3% of your savings. You should consider whether the effort and risk involved in an alternative is worth a few hundred pounds. If you still want to beat inflation, the best suggestion I have is to look at peer-to-peer lending. That comes with some risk, but I think over the course of 1 year, it's quite limited. For example, Zopa is currently offering 3.1% on their \"\"Access\"\" product, and RateSetter are offering 2.9% on the \"\"Everyday\"\" product. Both of these are advertised as instant access, albeit with some caveats. These aren't FSCS-guaranteed bank deposits, and they do come with some risk. Firstly, although both RateSetter and Zopa have a significant level of provision against bad debt, it's always possible that this won't be enough and you'll lose some of your money. I think this is quite unlikely over a one-year time horizon, as there's no sign of trouble yet. Secondly, there's \"\"liquidity\"\" risk. Although the products are advertised as instant access, they are actually backed by longer-duration loans made to people who want to borrow money. For you to be able to cash out, someone else has to be there ready to take your place. Again, this is very likely to be possible in practice, but there's no absolute guarantee.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "658da749635d3d732d9faa1a74195a60",
"text": "Options are contractual instruments. Most options you'll run into are contracts which allow you to buy or sell stock at a given price at some time in the future, if you feel like it (it gives you the option). These are Call and Put options, respectively (for buying the stock and selling the stock). If you have a lot of money in an index fund ETF, you may be able to protect your portfolio against a market decline by (e.g.) buying Put options against the ETF for a substantially lower price than the index fund currently trades at. If the market crashes and your fund falls in value significantly, you can exercise the options, selling the fund at the price that your option has specified (to the counter-party of your contract). This is the risk that the option mitigates against. Even if you don't have one particular fund with your investments, you could still buy a put option on a similar fund, and resell it to another person in lieu of exercise (they would be capable of buying the stock and performing the exercise themselves for profit if necessary). In general, if you are buying an option for safety, it should be an option either on something you own, or something whose price behavior will mimic something you own. You will note that options are linked to the price of stocks. Futures are contracts whose values are linked to the price of other things, typically commodities such as oil, gold, or orange juice. Their behaviors may diverge. With an option you can have a contractual guarantee on the exact investment you're trying to protect. (Additionally, many commodities' value may fall at the same time that stock investments fall: during economic contractions which reduce industrial activity, resulting in lower profits for firms and less demand for commodities.) You may also note that there are other structures that options may have - PUT options on index funds or similar instruments are probably most specifically relevant to your interests. The downside of protecting yourself with options is that it costs money to buy this option, and the option eventually expires, so you may lose money. Essentially, you are buying safety and risk-tolerance from the option contract's counterparty, and safety is not free. I cannot inform you what level of safety is appropriate for your portfolio's needs, but more safety is more expensive.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0ce624b0a62f54657bca647d8d3f3c8e",
"text": "The safest place to put money is a mixture of cash, local municipal bond funds with average durations under two years and US Treasury bond funds with short durations. Examples of good short term US municipal funds: I'm not an active investor in Australian securities, so I won't recommend anything specific. Because rates are so low right now, you want a short duration (ie. funds where the average bond matures in < 2 years) fund to protect against increased rates. The problem with safety is that you won't make any money. If your goal to grow the value of your investment while minimizing risk, you need to look at equities. The portfolios posted by justkt are a great place to start.",
"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": "ebd84c7417699857eeabae80db0a9d6e",
"text": "This article completely misses a big part of his portfolio. He's a congressmen entitled to a full pension. He's guaranteed a 100k+ salary for the rest of his life. He's completely insured against deflation! So if you've got a full pension that's insuring you against deflation than you want the majority of your other assets protecting you against inflation. It's a sound decision.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "79a7be86c8b7c56dca5a5d1caa005029",
"text": "\"Since this is your emergency fund, you generally want to avoid volatility while keeping pace with inflation. You really shouldn't be looking for aggressive growth (which means taking on some risk). That comes from money outside of the emergency fund. The simplest thing to do would be to shop around for a different savings account. There are some deals out there that are better than ING. Here is a good list. The \"\"traditional\"\" places to keep an emergency fund are Money Market Mutual Funds (not to be confused with Money Market Accounts). They are considered extremely safe investments. However, the returns on such a fund is pretty low these days, often lower than a high-yield online savings account. The next step up would be a bond fund (more volatility, slightly better return). Pick something that relies on Government bonds, not \"\"high-yield\"\" (junk) bonds or anything crazy like that. Fidelity Four in One comes pretty close to your \"\"index of indexes\"\" request, but it isn't the most stable thing. You'd probably do better with a safer investment.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3f53751a09601e4815ee181201e20979",
"text": "\"Over on Quantitative Finance Stack Exchange, I asked and answered a more technical and broader version of this question, Should the average investor hold commodities as part of a broadly diversified portfolio? In short, I believe the answer to your question is that gold is neither an investment nor a hedge against inflation. Although many studies claim that commodities (such as gold) do offer some diversification benefit, the most credible academic study I have seen to date, Should Investors Include Commodities in Their Portfolios After All? New Evidence, shows that a mean-variance investor would not want to allocate any of their portfolio to commodities (this would include gold, presumably). Nevertheless, many asset managers, such as PIMCO, offer funds that are marketed as \"\"real return\"\" or \"\"inflation-managed\"\" and include commodities (including gold) in their portfolios. PIMCO has also commissioned some research, Strategic Asset Allocation and Commodities, claiming that holding some commodities offers both diversification and inflation hedging benefits.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "235f063b15ea8d58511488c38c8316ab",
"text": "Looks more like an idea for a business rather than an actual business -- especially since it hasn't even launched. That said, it does have its merits. What bank actually holds the deposit funds becomes irrelevant, and may actaully change from time to time as they forge better partnerships with different banks. Think of it like a mutual fund -- the individual stocks (if there are stocks) in the fund are less important than the balance of risk vs. income and the leveling of change over the course of time. It offers services banks offer, without fees (at least that is the proposal) with the addition of budgetting capability as well. It does have downsides as well There is an increased level of indirection between you and your money. They propose to simplify the banking business model, but in fact are only hiding it from you. The same complexity that was there before is still there, with the added complexity of their service on top of it. It's just a matter of how much of that complexity you would have to deal with directly. With that in mind, I would reiterate that they are not a business yet -- just a proposed business model. Even the sign up process is a red flag for me. I understand they need to gauge interest in order to forge initial relationships with various banks, but I don't see the need for the 'invitation only' sign up method. It just sounds like a way to increase interest (who doesn't like feeling exclusively invited), and is a bit too 'gimmicky' for my taste. But, like I said, the idea has merit -- I have my reservations, but will reserve full judgement until they are an actual operating business.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
42675af8353098a2675a4dfd82312649
|
Are market orders safe?
|
[
{
"docid": "e9ff81339f4419ca37158c942331a99e",
"text": "\"A market sell order will be filled at the highest current \"\"bid\"\" price. For a reasonably liquid stock, there will be several buy orders in line, and the highest bid must be filled first, so there should a very short time between when you place the order and when it is filled. What could happen is what's called front running. That's when the broker places their own order in front of yours to fulfill the current bid, selling their own stock at the slightly higher price, causing your sale to be filled at a lower price. This is not only unethical but illegal as well. It is not something you should be concerned about with a large broker. You should only place a market order when you don't care about minute differences between the current ask and your execution price, but want to guarantee order execution. If you absolutely have to sell at a minimum price, then a limit order is more appropriate, but you run the risk that your limit will not be reached and your order will not be filled. So the risk is a tradeoff between a guaranteed price and a guaranteed execution.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2fc4ee9e12e4353a544f3900a289fa40",
"text": "Market orders can be reasonably safe when dealing with stocks that are rather liquid and have quite low volatility. But it's important to note that you're trading a large degree of control over your buy / sell price for a small benefit in speed or complexity of entering an order. I always use limit orders as they help me guard against unexpected moves of the stock. Patience and attention to details are good qualities to have as an investor.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "63e1f7a823fdb5b5e508d9d552737a91",
"text": "If you want to make sure you pay at or below a specific price per share, use a limit order. If you want to buy the stock close to the current price, but aren't price sensitive, use a market order. Market orders are typically not a great idea because if you're buying thousands or tens of thousands of shares this can mean a large swing in cost if the market suddenly changes direction.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "ca175cc37562842565cc140b7fae1c65",
"text": "\"First of all, not all brokers allow trading during pre-market and post-market. Some brokers only allow trading during the regular hours (9:30am - 4pm ET). Second of all, while you can place orders using limit orders and market orders during regular trading hours, you can only use limit orders during pre-market and post-market. This is because the liquidity is much lower during pre-market and post-market, and using market orders could result in some trades filling at horrible prices. So brokers don't allow using market orders outside of regular trading hours. Third, some brokers require you to specify that you want your order to be executed during pre-market or post-market. For example, my broker allows me to specify either \"\"Day\"\" or \"\"Ext\"\" for my orders. \"\"Day\"\" means I want my order to execute only during regular trading hours, and \"\"Ext\"\" means I want my order to execute at any time - pre-market, regular trading hours, or post-market. Finally, if your broker allows pre/post market trading, and you place a limit order while specifying \"\"Ext\"\", then your trade can happen in real-time during pre-market or post-market. Per your example, if a stock is trading at $5 at 8am, and you put in a limit order (while specifying \"\"Ext\"\") to buy it at $5 at 8am, then your order will execute at that time and you will buy that stock at 8am.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "799de933662bb238876a97d7ee8a2555",
"text": "You have no guarantees. The stock may last have traded at $100 (so, the market price is $100), but is currently in free-fall and nobody else will be willing to buy it for any more than $80. Or heck, maybe nobody will be willing to buy it at all, at any price. Or maybe trading on this stock will be halted. Remember, the market price is just what the stock last traded at. If you put in a 'market order', you are ordering your broker to sell at the best available current price. Assuming someone's willing to buy your stock, that means you'll sell it. But if it last traded at $100, this doesn't guarantee you'll sell at anything close to that.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6a268aee4f0331139c8b7c35cda1f542",
"text": "I think that if the price does not go very far up, then your order will open on 101, because you are setting a limit order, if suddenly the price goes up very quickly or with a gep even, then you may not be given a position. But this is with a limit order and it is better to check with the broker. There are also warrants in which you can adjust the price range, for example, from 101 to 103, and at a sharp price jump, it is possible for you and would not give a position at a price of 101, but perhaps 103 would get.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5a484b5eb4efb839e85833035c389844",
"text": "\"What you are saying is a very valid concern. After the flash crash many institutions in the US replaced \"\"true market orders\"\" (where tag 40=1 and has no price) with deep in the money limit orders under the hood, after the CFTC-SEC joint advisory commission raised concerns about the use of market orders in the case of large HFT traders, and concerns on the lack of liquidity that caused market orders that found no limit orders to execute on the other side of the trade, driving the prices of blue chip stocks into the pennies. We also applaud the CFTC requesting comment regarding whether it is appropriate to restrict large order execution design that results in disruptive trading. In particular, we believe there are questions whether it is ever appropriate to permit large order algorithms that employ unlimited use of market orders or that permit executions at prices which are a dramatic percentage below the present market price without a pause for human review So although you still see a market order on the front end, it is transformed to a very aggressive limit in the back end. However, doing this change manually, by selling at price 0 or buying at 9999 may backfire since it may trigger fat finger checks and prevent your order from reaching the market. For example BATS Exchange rejects orders that are priced too aggressively and don't comply with the range of valid prices. If you want your trade to execute right now and you are willing to take slippage in order to get fast execution, sending a market order is still the best alternative.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "865734973d4b7c2127e0322bdd58ae69",
"text": "Fair value can mean many different things depending on the context. And it has nothing to do with the price at which your market order would be executed. For example if you buy market, you could get executed below 101 if there are hidden orders, at 101 if that sell order is large enough and it is still there when your order reaches the market, or at a higher price otherwise.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "728e392d990ee0646c3ba5fc4c399afe",
"text": "\"You might consider learning how the \"\"matching\"\" or \"\"pairing\"\" system in the market operates. The actual exchange only happens when both a buyer and a seller overlap their respect quotes. Sometimes orders \"\"go to market\"\" for a particular volume. Eg get me 10,000 Microsoft shares now. which means that the price starts at the current lowest seller, and works up the price list until the volume is met. Like all market it trades, it has it's advantages, and it's dangers. If you are confident Microsoft is going to bull, you want those shares now, confident you'll recoup the cost. Where if you put in a priced order, you might get only none or some shares. Same as when you sell. If you see the price (which is the price of the last completed \"\"successful\"\" trade. and think \"\"I'm going to sell 1000 shares\"\". then you give the order to the market (or broker), and then the same as what happened as before. the highest bidder gets as much as they asked for, if there's still shares left over, they go to the next bidder, and so on down the price... and the last completed \"\"successful\"\" trade is when your last sale is made at the lowest price of your batch. If you're selling, and selling 100,000 shares. And the highest bidder wants 1,000,000 shares you'll only see the price drop to that guys bid. Why will it drop (off the quoted price?). Because the quoted price is the LAST sale, clearly if there's someone still with an open bid on the market...then either he wants more shares than were available (the price stays same), or his bid wasn't as high as the last bid (so when you sale goes through, it will be at the price he's offering). Which is why being able to see the price queues is important on large traders. It is also why it can be important put stops and limits on your trades, een through you can still get gapped if you're unlucky. However putting prices (\"\"Open Orders\"\" vs \"\"(at)Market Orders\"\") can mean that you're sitting there waiting for a bounce/spike while the action is all going on without you). safer but not as much gain (maybe ;) ) that's the excitement of the market, for every option there's advantages...and risks... (eg missing out) There are also issues with stock movement, shadowing, and stop hunting, which can influence the price. But the stuff in the long paragraphs is the technical reasons.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": ""
},
{
"docid": "0016f018e4656ea0b9eaa3555dd39a65",
"text": "\"The risk of market orders depends heavily on the size of the market and the exchange. On big exchange and a security which is traded in hue numbers you're likely that there are enough participants to give you a \"\"fair\"\" price. Doing a market order on a security which is hardly dealed you might make a bad deal. In Germany Tradegate Exchange and the sister company the bank Tradegate AG are known to play a bit dirty: Their market is open longer than Frankfurt (Xetra) and has way lower liquidity. So it can happen that not all sell or buy orders can be processes on the Exchange and open orders are kept. Then Tradegate AG steps in with a new offer to full-fill these trades selling high or buying low. There is a German article going in details on wiwo.de either German or via Google Translate\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4d43c7b31bcbbf052c8e85096b44a43c",
"text": "Unless you want to be a short term day trader, then it is not foolish to be an end of day trader. If you are looking to be a medium to long term trader/investor then it is quite acceptable to put orders in after market close. Some would say it is even less risky, because you are not watching the price fluctuate up and down and letting your emotions getting the best of you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4ddf64e9c50baa408074c1b2ff9aec11",
"text": "\"I commend you for your desire to be a smart and engaged investor. Regarding the other comments, yes the market is unpredictable and dangerous, but such is everything that leads to profit. I am currently reading, \"\"Advanced Options Pricing Models\"\" (Katz and McCormick) - mighy be at your local library. The book is helpful because in explaining the options market, it covers basic stock methodologies and then builds on them as it pursues a quant's math/computation based view of the market. The book is highly math oriented and discusses authors' custom design scripts/alogrithms to analyze market behavior. See similar post about technical analysis (since it often directs short term trading decisisions).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bb08333d1a6300656a2baa34071e9316",
"text": "\"Theres nothing wrong with CDOs or Synthetic ones. What is important is that they are labelled correctly in terms of their risk. You cant be selling risky CDOs as \"\"safe\"\" bets. If the rating agencies and financial institutions rate them correctly then I dont see a problem with it.\"",
"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": "da30a3dcb2f76975f39adac551027576",
"text": "\"I'm surprised people don't bring this up more often....if you add together, not just our sovereign debt, but public and private debt, plus our contingent liabilities, meaning FHA, student loans, fannie mae, freddie mac, AIG, etc. that totals over $100 TRILLION dollars, more than we could ever pay back, meaning literally there is no amount of growth and taxes that could ever pay this money back. (cite my sources do a google search of James Rickards Hopkins lecture it's in the first few minutes) The reason you need to add all that together is because the economy can't grow if nobody has any money for investment, etc. (there isn't much home equity left after the housing crisis, retirement plans aren't holding as much, etc.) there wouldn't be an easy way to grow this economy, that's why we have \"\"currency wars\"\" competitive devaluations....to me we're already over the cliff I don't see us heading back, but I'm not saying that means we're going to collapse, just we'll need to go back to some sort of standard where our currency is backed by something (i.e. commodities or gold or something) and there are going to be A LOT of losses in the near term....meaning I want OUT of dollars.... combined with our lazy/entitled generation (don't tell me creating some website where you can order artistic candy on a stick is going to save our economy...we need to produce and innovate again to lower our trade deficit and so people actually bring their capital here), and dwindling resources I'd say it's already game over, the pieces just need to move into place\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
903835be5ba6f8807736c779e1badf77
|
Canadian RRSPs Transfer
|
[
{
"docid": "0b9411e59916dbb52943a980d9e190c0",
"text": "\"Probably not. For your savings to enter an RRSP account, the recipient account must itself be an RRSP (duh! I hear you say). This appears to rule out any UK-based banks as they would not offer this type of account, which appears to be confirmed with a quick Google search returning no useful result for \"\"rrsp uk\"\". According to Income Tax Folio S3-F10-C1, Qualified Investments – RRSPs, RESPs, RRIFs, RDSPs and TFSAs, an RRSP may include listed securities traded on designated stock exchanges, including the London Stock Exchange. While this enables some possibilities, it is not clear that Canadian banks would offer much in the form of UK RRSPs. Your best bet may be to contact your bank and ask if they offer RRSP services for expats. Here is a list of Canadian banks in the UK. Obviously, this does not mean that they offer the type of service you are looking for (or even that they offer retail services, this may be just a trading office). Finally, if you need to move money from an RRSP to anything other than an RRSP this will trigger the inclusion of the sale proceeds as taxable income in that year.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "26b37f71f94754dec7bfa1c9bcb2a39f",
"text": "I had this problem when I finished my job in Canada in Sept 2013. You'll likely have to open the account in person in Canada, at least if you don't already have a relationship with a broker there. DO NOT go to Virtual Brokers. They told me that my US citizenship was no problem, but right before I left Canada to double check. It wasn't until I asked specifically which US states they were licensed in that they realized they were licensed in NO US STATES. They told me that they'd freeze my account when I left. I then moved my (former) pension to a locked-in RRSP at BMO. As of September 2010 BMO could handle residents of most US states, but it took some tooth pulling to get the list out of them. However, after I flew to the USA, BMO called to demand more ID. My account was frozen until I flew back to Canada in person just to show ID. Annoyed, I closed the BMO account and moved it to TD Waterhouse. TD waterhouse can handle accounts for residents of all the US states EXCEPT Virginia, Louisiana, and Nebraska. (I only got the complete list of exceptions when I made my first trade, since the guys at the trading desk are much more knowledgeable about such things than the guys in the branch.) TD was extremely friendly about my USA citizenship/residence. (Many Canadian brokers simply won't accept US residents, at least as of the end of 2013.) Whichever broker you choose, BRING LOTS MORE ID than they require. Insist that they zerox it all. Make sure to include your social security card. You don't want them to demand more ID after you've left the country, like BMO did. They may even make such a move simply to get rid of US customers, because the FATCA is a pain for foreign banks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "00419a8b215ea3cfee479df0b022de5f",
"text": "\"You will be able to use the subsequent 4% matching contributions as repayments toward the HBP in the same tax year. You can designate it as such when you do your tax return for the year. Note that the first payment for HBP will be in the second year after you withdraw from your RRSP, but you are free to designate any contributions before this time toward the HBP repayment. One blog post indicates that if you pay more than the minimum amount in any year (including pre-payments prior to the first required payment), \"\"future payments will be the remaining amount owing divided by the number of payment years remaining.\"\" My experience with my LLP repayment (similar to HBP) is the same.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2d08a71e70cc24b74d048f9240257fd4",
"text": "I don't believe there is any particular structural or financial reason that outgoing wire transfers cost so much in Canada, their costs are no higher than other countries (and lower than many). Wires seem to be an area where the Canadian banks have decided people don't comparison shop, so it's not a competitive advantage to offer a better price. The rates you quoted are on the low side: $80 for a largish international wire is not unusual, and HSBC charges up to $150! There are several alternative ways to transfer money domestically in Canada. If the recipient banks at the same bank, it's possible to go into a branch and transfer money directly from your own account to their account (I've never been charged for this). The transfer is immediate. But it couldn't be done online, last time I checked. For transfers where you don't know the recipients bank account, you can pay online with Interac E-Transfers, offered by most Canadian banks. It's basically e-mailing money. It usually costs $1 to $1.50 per transfer, and has limits on how much you can send per day/week. Each of the banks also have a bill-pay service, but unlike similar services in the US (where they mail a paper check if the recipient isn't on their system), each Canadian bank has a limited number of possible payees (mostly utilities, governments, major stores).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6bdc65951ee37e9527a44c74f08116c1",
"text": "Short answer: yes. Long answer: you have to check with Desjardins if you can buy other funds using their broker, but if not you can just open another RRSP account with a better broker who gives you this option. You can open an many RRSPs as you wish. If you are really unhappy with Desjardins, you can then transfer your money from there to your new broker without being exposed to tax. http://www.getsmarteraboutmoney.ca/en/managing-your-money/investing/rrsps-for-retirement/Pages/RRSP-transfers.aspx#.VlOBSHpVKlM",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "76def0924a473ee8754ddbcfa1ab06b3",
"text": "If possible, I would open a Canadian bank account with a bank such as TD Canada Trust. You can then have your payments wired into that account without incurring costs on receipt. They also allow access to their US ATM network via TD Bank without additional costs. So you could use the American Affiliate to pull the funds out via a US teller while only bearing the cost of currency conversion. If that option can't work then the best route would be to choose a US bank account that doesn't charge for incoming wire transfers and request that the money be wired to your account (you'll still get charged the conversion rate when the wire is in CAD and the account is in USD).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9b0539898150b5e673be097df180a33b",
"text": "As far as the RRSP goes, see my answer in self directed RRSP for a non resident Don't forget to file your FBAR and form 8938, if applicable. -Jon",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8c25a3bed4451bce533aa676d2a3bc74",
"text": "I believe your question is based on a false premise. First, no broker, that I know of, provides an RRSP account that is a margin account. RRSP accounts follow cash settlement rules. If you don't have the cash available, you can't buy a stock. You can't borrow money from your broker within your RRSP. If you want to borrow money to invest in your RRSP, you must borrow outside from another source, and make a contribution to your RRSP. And, if you do this, the loan interest is not considered tax deductible. In order for investment loan interest to be tax deductible, you'd need to invest outside of a registered type of account, e.g. using a regular non-tax-sheltered account. Even then, what you can deduct may be limited. Refer to CRA - Line 221 - Carrying charges and interest expenses: You can claim the following carrying charges and interest [...] [...] You cannot deduct on line 221 any of the following amounts:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8f8931eeb8edde7882438baa17bdae27",
"text": "If you can make the trip to BC yourself, I'd recommend opening an account with TD Canada Trust. They allow non-citizens to make accounts — apparently the only Canadian bank to do so. The customer service is great and they have a good online banking site that will allow you to manage it from the US. If you have an account with TD Bank in the US, it's also very easy to set up a TD Canada account through them that will be linked on their online site (though you will still have separate logins for both and manage them separately). I've done the reverse as a Canadian living in the US. You can set it up over the phone; their Cross-Border Banking number is listed here. They also offer better currency conversion rates than their standard ones when you do a cross-border transfer. You could also look into HSBC as well. They operate in Washington as well as across the border in BC. If you can't open a CAD account locally, they can help you open and manage one in Canada from the US. It may or may not require having a small business account instead of a personal account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cc5ab13ec048f5bc308e798782c73ef4",
"text": "\"Your question is based on incorrect assumptions. Generally, there's no \"\"penalty\"\", per se, to make a withdrawal from your RRSP, even if you make a withdrawal earlier than retirement, however you define it. A precise meaning for \"\"retirement\"\" with respect to RRSPs is largely irrelevant.* Our U.S. neighbours have a 10% penalty on non-hardship early withdrawals (before age 59 ½) from retirement accounts like the 401k and IRA. It's an additional measure designed to discourage early withdrawals, and raise more tax. Yet, in Canada, there is no similar penalty. Individual investments inside your RRSP may have associated penalties, such as the dreaded \"\"deferred sales charge\"\" (DSC) of some back-end loaded mutual funds, or such as LSVCC funds that generated additional special tax credits that could get clawed back. Yet, these early withdrawal penalties are distinct from the RRSP nature of your account. Choose your investments carefully to avoid these kinds of surprises. Rather, an RRSP is a tax-deferred account, and it works like this: The government allows you to claim a nice juicy tax deduction, which can reduce your income tax at your marginal rate in the year you make a contribution, or later if you should choose to defer the deduction. The resulting pre-tax money accumulated in your RRSP benefits from further tax deferral: assets can grow without attracting annual income tax on earned interest, dividends, or capital gains. You don't need to declare on your income tax return any of the income earned inside your RRSP, unlike a regular investment account. Here's the rub: Once you decide to withdraw money from your RRSP, the entire amount withdrawn is considered regular income in the year in which you make the withdrawal. Thus, your withdrawals are subject to income tax, and yes, at your marginal rate. This is always the case, whether before or after retirement. You mentioned two special programs: The Home Buyers' Plan (HBP), and the Lifelong Learning Plan (LLP). Neither the HBP nor the LLP permit tax-free withdrawals. Rather, each of these programs are special kinds of loans that you can borrow from your own RRSP. HBP and LLP loan money isn't taxed when you get it because you are required to pay it back, and you pay it back into your own RRSP: You always pay income tax at your marginal rate on your RRSP withdrawals.** * Above, I said a precise meaning for \"\"retirement\"\" with respect to RRSPs is largely irrelevant. Yet, there are ages that matter: By the end of the year in which you turn 71, you are required to convert your RRSP to a RRIF. It's similar, but you can no longer contribute, and you must withdraw a minimum amount each year. Other circumstances related to age may qualify for minor tax relief intended for retirees, such as the Age Amount or the Pension Income Credit. Generally, such measures don't significantly change the fact that you pay income tax on RRSP withdrawals at your marginal rate – these measures raise the minimum you can take out without attracting tax, but most do nothing at the margin.** ** Exception: One might split eligible pension income with a spouse or common-law partner, which may reduce tax at the margin.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "520e7ba0e4b551aa44c93970fffdde0d",
"text": "On pensions, part of the issue will be how well funded they are. Most pensions are not completely funded. In the US pension payments are insured to an annual cap by the PBGC. So you can loose out on part of your pension payment. I don't know what/if there is an equivalent in Canada.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1fabf957eff80d0895815ff0de31c158",
"text": "Dazed, an RESP is a type of account. Within the RESP, you can have cash, investments or even savings vehicles like GICs etc. So depending on where you put the money within the RESP, yes, there is a chance of losing money. If you think your children will attend post secondary education, I don't think that there is a better way to save. The government will match 20% of your contribution, up to a maximum grant of $500 per year. To take advantage of the grant, we contribute $2500 per year to obtain the maximum $500 grant. Hope this helps!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2879e23dfed3d2f20fceb14c4d2cd3ef",
"text": "You can withdraw from your RRSP to pay your taxes. While not necessarily advisable, it is permitted — yet the tax consequences are no different just because you happen to be using the money to pay a prior year's income tax balance due. When you make the withdrawal from your RRSP, an amount will be withheld towards your income tax for the withdrawal year. Assuming you have other income, then you are likely to owe CRA even more than the amount withheld, because the withdrawal is effectively taxed at your marginal rate. In that case, consider the withholding tax merely a downpayment. You'll figure the final amount due when you file your next income tax return. e.g. If you were to withdraw money from your RRSP today (in 2015) to pay your 2014 income tax balance due, then on your 2015 income tax return, you'll need to declare the withdrawn amount as income for 2015. You'll get credit for the withholding taxes already paid when you made the withdrawal. Your tax return will indicate how much more you'll need to pay to settle your 2015 taxes. If you then pay your 2015 income tax balance due with an RRSP withdrawal in 2016, then ... repeat. Better to save up funds elsewhere (e.g. in a bank account, or a TFSA) to cover an anticipated income tax balance owing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "463d5ca31f9aa13617f4369749831f69",
"text": "No it's not, not until a disposition. Keep track of the CAD value on the day you receive the inheritance and get an average cost. Then every time you go to the US and spend some money, record the CAD value on the day you spend it. The difference is your profit or loss. There is no capital gain as long as you don't spend it. Now this may seem ridiculous, especially since none of this is reported to the CRA. They realize this and say the first $200 profit or loss is not taxable.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ccaa9f16e3c82ad1edbf15f4e1c42191",
"text": "You probably bought the cross listed WestJet stock. If you wanted to buy shares on the TSE, I'd suspect you'd have to find a way to open a brokerage account within Canada and then you'd be able to buy the shares. However, this could get complicated to some extent as there could be requirements of Canadian tax stuff like a Social Insurance Number that may require some paperwork. In addition, you'd have to review tax law of both countries to determine how to appropriately report to each country your income as there are various rules around that. TD Waterhouse would be the Canadian subsidiary of TD Ameritrade though I haven't tried to create a Canadian brokerage account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5055129e03954ba06bc3c85dc6e8e039",
"text": "Just saw the update: Here's some ETFs for Canada from Vanguard.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
04ae730f71bdf4e6d0114b4ce6e3c393
|
What does it mean when my Money Market account lists both a dividend share and an APY?
|
[
{
"docid": "77020278c293530c661735f289a355d6",
"text": "In a money market fund, one share is worth $1. For your fund, you'll earn $0.0010 a year per share, or 0.10%. That is all that you will earn. The APY is just another number to represent this interest rate, not a separate income stream. If you were expecting extra money from a separately credited dividend, you were mistaken. (Usually the APY is a slightly different number than the interest rate, to reflect the way that the interest is compounded over the course of the year. In this case the compounding is too slight to notice with just 2 decimal places.) If you were investing in a regular savings account, you would see the rate you are paid expressed as an APY also, but not as a dividend (as no shares are involved) and use that number to compare the two. If you were buying a bond fund or stock fund that did not have a fixed price, you could calculate the dividend yield based on the current stock price, but you would not probably see an APY listed. Money market funds are kind of an odd hybrid of 'fund' and 'savings', so they list both.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9fdf28910c6c087886ca35c2b395f9f7",
"text": "The dividend is what represents your ownership in the CU. The APY is a calculated figure that will help you compare apples to apples the return of the investment from many vendors and many types. (I think you CU might have had two different people writing that portion of the website, because the comparisons pages don't make that clear, and the pages don't layout the same way.)",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "3b0513ea719821872a14f80eda6c8c71",
"text": "ACWI refers to a fund that tracks the MSCI All Country World Index, which is A market capitalization weighted index designed to provide a broad measure of equity-market performance throughout the world. The MSCI ACWI is maintained by Morgan Stanley Capital International, and is comprised of stocks from both developed and emerging markets. The ex-US in the name implies exactly what it sounds; this fund probably invests in stock markets (or stock market indexes) of the countries in the index, except the US. Brd Mkt refers to a Broad Market index, which, in the US, means that the fund attempts to track the performance of a wide swath of the US stock market (wider than just the S&P 500, for example). The Dow Jones U.S. Total Stock Market Index, the Wilshire 5000 index, the Russell 2000 index, the MSCI US Broad Market Index, and the CRSP US Total Market Index are all examples of such an index. This could also refer to a fund similar to the one above in that it tracks a broad swath of the several stock markets across the world. I spoke with BNY Mellon about the rest, and they told me this: EB - Employee Benefit (a bank collective fund for ERISA qualified assets) DL - Daily Liquid (provides for daily trading of fund shares) SL - Securities Lending (fund engages in the BNY Mellon securities lending program) Non-SL - Non-Securities Lending (fund does not engage in the BNY Mellon securities lending program) I'll add more detail. EB (Employee Benefit) refers to plans that fall under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, which are a set a laws that govern employee pensions and retirement plans. This is simply BNY Mellon's designation for funds that are offered through 401(k)'s and other retirement vehicles. As I said before, DL refers to Daily Liquidity, which means that you can buy into and sell out of the fund on a daily basis. There may be fees for this in your plan, however. SL (Securities Lending) often refers to institutional funds that loan out their long positions to investment banks or brokers so that the clients of those banks/brokerages can sell the shares short. This SeekingAlpha article has a good explanation of how this procedure works in practice for ETF's, and the procedure is identical for mutual funds: An exchange-traded fund lends out shares of its holdings to another party and charges a rental fee. Running a securities-lending program is another way for an ETF provider to wring more return out of a fund's holdings. Revenue from these programs is used to offset a fund's expenses, which allows the provider to charge a lower expense ratio and/or tighten the performance gap between an ETF and its benchmark.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d2bfbfbabfc07ef43711447587646f45",
"text": "A share is just a part ownership of a company. If you buy a share of a green stock in the open market, you now just own part of a green company. Just like if you buy a house, the money you paid moves to the former owner, but what you are getting is a clear asset in return that you now own. Via mutual funds/indexes this can get a little more complicated (voting rights etc tend to go to the mutual/indexing company rather than the holders of the fund), but is approximately the same thing: the fund buys assets on the open market, then holds them, buys more, or sells them on behalf of the fund investors.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "899cc15197ce581a24b32abb82b64345",
"text": "It looks more like someone is trying to pocket the spread. The trades are going off at the bid then the ask (from what I can tell without any L1 and L2 data, but the spread could be bigger than what the prices show, since the stock looks pretty volatile given the difference between current price and VWAP...). Looking through the JSE rule books I didn't find any special provisions on how they handle odd lots in their Central Order Book, but the usual practice in other markets is to display only round lot orders. So these 4 share orders would remain hidden from book participants and could be set there to trigger executions from those who are probing for limit orders. Or to make a market with very limited risk.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "297f5c1fde7a5eb34c626fd519b68de3",
"text": "Generally, when I run across this kind of situation, I look for the Investor Relations section of the corporate website for a 'Stock Information' (or similar) tab or link. This usually contains information explaining the different shares classes, how they relate (if at all), voting and/or dividend rights, and taxation differences for the different classes. However, I have trouble finding such a page on a central BYD corporate investor relations page. I did find this page detailing the HK1211 shares: http://www.byd.com/investor/base_information.html. I don't know what or why, but something tells me this is an older page. Searching on, I also found this page which looks newer and clarifies that the difference you are seeing is between 'A' and 'H' shares. http://www.byd.cn/BYDEnglish/basic/article.jsp?articleId=1524676. (I'm guessing but I'd think somewhere in the announcements on this byd.cn site, you may find more details of any structural differences between share classes -- I just didn't want to page through them all.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d3d42480931d9f5d13947a15a0739972",
"text": "Do you realise that the examples you have given are for stock splits not for dividends, that is why the date payable is before the ex-date for the split. The payments for the split occur on 30th June and the first day the stock trades with the new split is on the next trading day, being the ex-date, 1st July.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "29834763126125feae688d2a6584967f",
"text": "Your question is missing information. The most probable reason is that the company made a split or a dividend paid in stock and that you might be confusing your historical price (which is relevant for tax purposes) with your actual market price. It is VERY important to understand this concepts before trading stocks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5f885b68f32e2453231622ed12ef0a48",
"text": "Your employer decides what options you have in the 401k. You can talk to your HR about that. There are requirements for diversity of various types of investments, money-market funds is being one of them. That is the investment account equivalent of cash. While it is not really cash but rather short term bonds - the term is generally very short and the risk is very limited. You can't earn much there, and you can't lose much there - so for all intents and purposes you can treat is as a cash-equivalent.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e05a30c4c2dd0cf27738493f5d1a2b47",
"text": "This investment strategy may have tax advantages. In some countries, income received from dividends is taxed as income, whereas profits on share trades are capital gains. If you have already exceeded your tax-free income limit for the year, but not your capital gains tax allowance, it may be preferable to make a dealing profit rather than an investment income. These arrangements are called a bed-and-breakfast.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "33ac39972a1a57646b9f5348a6da011c",
"text": "\"The shares available to short are a portion of those shares held by the longs. This number is actually much easier to determine outside of active trading hours, but either way doesn't really impact the matter at hand since computers are pretty good at counting things. If your broker is putting up obstacles to your issuing sell short limit orders in the pre-market then there is likely some other reason (maybe they reserve that function to \"\"premium\"\" account holders?)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6fdf8698afbbce4fdfcff1a82a3e7435",
"text": "\"A growth fund is looking to invest in stocks that will appreciate in stock price over time as the companies grow revenues and market share. A dividend fund is looking to invest in stocks of companies that pay dividends per share. These may also be called \"\"income\"\" funds. In general, growth stocks tend to be younger companies and tend to have a higher volatility - larger up and down swings in stock price as compared to more established companies. So, growth stocks are a little riskier than stocks of more established/stable companies. Stocks that pay dividends are usually more established companies with a good revenue stream and well established market share who don't expect to grow the company by leaps and bounds. Having a stable balance sheet over several years and paying dividends to shareholders tends to stabilize the stock price - lower volatility, less speculation, smaller swings in stock price. So, income stocks are considered lower risk than growth stocks. Funds that invest in dividend stocks are looking for steady reliable returns - not necessarily the highest possible return. They will favor lower, more reliable returns in order to avoid the drama of high volatility and possible loss of capital. Funds that invest in growth stocks are looking for higher returns, but with that comes a greater risk of losing value. If the fund manager believes an industry sector is on a growth path, the fund may invest in several small promising companies in the hopes that one or two of them will do very well and make up for lackluster performance by the rest. As with all stock investments, there are no guarantees. Investing in funds instead of individual stocks allows you invest in multiple companies to ride the average - avoid large losses if a single company takes a sudden downturn. Dividend funds can lose value if the market in general or the industry sector that the fund focuses on takes a downturn.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "88ddcb0c6858f21c6a4571c616e9ba94",
"text": "\"When I have stock at my brokerage account, the title is in street name - the brokerage's name and the quantity I own is on the books of the brokerage (insured by SIPC, etc). The brokerage loans \"\"my\"\" shares to a short seller and is happy to facilitate trades in both directions for commissions (it's a nice trick to get other parties to hold the inventory while you reap income from the churn); by selecting the account I have I don't get to choose to not loan out the shares.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "babde865bb9d96b55faa268417c37cb3",
"text": "It's a way to help normalize the meaning of the earnings report. Some companies like Google have a small number of publicly traded shares (322 Million). Others like Microsoft have much larger numbers of shares (8.3 Billion). The meaning depends on the stock. If it's a utility company that doesn't really grow, you don't want to see lots of changes -- the earnings per share should be stable. If it's a growth company, earnings should be growing quickly, and flat growth means that the stock is probably going down, especially if slow growth wasn't expected.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
64c5eb4d37a1df598c7dbfad0cbca199
|
Offer Price for my stock not shown on quote and a subsequent sale higher than my offer
|
[
{
"docid": "867938426d19347fb40cde94e4d03fc8",
"text": "Many exchanges trade the same securities. An order may be posted to a secondary exchange, but if the National Best Bid and Offer data provider malfunctions, only those with data feeds from that exchange will see it. Only the data provider for the primary exchange where a stock is listed provides the NBBO. Missing orders are very common with the NBBO data providers. NASDAQ's order consolidator has had many failures over the past few years, and the data provider's top executive has recently resigned. Brokers have no control over this system. A broker may be alerted to a malfunction by an accountholder, but a broker may only inform the relevant exchange and the relevant data provider.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5c120927cc57eebb098dc4104e48a7de",
"text": "It depends on the way you have directed the order and the execution agreement you have signed with your broker. In case of DMA (direct market access) you would direct your order to the specific exchange - and that exchange would post your offer, assuming you did not tag it as hidden. However, if you just gave your order to the broker (be it via telephone, email or even online), they may not have to display your order to the market or chose which exchange to sell it on. It will also depend where the stock is listed. For most US listed and OTC stocks, regulation NMS applies where your order should have been executed against if it went to the exchanges. Check your account opening docs and agreements, particulary the execution agreement. In there it will tell you how your order should be treated. In case where the broker stipulates that you have DMA or that they will direct your order to Lit markets (public exchanges and not market making firms and dark-pools) then you may have a case - you would need to request information to whcih exchange your broker sent the order to. In case that you gave them discretion on routing of your order - read the fine print. The answer lies there. Regarding NBBO missing you quote as quantycuenta suggested above is also a possibility, however Reg NMS should take care of this. Do you have stock and date & time of your order?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b42e15f40f75d337c1a93b03c9c664cb",
"text": "\"There are a few things you are missing here. These appear to be penny stocks or subpenny stocks. Buying these are easy.... selling is a total different ball game. Buying commissions are low and selling commissions are outrageous. Another thing you are missing in this order is... some trading platform may assume the \"\"AON\"\" sale. That is All Or None. There was an offer of 10k shares @ .63. The buyer only wanted 10k what was the broker to do with the other 20k? Did you inform the broker that partial sales where acceptable? You may want to contact your broker and explain this to them. The ALL OR NONE order has made plenty of investor a little unhappy, which seems to be your new learning experience for the day. Sorry, school of hard knocks is not always fun.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "84be8a7c538fae48665f33c5a50e9a99",
"text": "\"Most of the time* you're selling to other investors, not back to the company. The stock market is a collection of bid (buy offers) and asks (sell offers). When you sell your stock as a retail investor at the \"\"market\"\" price you're essentially just meeting whatever standing bid offers are on the market. For very liquid stocks (e.g. Apple), you can pretty much always get the displayed price because so many stocks are being traded. However during periods of very high volatility or for low-volume stocks, the quoted price may not be indicative of what you actually pay. As an example, let's say you have 5 stocks you're trying to sell and the bid-side order book is 2 stocks for $105, 2 for $100, and 5 for $95. In this scenario the quoted price will be $105 (the best bid price), but if you accept market price you'll settle 2 for 105, 2 for 100, and 1 for 95. After your sell order goes through, the new quoted price will be $95. For high volume stocks, there will usually be so many orders near the midpoint price ($105, in this case) that you won't see any price slippage for small orders. You can also post limit orders, which are essentially open orders waiting to be filled like in the above example. They ensure you get the price you want, but you have no way to guarantee they'll be filled or not. Edit: as a cool example, check out the bitcoin GDAX on coinbase for a live example of what the order book looks like for stocks. You'll see that the price of bitcoin will drift towards whichever direction has the less dense order book (e.g. price drifts upwards when there are far more bids than asks.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fc2be230f35d9d122b0f69f78f30d1aa",
"text": "When I log in to Schwab to look at these options it tells me there's only Adjusted Options available on these terms: Adjusted Options: Multiplier: 100; Deliverable: 15 PTIE; Cash: ---- It does confirm your July Call quote price of $0.05 because the contract, though priced for 100 shares, will only deliver 15 shares. Separately, looking at the company website for news there was a 7 for 1 Reverse Split announced on May 8, which is the culprit for this option adjustment and the seemingly nonsensical call price.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7d0d339a522ba5faf2b830722d44172e",
"text": "Prices quoted are primarily the offer prices quoted by the numerous market makers on the stock exchange(s) willing to sell you the stock. There is another price which generally isn't seen on these websites, the bid prices, which are lower prices quoted by buyers and market makers willing to buy your shares from you. You wouldn't see those prices, unless you login to your trade terminal. How meaningful are they to you depends on what you want to do buy or sell. If you want to buy then yes they are relevant. But if you want to sell, then no. And remember some websites delay market information by 15 minutes, in case of Google you might have seen that the volume is delayed by 15 minutes. So you need to consider that also while trading, but mayn't be a concern unless you are trying to buy out the company.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "36546d11d900062f0daed28ba6f6186a",
"text": "I was merely trying to be helpful - Conceptually, you have dump this idea that something is skewed. It isn't. Firm A sold for $500 (equity value aka purchase price to shareholders) + debt (zero) - cash (50) for 450. Enterprise value is the cash free, debt free sale price. The implied ev multiple is 4.5x on A - that is the answer. The other business sold for a higher multiple of 5x. If you would pile on more cash onto A, the purchase price would increase, but the EV wouldn't. The idea is to think hard about the difference between equity value and enterprise value when examining a transaction.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6c589e32d6d36c70d142d72293692582",
"text": "\"Certain brokers allow for hidden orders to be placed in the market. It is as simple as that. Refer to Interactive Brokers as one example. If you press on the \"\" i \"\" next to \"\"Hidden\"\" you will get the following description. Some brokers may represent the hidden orders by an * next to the price level. Sometimes large orders are place as these hidden orders to avoid large movements in the stock price (especially if the stock is illiquid as per your observation).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bee22f2e901b1e3291053ee13e612eb0",
"text": "\"Both prices are quotes on a single share of stock. The bid price is what buyers are willing to pay for it. The ask price is what sellers are willing to take for it. If you are selling a stock, you are going to get the bid price, if you are buying a stock you are going to get the ask price. The difference (or \"\"spread\"\") goes to the broker/specialist that handles the transaction.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "98ec62c00c0dccd391719cde2f4c95bc",
"text": "When there is a difference between the two ... no trading occurs. Let's look at an example: Investor A, B, C, and D all buy/sell shares of company X. Investor A wants to sell 10 shares at $20 a share (Ask price $20 x10). Investor B wants to buy 15 shares at $10 a share (Bid price $10 x15). Since the bid price and ask price are different, no sale is made. Next Investor C comes along and wants to sell 5 shares at $14 (Ask price $14 x5). Still no sale. Investor D comes along and wants to buy 5 shares for $14 each. So a sale is finally made. At this point, the stock quote moves to $14. The ask price is $20 x10 and the bid price is $10 x15. No further trading will occur until another investor is willing to buy at $20 or sell at $10. Another discussion of this topic is shown on this post.",
"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 $20 on the stock rise and given up any gain after that. That's all. The call owner may exercise at any time. Edit: @jaydles is right, there are circumstances where an option price can increase faster than the stock price. Options pricing generally follows the Black-Scholes model. Since the OP gave us the current stock price, option strike price, and time to expiration, and we know the risk free rate is <1%, you can use the calculator to change volatility. The number two scenario won't occur, however, because a covered call has no risk to the broker, they won't force you to buy the option back, and the option buyer has no motive to exercise it as the entire option value is time premium.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fd85d07d09d329585823370209e3755a",
"text": "\"I may be underestimating your knowledge of how exchanges work; if so, I apologize. If not, then I believe the answer is relatively straightforward. Lets say price of a stock at time t1 is 15$ . There are many types of price that an exchange reports to the public (as discussed below); let's say that you're referring to the most recent trade price. That is, the last time a trade executed between a willing buyer and a willing seller was at $15.00. Lets say a significant buy order of 1M shares came in to the market. Here I believe might be a misunderstanding on your part. I think you're assuming that the buy order must necessarily be requesting a price of $15.00 because that was the last published price at time t1. In fact, orders can request any price they want. It's totally okay for someone to request to buy at $10.00. Presumably nobody will want to sell to him, but it's still a perfectly valid buy order. But let's continue under the assumptions that at t1: This makes the bid $14.99 and the ask $15.00. (NYSE also publishes these prices.) There aren't enough people selling that stock. It's quite rare (in major US equities) for anyone to place a buy order that exceeds the total available shares listed for sale at all prices. What I think you mean is that 1M is larger than the amount of currently-listed sell requests at the ask of $15.00. So say of the 1M only 100,000 had a matching sell order and others are waiting. So this means that there were exactly 100,000 shares waiting to be sold at the ask of $15.00, and that all other sellers currently in the market told NYSE they were only willing to sell for a price of $15.01 or higher. If there had been more shares available at $15.00, then NYSE would have matched them. This would be a trigger to the automated system to start increasing the price. Here is another point of misunderstanding, I think. NYSE's automated system does not invent a new, higher price to publish at this point. Instead it simply reports the last trade price (still $15.00), and now that all of the willing sellers at $15.00 have been matched, NYSE also publishes the new ask price of $15.01. It's not that NYSE has decided $15.01 is the new price for the stock; it's that $15.01 is now the lowest price at which anyone (known to NYSE) is willing to sell. If nobody happened to be interested in selling at $15.01 at t1, but there were people interested in selling at $15.02, then the new published ask would be $15.02 instead of $15.01 -- not because NYSE decided it, but just because those happened to be the facts at the time. Similarly, the new bid is most likely now $15.00, assuming the person who placed the order for 1M shares did not cancel the remaining unmatched 900,000 shares of his/her order. That is, $15.00 is now the highest price at which anyone (known to NYSE) is willing to buy. How much time does the automated system wait to increment the price, the frequency of the price change and by what percentage to increment etc. So I think the answer to all these questions is that the automated system does none of these things. It merely publishes information about (a) the last trade price, (b) the price that is currently the lowest price at which anyone has expressed a willingness to sell, and (c) the price that is currently the highest price at which anyone has expressed a willingness to buy. ::edit:: Oh, I forgot to answer your primary question. Can we estimate the impact of a large buy order on the share price? Not only can we estimate the impact, but we can know it explicitly. Because the exchange publishes information on all the orders it knows about, anyone tracking that information can deduce that (in this example) there were exactly 100,000 shares waiting to be purchased at $15.00. So if a \"\"large buy order\"\" of 1M shares comes in at $15.00, then we know that all of the people waiting to sell at $15.00 will be matched, and the new lowest ask price will be $15.01 (or whatever was the next lowest sell price that the exchange had previously published).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "593f6298656a2b96117729003a4e30dd",
"text": "You bought 1 share of Google at $67.05 while it has a current trading price of $1204.11. Now, if you bought a widget for under $70 and it currently sells for over $1200 that is quite the increase, no? Be careful of what prices you enter into a portfolio tool as some people may be able to use options to have a strike price different than the current trading price by a sizable difference. Take the gain of $1122.06 on an initial cost of $82.05 for seeing where the 1367% is coming. User error on the portfolio will lead to misleading statistics I think as you meant to put in something else, right?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bc5462eef070960fcb1cc25bb5b69405",
"text": "Yes You could write a covered call and the stock gets called away at the price + premium. You could convince someone to buy it regardless of the market price.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "6ff491bfc4b2f438ed6236f9c30b6548",
"text": "\"I've alway thought that it was strange, but the \"\"price\"\" that gets quoted on a stock exchange is just the price of the last transaction. The irony of this definition of price is that there may not actually be any more shares available on the market at that price. It's also strange to me that the price isn't adjusted at all for the size of the transaction. A transaction of just 1 share will post a new price even if just seconds earlier 100,000 shares traded for a different price. (Ok, unrealistic example, but you get my point.) I've always believed this is an odd way to describe the price. Anyway, my diatribe here is supposed to illustrate the point that the fluctuations you see in price don't really reflect changing valuations by the stock-owning public. Each post in the exchange maintains a book of orders, with unmatched buy orders on one side and unmatched sell orders on the other side. If you go to your broker and tell him, \"\"fill my order for 50,000 shares at market price\"\", then the broker won't fill you 50,000 shares at .20. Instead, he'll buy the 50 @ .22, then 80 @ .23, then 100 @ .30, etc. Because your order is so large compared to the unmatched orders, your market order will get matched a bunch of the unmatched orders on the sell side, and each match will notch the posted price up a bit. If instead you asked the broker, \"\"open a limit order to buy 50000 shares at .20\"\", then the exchange will add your order to the book: In this case, your order likely won't get filled at all, since nobody at the moment wants to sell at .20 and historically speaking it's unlikely that such a seller will suddenly appear. Filling large orders is actually a common problem for institutional investors: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_16/b3929113_mz020.htm http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~mkearns/papers/vwap.pdf (Written by a professor I had in school!)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "370bf01afd80672f58b7757144ca2871",
"text": "There are several reasons why this may happen and I will update as I get more information from you. Volumes on that stock look low (supposing that they are either in a factor between 1s and 1000s) so it could well be that there was no volume on that day. If no trades occur then open, high and low are meaningless as they are statistics based on trades that occur that day and no trades occur. Remember that there has to be volume to get a price. The stock may have been frozen by either the exchange or the company for the day. This could be for various reasons including to prevent some illegal activity. In that case no trades were made because the market for that stock was closed. Another possibility is that all trades that day were cancelled by the exchange. The exchange may cancel all trades if there is unusual, potentially fraudulent or other illegal activity on the stock. In this case the last price for that day existed but was rolled back by the exchange and never occurred. This is a rare situation. Although I can't find any holidays on that date it is possible that this is how your data provider marks market holidays. It would be valid to ignore the data in that case as being from a non-market day. I cannot tell if this is possible without knowing exchange information. There is a possibility that some data providers don't receive data for a day or that it gets corrupted. It may be worth checking another source to ensure the integrity of the data that you are receiving. Whichever reason is true, the data provider has made the close equal to the previous day's close as no price movements occurred. Strictly the closing price is the price of the last trade made for that day and so should be null (and open, high and low should be null too and not 0 otherwise the price change on day is very large!). Therefore, to keep integrity, you have a few choices:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8b85c5d4437839baccbbc65186d8eb96",
"text": "If you do this, you own a stock worth $1, with a basis of $2. The loss doesn't get realized until the shares are sold. Of course, we hope you see the stock increase above that price, else, why do this?",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
43baa9534d6876a57e8a12224463961b
|
Retirement planning: Pension or personal saving/investing?
|
[
{
"docid": "94c3bc0d38ba24c3c4426ea35c15aab5",
"text": "with me and my wife coming from different countries, and us both living in a non-native country, we have very little clue where we will eventually settle down. The answer depends on where you reside currently, tax rules and ability to move funds. As well as where you plan to settle down and the tax rules there. From what I understand, once you eventually retire and take an annuity from your pension you are then taxed on it as income anyway? Yes and No. For example if you move from US to India, stay in India for 7 years. You then move your retirement funds from US to India the entire amount would be taxable in India. but would this 'freedom' would come with significant costs in terms of savings at retirement? The cost would be hard to predict. It depends on the tax treatments in the respective countries on the retirement kitty. It also depends on whether the country you are staying in will allow complete withdrawal and transfer of retirement funds without penalty.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8bed21e475a1350def5b29e8b0eff6b8",
"text": "You can never depend ONLY on pension. You must get financial education and invest your money. I recommend you to read The Intelligent Investor by Benjamin Graham...it's the bible of Warren Buffet. Besides, you don't need to be a Billionaire for retiring and be happy. I recommend you to get education in ETFs. I quote The Intelligent Investor by Benjamin Graham p. 131. According to Ibboston Associates, the leading financial research firm, if you had invested $12,000 in the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index at the beginning of september 1929, 10 years later you would have had only $7,223 left. But if you had started with a paltry $100 and simply invested another $100 every single month, then by August 1939, your money would have grown to $15,571! That's the power of disciplined buying-even in the face of the Great Depression and the worst bear market of all time. You are still young to make even bolder investments. But seriously you can never depend ONLY on pension. You won't regret learning how to invest your money, it doesn't matter if it's in the stock market, real state market, whatever market... Knowing what to do with your money is priceless. I hope this helps. Happy profits!",
"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": "2a4b58782ce98a91cf8fa116d088a391",
"text": "\"I'd suggest you avoid the Roth for now and use pretax accounts to get the greatest return. I'd deposit to the 401(k), enough to get as much match as permitted, then use a traditional IRA. You should understand how tax brackets work, and aim to use pre-tax to the extent it helps you avoid the 25% rate. If any incremental deposit would be 15% money, use Roth for that. Most discussions of the pre-tax / post tax decision talk about 2 rates. That at the time of deposit and time of withdrawal. There are decades in between that shouldn't be ignored. If you have any life change, a marriage, child, home purchase, etc, there's a chance your marginal bracket drops back down to 15%. That's the time to convert to Roth, just enough to \"\"top off\"\" the 15% bracket. Last, I wouldn't count on that pension, there's too much time until you retire to count on that income. Few people stay at one job long enough to collect on the promise of a pension that takes 30+ years to earn, and even if you did, there's the real chance the company cancels the plan long before you retire.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a2ec1def5f9b0579a09dbd6dfbe48497",
"text": "\"Paying someone to look after your money always costs something - it doesn't matter whether you're inside a pension or not. Fees are highest for \"\"actively managed\"\" funds and lowest for passively managed funds or things where you choose the investments directly - but in the latter case you might pay out a lot in dealing fees. Typically pensions will have some small additional costs on top of that, but those are hugely outweighed by the tax advantages - payments into a pension are made from gross salary (subject to an annual limit), and growth inside the pension is tax free. You do pay income tax when you take the money out though - but by then your marginal tax rate may well have dropped. If you want to control your own investments within a pension you can do this, subject to choosing the right provider - you don't have to be invested in the stockmarket at all (my own pension isn't at the moment). I wrote an answer to another question a while ago which briefly summarises the options As far as an annuity goes, it's not as simple as the company taking the money you saved when you die. The point of an annuity is that you can't predict when you'll die. Simplifying massively, suppose the average life expectancy when you retire is 20 years and you have 100K saved, and ignore inflation and interest for now. Then on average you should have 5K/year available - but since you don't know when you'll die if you just spend your money at that rate you might run out after 20 years but still be alive needing money. Annuities provide a way of pooling that risk - in exchange for losing what's left if you die \"\"early\"\", you keep getting paid beyond what you put in if you die \"\"late\"\". Your suggestion of taking the dividends from an index tracker fund - or indeed the income from any other investment - is fine, but the income will be substantially less than an annuity bought with the same money because you won't be using up any capital, whereas an annuity implicitly does that. Depending on the type of investment, it might also be substantially more risky. Overall, you only need to secure the income you actually need/want to live on. Beyond that level, keeping your money outside the pension system makes some sense, though this might change with the new rules referred to in other answers that mean you don't have to buy an annuity if you have enough guaranteed income anyway. In any case, I strongly suggest you focus first on ensuring you have enough to live on in retirement before you worry about leaving an inheritance. As far as setting up a trust goes, you might be able to do that, but it would be quite expensive and the government tends to view trusts as tax avoidance schemes so you may well fall foul of future changes in the rules.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5c31fd2ca20d45cccad3bed1bf0859cf",
"text": "\"Well.... If you have alllll your money invested, and then there's a financial crisis, and there's a personal crisis at the same time (e.g. you lose your job) then you're in big trouble. You might not have enough money to cover your bills while you find a new job. You could lose your house, ruin your credit, or something icky like that. Think 2008. Even if there's not a financial crisis, if the money is in a tax-sheltered retirement account then withdrawing it will incur ugly penalities. Now, after you've got an emergency fund established, things are different. If you could probably ride out six to twelve months with your general-purpose savings, then with the money you are investing for the long term (retirement) there's no reason you shouldn't invest 100% of the money in stocks. The difference is that you're not going to come back for that money in 6 months, you're going to come back for it in 40 years. As for retirement savings over the long term, though, I don't think it's a good idea to think of your money in those terms. If you ever lose 100% of your money on the stock market while you've invested in diversified instruments like S&P500 index funds, you're probably screwed one way or another because that represents the core industrial base of the US economy, and you'll have better things to worry about, like looking for a used shotgun. Myself, I prefer to give the suggestion \"\"don't invest any money in stocks if you're going to need to take it out in the next 5 years or so\"\" because you generally shouldn't be worried about a 100% loss of all the money in stocks your retirement accounts nearly so much as you should be worried about weathering large, medium-term setbacks, like the dot-com bubble crash and the 2008 financial crisis. I save the \"\"don't invest money unless you can afford to lose it all\"\" advice for highly speculative instruments like gold futures or social-media IPOs. Remember also that while you might lose a lot of your money on the stock market, your savings accounts and bonds will earn you pathetic amounts by comparison, which you will slowly lose to inflation. If you've had your money invested for decades then even during a crash you may still be coming out ahead relative to bonds.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "53b48561bdd124cd5788fb728db3024b",
"text": "I'd argue that you should be focusing on avoiding taxation and maximizing employer matching funds as your first objective. Over a longer period, quality of investment options and fees will both drive your account value. A personal IRA account is usually a better value over time -- so contribute as much as possible to your IRA, and rollover 401k accounts whenever you have an opportunity to do so.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "750cb976cb26f8faa6d75a6aa8080cbd",
"text": "\"Obviously you should aim to max out your pension, though this is a bit of a judgement call, as future growth could take it over the limit even once you stop making contributions. A public service job with a defined benefit pension won't make much difference, as they are also assessed against the lifetime limit at a multiplier of 20x the annual pension - so a similar rate to what you're looking at anyway (£500/year corresponds to a £10K notional pot). On the other hand public service pensions are protected against inflation - if you wanted an equivalent defined contribution pension, annuity rates are actually quite a bit lower than that - more like £350-£400 per £10K. Apart from a pension, I'd suggest making sure you own your own property by the time you retire. The rent you save by doing that is effectively tax-free, though you have to pay for the mortgage out of taxed income. So it's equivalent to saving in an ISA, but with the added benefit that you are effectively \"\"hedged\"\" against rental changes. After that ISAs are the next logical investment vehicle, though be aware that cash ISAs don't pay very good returns at the moment.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "be2ff4e65e7dd0fcf04b23b870b005c8",
"text": "\"All things being equal, a defined benefit pension is far better than an IRA or a 401(k). Think about it this way - let's say you can have a guaranteed $100 a month*, or the chance at $100 a month. Which is better? Now, obviously, your tolerance for risk is the difference - but this is the beauty of a defined benefit plan. Your employer is picking up the risk. Assuming that the pool of investments is about the same (which unless if their funds are tremendously under performing they are), the question is, who takes the risk - you or them? Especially if you are moving into a new position, having a defined benefit plan is like having a risk-free asset in your portfolio. It increases your safety. The only reason to roll this over into a 401(k) or IRA is if your expected value (risk * payout) is better. A worked example. If half the time you would earn more than $100 and half the time less, then you could imagine the two as being equally good. Only if you really love risk would you take that chance. In reality, only half the investments out there will \"\"beat\"\" the average, and as such, you actually have less than a 50/50 shot of beating a DB - unless if there are really low returns to it. More likely, I suspect you are over-estimating your ability to get a higher return.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9c3f83e175a8cc33986f6538defbd934",
"text": "\"I can think of one major income source you didn't mention, dividends. Rather than withdrawing from your pension pot, you can roll it over to a SIPP, invest it in quality dividend growth stocks, then (depending on your pension size) withdraw only the dividends to live on. The goal here is that you buy quality dividend growth stocks. This will mean you rarely have to sell your investments, and can weather the ups and downs of the market in relative comfort, while using the dividends as your income to live off of. The growth aspect comes into play when considering keeping up with inflation, or simply growing your income. In effect, companies grow the size of their dividend payments and you use that to beat the effects of inflation. Meanwhile, you do get the benefit of principle growth in the companies you've invested in. I don't know the history of the UK stock market, but the US market has averaged over 7% total return (including dividends) over the long term. A typical dividend payout is not much better than your annuity option though -- 3% to 4% is probably achievable. Although, looking at the list of UK Dividend Champion list (companies that have grown their dividend for 25 years continuous), some of them have higher yields than that right now. Though that might be a warning sign... BTW, given all the legal changes around buy-to-lets recently (increases stamp duty on purchase, reduction in mortgage interest deduction, increased paperwork burden due to \"\"right to rent\"\" laws, etc.) you want to check this carefully to make sure you're safe on forecasting your return.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "03bdcd1b1605b952c67b41e225da099a",
"text": "\"The end result is basically the same, it's just a choice of whether you want to base the final amount you receive on your salary, or on the stock market. You pay in a set proportion of your salary, and receive a set proportion of your salary in return. The pension (both contributions and benefit) are based on your career earnings. You get x% of your salary every year from retirement until death. These are just a private investment, basically: you pay a set amount in, and whatever is there is what you get at the end. Normally you would buy an annuity with the final sum, which pays you a set amount per year from retirement until death, as with the above. The amount you receive depends on how much you pay in, and the performance of the investment. If the stock market does well, you'll get more. If it does badly, you could actually end up with less. In general (in as much as anything relating to the stock market and investment can be generalised), a Defined Benefit plan is usually considered better for \"\"security\"\" - or at least, public sector ones, and a majority of people in my experience would prefer one, but it entirely depends on your personal attitude to risk. I'm on a defined benefit plan and like the fact that I basically get a benefit based on a proportion of my salary and that the amount is guaranteed, no matter what happens to the stock market in the meantime. I pay in 9% of my salary get 2% of my salary as pension, for each year I pay into the pension: no questions, no if's or buts, no performance indicators. Others prefer a defined contribution scheme because they know that it is based on the amount they pay in, not the amount they earn (although to an extent it is still based on earnings, as that's what defines how much you pay in), and because it has the potential to grow significantly based on the stock market. Unfortunately, nobody can give you a \"\"which is best\"\" answer - if I knew how pension funds were going to perform over the next 10-50 years, I wouldn't be on StackExchange, I'd be out there making a (rather large) fortune on the stock market.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "173ef301437d7f08e22684184e2cd0b5",
"text": "\"There's already an excellent answer here from @BenMiller, but I wanted to expand a bit on Types of Investments with some additional actionable information. You can invest in stocks, bonds, mutual funds (which are simply collections of stocks and bonds), bank accounts, precious metals, and many other things. Discussing all of these investments in one answer is too broad, but my recommendation is this: If you are investing for retirement, you should be investing in the stock market. However, picking individual stocks is too risky; you need to be diversified in a lot of stocks. Stock mutual funds are a great way to invest in the stock market. So how does one go about actually investing in the stock market in a diversified way? What if you also want to diversify a bit into bonds? Fortunately, in the last several years, several products have come about that do just these things, and are targeted towards newer investors. These are often labeled \"\"robo-advisors\"\". Most even allow you to adjust your allocation according to your risk preferences. Here's a list of the ones I know about: While these products all purport to achieve similar goals of giving you an easy way to obtain a diversified portfolio according to your risk, they differ in the buckets of stocks and funds they put your money into; the careful investor would be wise to compare which specific ETFs they use (e.g. looking at their expense ratios, capitalization, and spreads).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e155a7538f8822b59bcea7d7e2f5090d",
"text": "In addition to what others have said, I think it is important to consider that government retirement assistance (whatever it is called in each instance) is basically a promise that can be revoked. I talked to a retired friend of mine just yesterday and we got onto that subject; she mentioned that when she was young, the promise was for 90% of one's pay, paid by the government after retiring. It is very different today. Yes, you can gamble that you won't need the saved money, and thus decide not to save anything. What then if you do end up needing the money you did not set aside, but rather spent? You are just now graduating college, and assuming of course that you get a decently-paying job, are likely going to have loads more money than you are used to. If you make an agreement with yourself to set aside even just 10-15% of the difference in income right from the start, that is going to grow into a pretty sizable nest egg by the time you approach retirement age. Then, you will have the option of continuing to work (maybe part-time) or quitting in a way you would not have had otherwise. Now I'm going to pull numbers out of thin air, but suppose that you currently have $1000/month net, before expenses, and can get a job that pays $1800/month net starting out. 10-15% of the difference means you'll be saving around $100/month for retirement. In 35 years, assuming no return on investment (pessimistic, but works if returns match inflation) and no pay rises, that will still be over $40K. That's somewhere on the order of $150/month added to your retirement income for 25 years. Multiply with whatever inflation rate you think is likely if you prefer nominal values. It becomes even more noticable if you save a significant fraction of the additional pay; if you save 1/3 of the additional money (note that you still effectively get a 50% raise compared to what you have been living on before), that gives you a net income of $1500/month instead of $1800 ($500/month more rather than $800/month more) which grows into about $110K in 35 years assuming no return on investment. Nearly $400 per month for 25 years. $100 per week is hardly chump change in retirement, and it is still quite realistic for most people to save 30% of the money they did not have before.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ef3df544d40cefb5109c5334ffe89341",
"text": "Can you wait until you retire before needing the money? Will you buy your first house sometime in the future? If yes, then favour an RRSP. Remember that you are rewarded by paying less tax for having the foresight and commitment to defer income taxes until your retirement, when you are presumably earning less income. Are your household expenses higher than 28% of your gross income? 35% of your net income? Does making your mortgage payments stress you? Are interest rates lower than their historical norm and an increase would cause you difficulty? If yes, then favour your mortgage. Do you need this money before your retire? Does your TFSA earn more interest than your mortgage costs your? If yes, then favour a TFSA. Does an alternative investment earn more than your TFSA? Can you handle an uptick in your mortgage interest rate? If yes, then favour the alternative investment and not your RRSP, mortgage or TFSA.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e094f5823f5d2382b7888935e1f1c3e6",
"text": "\"No one can really answer this for you. It is a matter of personal preference and the details of your situation. There are some really smart people on here, when placed in your exact situation, would do completely different things. Personal finance is overall, personal. If it was me, I'd never borrow money in retirement. If I had the cash, I'd use it to help fund the purchase. If I didn't, I simply wouldn't. For me wealth retention (in your case) is surprisingly more about behavior than math (even though I am a math guy). You are simply creating a great deal of risk at a season in your life with a diminished ability to recover from negative events. In my opinion you are inviting \"\"tales of woe\"\" to be part of your future if you borrow. Others would disagree with me. They would point to the math and show how you would be much better off on borrowing instead of pulling out of investments provided a sufficient return on your nest egg. They may even have a case as you might have to pay taxes on money pulled out magnifying the difference in net income on borrowing versus pulling out in a lump sum. Here in the US, the money you pulled out would be taxed at the highest marginal rate. To help with a down payment of 50K, you might have to pull out 66,500 to pay the taxes and have enough for the down payment. The third option is to not help with a down payment or to help them in a different way. Perhaps giving them a few hundred per month for two years to help with their mortgage payment. Maybe watch their kids some to reduce day care costs or help with home improvements so they can buy a lower price home. Those are all viable options. Perhaps the child is not ready to buy a home. Having said all that it really depends on your situation. Say your sitting on 5 million in investments, your pensions is sufficient to have some disposable income, and they are asking for a relatively small amount. Then pull the money out and don't be concerned. You nest egg will quickly recover the money.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ee9dd9059baeca33306de0ce321cb4f0",
"text": "When you say: I am 48 and my husband is 54. We have approx. 60,000.00 left in our retirement accounts. We want to move our money into something so our money will grow. We've been looking at annunities. We've talked to 4 different advisors about what is best for us. Bad mistake, I am so overwhelmed with the differences they all have til I can't even think straight anymore. @Havoc P is correct: ...It's very likely that 60k is not nearly enough, and that making the right investment choices will make only a small difference. You could invest poorly and maybe end up with 50K when you retire, or invest well and maybe end up with 80-90k. But your goal is probably more like a million dollars, or more, and most of that will come from future savings. This is what a planner can help you figure out in detail. TL; DR Here is my advice:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7a54240da4b431d36b9d5df63fdc615d",
"text": "I would definitely recommend contributing to an IRA. You don't know for sure you'll get hired full-time and be eligible for the 401(k) with match, so you should save for retirement on your own. I would recommend Roth over Traditional IRA in your situation, because let's say you do get hired full-time. Since the company offers a retirement plan, your 2015 Traditional IRA contribution would no longer be deductible at your income level (assuming you're single), and non-deductible Traditional IRAs aren't a very good deal (see here and here). If there's a decent chance you would get hired, this factor would override the pre-tax versus post-tax debate for me. At your income level you could go either way on that anyway. A Solo 401(k) would be worth looking into if you wanted to increase your contribution limit beyond what IRAs offer, but given that it sounds like you're just starting out saving for retirement, and you may be eligible for a 401(k) soon, it's probably overkill at this point.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
98951816a88e43e77d365fa7281d3859
|
Using simple moving average in Equity
|
[
{
"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": "5a17cd4afbb0b960169fbf1545bf16d0",
"text": "One of the most obvious uses of SMAs is the detection of a trend reversal. A trend reversal happens when a short term SMA crosses over a longer term SMA. For example, if a 20 day moving average was, previously, above a 200 day moving average, but has crossed over the 200 day and is currently below the 200 day then the security has performed a 'death cross' and the trend is for lower and lower prices. Stockcharts.com has excellent 'chart school' for the beginning chart user. They also provide excellent charts. Here is a link: http://stockcharts.com/school/doku.php?id=chart_school I like to use a 20 day SMA, a 200 day SMA, and a 21 day EMA.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "0a69573b10bc69c804febd5912f716dc",
"text": "\"There is no formula that can be applied to most variations of the problem you pose. The reason is that there is no simple, fixed relationship between the two time periods involved: the time interval for successive payments, and the time period for successive interest compounding. Suppose you have daily compounding and you want to make weekly payments (A case that can be handled). Say the quoted rate is 4.2% per year, compounded daily Then the rate per day is 4.2/365, or 0.0115068 % So, in one week, a debt would grow through seven compoundings. A debt of $1 would grow to 1 * (1+.000225068)^7, or 1.000805754 So, the equivalent interest rate for weekly compounding is 0.0805754% Now you have weekly compounding, and weekly payments, so the standard annuity formulas apply. The problem lies in that number \"\"7\"\", the number of days in a week. But if you were trying to handle daily / monthly, or weekly / quarterly, what value would you use? In such cases, the most practical method is to convert any compounding rate to a daily compounding rate, and use a spreadsheet to handle the irregularly spaced payments.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4fe71dad8b6df9ac042bb484b3097c02",
"text": "I use two measures to define investment risk: What's the longest period of time over which this investment has had negative returns? What's the worst-case fall in the value of this investment (peak to trough)? I find that the former works best for long-term investments, like retirement. As a concrete example, I have most of my retirement money in equity, since the Sensex has had zero returns over as long as a decade. Since my investment time-frame is longer, equity is risk-free, by this measure. For short-term investments, like money put aside to buy a car next year, the second measure works better. For this purpose, I might choose a debt fund that isn't the safest, and has had a worst-case 8% loss over the past decade. I can afford that loss, putting in more money from my pocket to buy the car, if needed. So, I might choose this fund for this purpose, taking a slight risk to earn higher return. In any case, how much money I need for a car can only be a rough guess, so having 8% less than originally planned may turn out to be enough. Or it may turn out that the entire amount originally planned for is insufficient, in which case a further 8% shortfall may not be a big deal. These two measures I've defined are simple to explain and understand, unlike academic stuff like beta, standard deviation, information ratio or other mumbo-jumbo. And they are simple to apply to a practical problem, as I've illustrated with the two examples above. On the other hand, if someone tells me that the standard deviation of a mutual fund is 15%, I'll have no idea what that means, or how to apply that to my financial situation. All this suffers from the problem of being limited to historical data, and the future may not be like the past. But that affects any risk statistic, and you can't do better unless you have a time machine.",
"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": "bdf902963e79c6b5e308997b48edab0a",
"text": "I can think of a few simple and quick techniques for timing the market over the long term, and they can be used individually or in combination with each other. There are also some additional techniques to give early warning of possible turns in the market. The first is using a Moving Average (MA) as an indication of when to sell. Simply if the price closes below the MA it is time to sell. Obviously if the period you are looking at is long term you would probably use a weekly or even monthly chart and use a relatively large period MA such as a 50 week or 100 week moving average. The longer the period the more the MA will lag behind the price but the less false signals and whipsawing there will be. As we are looking long term (5 years +) I would use a weekly chart with a 100 week Exponential MA. The second technique is using a Rate Of Change (ROC) Indicator, which is a momentum indicator. The idea for timing the markets in the long term is to buy when the indicator crosses above the zero line and sell when it crosses below the zero line. For long term investing I would use a 13 week EMA of the 52 week ROC (the EMA smooths out the ROC indicator to reduce the chance of false signals). The beauty of these two indicators is they can be used effectively together. Below are examples of using these two indicators in combination on the S&P500 and the Australian S&P ASX200 over the past 20 years. S&P500 1995 to 2015 ASX200 1995 to 2015 If I was investing in an ETF tracking one of these indexes I would use these two indicators together by using the MA as an early warning system and maybe tighten any stop losses I have so that if the market takes a sudden turn downward the majority of my profits would be protected. I would then use the ROC Indicator to sell out completely out of the ETF when it crosses below zero or to buy back in when the ROC moves back above zero. As you can see in both charts the two indicators would have kept you out of the market during the worst of the downfalls in 2000 and 2008 for the S&P500 and 2008 for the ASX200. If there is a false signal that gets you out of the market you can quite easily get back in if the indicator goes back above zero. Using these indicators you would have gotten into the market 3 times and out of it twice for the S&P500 over a 20 year period. For the ASX200 you would have gone in 6 times and out 5 times, also over a 20 year period. For individual shares I would use the ROC indicator over the main index the shares belong to, to give an indication of when to be buying individual stocks and when to tighten stop losses and stay on the sidelines. My philosophy is to buy rising stocks in a rising market and sell falling stocks in a falling market. So if the ROC indicator is above zero I would be looking to buy fundamentally healthy stocks that are up-trending and place a 20% trailing stop loss on them. If I get stopped out of one stock then I would look to replace it with another as long as the ROC is still above zero. If the ROC indicator crosses below zero I would tighten my trailing stop losses to 5% and not buy any new stocks once I get stopped out. Some additional indicators I would use for individual stock would be trend lines and using the MACD as a momentum indicator. These two indicators can give you further early warning that the stock may be about to reverse from its current trend, so you can tighten your stop loss even if the ROC is still above zero. Here is an example chart to explain: GEM.AX 3 Year Weekly Chart Basically if the price closes below the trend line it may be time to close out the position or at the very least tighten up your trailing stop loss to 5%. If the price breaks below an established uptrend line it may well be the end of the uptrend. The definition of an uptrend is higher highs and higher lows. As GEM has broken below the uptrend line and has maid a lower low, all that is needed to confirm the uptrend is over is a lower high. But months before the price broke below the uptrend line, the MACD momentum indicator was showing bearish divergence between it and the price. In early September 2014 the price made a higher high but the MACD made a lower high. This is called a bearish divergence and is an early warning signal that the momentum in the uptrend is weakening and the trend could be reversing soon. Notice I said could and not would. In this situation I would reduce my trailing stop to 10% and keep a watchful eye on this stock over the coming months. There are many other indicators that could be used as signals or as early warnings, but I thought I would talk about some of my favourites and ones I use on a daily and weekly basis. If you were to employ any of these techniques into your investing or trading it may take a little while to learn about them properly and to implement them into your trading plan, but once you have done that you would only need to spend 1 to 2 hours per week managing your portfolio if trading long-term or about 1 hour per nigh (after market close) if trading more medium term.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6102ca35a6adf578632c2b0f37dadc2f",
"text": "\"Below I will try to explain two most common Binomial Option Pricing Models (BOPM) used. First of all, BOPM splits time to expiry into N equal sub-periods and assumes that in each period the underlying security price may rise or fall by a known proportion, so the value of an option in any sub-period is a function of its possible values in the following sub period. Therefore the current value of an option is found by working backwards from expiry date through sub-periods to current time. There is not enough information in the question from your textbook so we may assume that what you are asked to do is to find a value of a call option using just a Single Period BOPM. Here are two ways of doing this: First of all let's summarize your information: Current Share Price (Vs) = $70 Strike or exercise price (X) = $60 Risk-free rate (r) = 5.5% or 0.055 Time to maturity (t) = 12 months Downward movement in share price for the period (d) = $65 / $70 = 0.928571429 Upward movement in share price for the period (u) = 1/d = 1/0.928571429 = 1.076923077 \"\"u\"\" can be translated to $ multiplying by Vs => 1.076923077 * $70 = $75.38 which is the maximum probable share price in 12 months time. If you need more clarification here - the minimum and maximum future share prices are calculated from stocks past volatility which is a measure of risk. But because your textbook question does not seem to be asking this - you probably don't have to bother too much about it yet. Intrinsic Value: Just in case someone reading this is unclear - the Value of an option on maturity is the difference between the exercise (strike) price and the value of a share at the time of the option maturity. This is also called an intrinsic value. Note that American Option can be exercised prior to it's maturity in this case the intrinsic value it simply the diference between strike price and the underlying share price at the time of an exercise. But the Value of an option at period 0 (also called option price) is a price you would normally pay in order to buy it. So, say, with a strike of $60 and Share Price of $70 the intrinsic value is $10, whereas if Share Price was $50 the intrinsic value would be $0. The option price or the value of a call option in both cases would be fixed. So we also need to find intrinsic option values when price falls to the lowest probable and rises to the maximum probable (Vcd and Vcu respectively) (Vcd) = $65-$60 = $5 (remember if Strike was $70 then Vcd would be $0 because nobody would exercise an option that is out of the money) (Vcu) = $75.38-$60 = $15.38 1. Setting up a hedge ratio: h = Vs*(u-d)/(Vcu-Vcd) h = 70*(1.076923077-0.928571429)/(15.38-5) = 1 That means we have to write (sell) 1 option for each share purchased in order to hedge the risks. You can make a simple calculation to check this, but I'm not going to go into too much detail here as the equestion is not about hedging. Because this position is risk-free in equilibrium it should pay a risk-free rate (5.5%). Then, the formula to price an option (Vc) using the hedging approach is: (Vs-hVc)(e^(rt))=(Vsu-hVcu) Where (Vc) is the value of the call option, (h) is the hedge ratio, (Vs) - Current Share Price, (Vsu) - highest probable share price, (r) - risk-free rate, (t) - time in years, (Vcu) - value of a call option on maturity at the highest probable share price. Therefore solving for (Vc): (70-1*Vc)(e^(0.055*(12/12))) = (75.38-1*15.38) => (70-Vc)*1.056540615 = 60 => 70-Vc = 60/1.056540615 => Vc = 70 - (60/1.056540615) Which is similar to the formula given in your textbook, so I must assume that using 1+r would be simply a very close approximation of the formula above. Then it is easy to find that Vc = 13.2108911402 ~ $13.21 2. Risk-neutral valuation: Another way to calculate (Vc) is using a risk-neutral approach. We first introduce a variable (p) which is a risk-neutral probability of an increase in share price. p = (e^(r*t)-d)/(u-d) so in your case: p = (1.056540615-0.928571429)/(1.076923077-0.928571429) = 0.862607107 Therefore using (p) the (Vc) would be equal: Vc = [pVcu+(1-p)Vcd]/(e^(rt)) => Vc = [(0.862607107*15.38)+(0.137392893*5)]/1.056540615 => Vc = 13.2071229185 ~ $13.21 As you can see it is very close to the hedging approach. I hope this answers your questions. Also bear in mind that there is much more to the option pricing than this. The most important topics to cover are: Multi-period BOPM Accounting for Dividends Black-Scholes-Merton Option Pricing Model\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "399db64a304c7fc66c5a72efd53d8696",
"text": "How you use the metric is super important. Because it subtracts cash, it does not represent 'value'. It represents the ongoing financing that will be necessary if both the equity plus debt is bought by one person, who then pays himself a dividend with that free cash. So if you are Private Equity, this measures your net investment at t=0.5, not the price you pay at t=0. If you are a retail investor, who a) won't be buying the debt, b) won't have any control over things like tax jurisdictions, c) won't be receiving any cash dividend, etc etc .... the metric is pointless.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bf0540111a2051185227f72005547c32",
"text": "\"Generally if you are using FIFO (first in, first out) accounting, you will need to match the transactions based on the number of shares. In your example, at the beginning of day 6, you had two lots of shares, 100 @ 50 and 10 @ 52. On that day you sold 50 shares, and using FIFO, you sold 50 shares of the first lot. This leaves you with 50 @ 50 and 10 @ 52, and a taxable capital gain on the 50 shares you sold. Note that commissions incurred buying the shares increase your basis, and commissions incurred selling the shares decrease your proceeds. So if you spent $10 per trade, your basis on the 100 @ 50 lot was $5010, and the proceeds on your 50 @ 60 sale were $2990. In this example you sold half of the lot, so your basis for the sale was half of $5010 or $2505, so your capital gain is $2990 - 2505 = $485. The sales you describe are also \"\"wash sales\"\", in that you sold stock and bought back an equivalent stock within 30 days. Generally this is only relevant if one of the sales was at a loss but you will need to account for this in your code. You can look up the definition of wash sale, it starts to get complex. If you are writing code to handle this in any generic situation you will also have to handle stock splits, spin-offs, mergers, etc. which change the number of shares you own and their cost basis. I have implemented this myself and I have written about 25-30 custom routines, one for each kind of transaction that I've encountered. The structure of these deals is limited only by the imagination of investment bankers so I think it is impossible to write a single generic algorithm that handles them all, instead I have a framework that I update each quarter as new transactions occur.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "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": "eb8297b5ca140c0fb70085814539e5a3",
"text": "The Gordon equation does not use inflation-adjusted numbers. It uses nominal returns/dividends and growth rates. It really says nothing anyone would not already know. Everyone knows that your total return equals the sum of the income return plus capital gains. Gordon simply assumes (perfectly validly) that capital gains will be driven by the growth of earnings, and that the dividends paid will likewise increase at the same rate. So he used the 'dividend growth rate' as a proxy for the 'earnings growth rate' or 'capital gains rate'. You cannot use inflation-removed estimates of equity rates of return because those returns do not change with inflation. If anything they move in opposite directions. Eg in the 1970's inflation the high market rates caused people to discount equity values at larger rates --- driving their values down -- creating losses.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cc774863ed13c1d2f406183d15b26019",
"text": "Quick and dirty paper but pretty interesting.. I'm not in Portfolio Management but I probably would have ended up at the modal number as well. I don't know the subject deeply enough to answer my own question, but is the bias always toward underestimation of variance? Or is that a complex of the way the problem was set up? Another question I have for those in investment management; Would this impact asset allocation?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "227085867cf45b9715b131058918dc42",
"text": "Thank you very much for this thoughtful response. In my opinion the judges care more about the why behind your valuation rather than a how. Anyone can use a formula, but it takes so much more to understand why to use the formula. Personally, the 'why' is going to be the toughest part for me understand and wrap my head around. Once again thank you for the advice and the tip.",
"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": "ce932128386e9ac1e3bdbe0c347a0ad7",
"text": "If annualized rate of return is what you are looking for, using a tool would make it a lot easier. In the post I've also explained how to use the spreadsheet. Hope this helps.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b3ff2d91d58df55f959c18195cd1b5d0",
"text": "As BrenBarn stated, tracking fractional transactions beyond 8 decimal places makes no sense in the context of standard stock and mutual fund transactions. This is because even for the most expensive equities, those fractional shares would still not be worth whole cent amounts, even for account balances in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. One important thing to remember is that when dealing with equities the total cost, number of shares, and share price are all 3 components of the same value. Thus if you take 2 of those values, you can always calculate the third: (price * shares = cost, cost / price = shares, etc). What you're seeing in your account (9 decimal places) is probably the result of dividing uneven values (such as $9.37 invested in a commodity which trades for $235.11, results in 0.03985368550891072264046616477394 shares). Most brokerages will round this value off somewhere, yours just happens to include more decimal places than your financial software allows. Since your brokerage is the one who has the definitive total for your account balance, the only real solution is to round up or down, whichever keeps your total balance in the software in line with the balance shown online.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
5088da37d0e5d9bbe46aad3904110eb9
|
Is a naked put really that risky
|
[
{
"docid": "b628cc052ffea59a0f52a95d0555375a",
"text": "\"So, yes, you may be having the inevitable epiphany where you realize that options can synthetically replicate the same risk profile of owning stock outright. Allowing you to manipulate risk and circumvent margin requirement differences amongst asset classes. Naked short puts are analogous to a covered call, but may have different (lesser) margin requirements. This allows you to increase your risk, and the broker has to account for that. The broker's clientele might not understand all the risks associated with that much leverage and so may simply consider it risky \"\"for your protection\"\"\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "ef655d48b8cebc3d4b75cdb5c3508aa5",
"text": "\"It's talked about quite often among more experienced investors. They were/ are used extensively by hedge funds. Keep in mind that if your option expires when not \"\"in the money\"\" you lose the premium you paid for the purchase of the option. That's where the risk comes in. I've grown really interested in options over the last couple months. Check out McMillan's Guide to Options. It's generally thought of as the quintessential beginners guide to understanding options. Good luck!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cd65581ac6c2499e75b303f3dc704286",
"text": "Purchasing an option to sell the stock is probably the safest bet. This gives you reasonable leverage, and your risk is limited to the cost of the option. Say the stock currently sells for $100 per share. You think it will drop to $80 per share in the next two weeks and the market thinks the price will be stable. Now, consider an option to sell one share of that stock for $95 any time within the next two weeks. The market would consider that option nearly worthless, since in all likelihood, you would lose out by exercising it (since you could just sell the share on the market for a price expected to be higher than that). You might be able to acquire that option for $5. Now, say you're right and within two weeks, the price drops to $80. Now you can purchase a share for $80, exercise the option to sell it for $95, and pocket $15. That would make you a $10 profit on a $5 investment. If you're wrong, you just let the option lapse and are out $5. No problem. In reality, you would buy a number of such options. And you wouldn't actually buy a share and exercise the option, you would just sell the option back to its issuer for $15.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a7561cd17187999bcde78f7e21faf1ff",
"text": "If I sell a covered call, on stock I own 100%, there is no risk of a margin call. The stock goes to zero, I'm still not ask to send in more money. But, if bought on margin, margin rules apply. A naked put would require you to be able to buy the stock if put to you. As the price of the stock drops, you still need to be able to buy it at the put strike price. Mark to market is just an expression describing how your positions are considered each day.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "5f505ea025ad3b724d57c8c6297ce71a",
"text": "When you buy a stock, the worst case scenario is that it drops to 0. Therefore, the most you can lose when buying a stock is 100% of your investment. When you short a stock, however, there's no limit on how high the stock can go. If you short a stock at 10, and it goes up to 30, then you've lost 200% on your investment. Therefore shorting stocks is riskier than buying stocks, since you can lose more than 100% of your investment when shorting. because the price might go up, but it will never be as big of a change as a regular price drop i suppose... That is not true. Stocks can sometimes go up significantly (50-100% or more) in a very short amount of time on a positive news release (such as an earnings or a buyout announcement). A famous example occurred in 2008, when Volkswagen stock quintupled (went up 400%) in less than 2 days on some corporate news: Porsche, for some reason, wants to control Volkswagen, and by building up its stake has driven up the price. Hedge funds, figuring the share price would fall as soon as Porsche got control and stopped buying, sold a lot of VW shares short. Then last weekend, Porsche disclosed that it owned 42.6 percent of the stock and had acquired options for another 31.5 percent. It said it wanted to go to 75 percent. The result: instant short-squeeze. The German state of Lower Saxony owns a 20 percent stake in VW, which it said it would not sell. That left precious few shares available for anyone else. The shorts scrambled to cover, and the price leaped from about €200, or about $265, to above €1,000.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2cfa0834b636fde849cb2ec3218d1032",
"text": "To add to this, that risk is really only a problem if you don't have the cash flow to service the debt. If the surplus dips but your ultimately profitable on whatever trade you made, you're okay. If you default, you're not okay. Volitility relative to loan term effectively.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "13fe2693df54cb1419cc60e61a2343b4",
"text": "\"You have already indicted in another question, titled Which risk did I take winning this much?, that you did not understand (1) Why a previous trade made you as much money as it did; nor (2) How much you could have lost if things went a different way. You were, in that other question, talking about taking short position, without understanding (apparently) that a short position can create losses exceeding the value of your initial investment. Can one make money doing day trading? Yes, an educated investor may be able to prudently invest in short term positions making knowledgeable judgments about risk, and still make money. Can you make money doing day trading? Well, maybe. You have in the past, in what you described in a previous post as \"\"winning\"\". So even in your own eyes, you were effectively gambling, and got lucky. Perhaps the more relevant questions you can ask yourself are: Can you lose money doing day trading? And, most importantly, Are you more likely to lose money day trading, or consistently make money by taking on reasonable and educated risks?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3681fe7e8e5344a3021f0058d20ec485",
"text": "\"A derivative contract can be an option, and you can take a short (sell) position , much the same way you would in a stock. When BUYING options you risk only the money you put in. However when selling naked(you don't have the securities or cash to cover all potential losses) options, you are borrowing. Brokers force you to maintain a required amount of cash called, a maintenance requirement. When selling naked calls - theoretically you are able to lose an INFINITE amount of money, so in order to sell this type of options you have to maintain a certain level of cash in your account. If you fail to maintain this level you will enter into whats often referred to as a \"\"margin-call\"\". And yes they will call your phone and tell you :). Your broker has the right to liquidate your positions in order to meet requirements. PS: From experience my broker has never liquidated any of my holdings, but then again I've never been in a margin call for longer then a few days and never with a severe amount. The margin requirement for investors is regulated and brokers follow these regulations.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7c1674dbe0971d64da0bdbd3313c7196",
"text": "\"There are (at least) two problems with the argument suggested in the OP. First, the ability to cover the cost, doesn't mean willingness, ease, or no major side effects of doing so. Second is the mitigation of \"\"upside risk\"\". It might be true that the most usual loss is small and manageable, but 10% of incidents could be considerably larger and 1% may be very much larger - without limit. Your own attitude to risk and loss will determine how much these are seen as unlikely+ignore, or worst case situation+avoid.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0f22a5ecc1faa262af808f77c33ca5d5",
"text": "Well, let me take your question for baremetal, and aknowledge you did not asked about the difference between daytrading and investing which is obviously leverage. I would not consider daytrading more risky as long as you keep leverageout of the equation. Daytrading can be turbolent and confusing, where things unfold in a very short amount of time, (let trade nfp payroll or some breaking event, yay), eventually the risk is more overseeable in long term trading, as soon as you put leverage into the equation things look vary different, indeed.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3bb4fd780184d18c4282487bb78fa2be",
"text": "You can do some very crafty hedging with the variety of options. For instance, deep out of the money options are affected more by changes of market volatility, knowing this you can get long or short vega very easily, as opposed to necessarily betting on changes in the underlying asset.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c61dc248ffe41b7e0a00c09876f29653",
"text": "Late to the party, but it's just improving your cost basis in a defined risk trade even further. If you want to put up less risk capital but want to test the waters, this can be one way to do it. Another could be buying cheap OTM butterflies or financing a further otm option with the basis reduction from the debit spread if you want to gamble a bit further and venture into 15-20 delta positions. Usually, I am doing debit spreads with a buying atm and selling a couple strikes further otm or at least at the most liquid strikes, but if it's a high flier, it can be disappointing, but a good trade. If you're more of a contrarian in where you buy your calls/puts, it's absolutely a good way to lessen your risk on a calculated bet.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3f73c56e9094278b08acb8dfd5295358",
"text": "Conceptually, yes, you need to worry about it. As a practical matter, it's less likely to be exercised until expiry or shortly prior. The way to think about paying a European option is: [Odds of paying out] = [odds that strike is in the money at expiry] Whereas the American option can be thought of as: [Odds of paying out] = [odds that strike price is in the money at expiry] + ( [odds that strike price is in the money prior to expiry] * [odds that other party will exercise early] ). This is just a heuristic, not a formal financial tool. But the point is that you need to consider the odds that it will go into the money early, for how long (maybe over multiple periods), and how likely the counterparty is to exercise early. Important considerations for whether they will exercise early are the strategy of the other side (long, straddle, quick turnaround), the length of time the option is in the money early, and the anticipated future movement. A quick buck strategy might exercise immediately before the stock turns around. But that could leave further gains on the table, so it's usually best to wait unless the expectation is that the stock will quickly reverse its movement. This sort of counter-market strategy is generally unlikely from someone who bought the option at a certain strike, and is equivalent to betting against their original purchase of the option. So most of these people will wait because they expect the possibility of a bigger payoff. A long strategy is usually in no hurry to exercise, and in fact they would prefer to wait until the end to hold the time value of the option (the choice to get out of the option, if it goes back to being unprofitable). So it usually makes little sense for these people to exercise early. The same goes for a straddle, if someone is buying an option for insurance or to economically exit a position. So you're really just concerned that people will exercise early and forgo the time value of the American option. That may include people who really want to close a position, take their money, and move on. In some cases, it may include people who have become overextended or need liquidity, so they close positions. But for the most part, it's less likely to happen until the expiration approaches because it leaves potential value on the table. The time value of an option dwindles at the end because the implicit option becomes less likely, especially if the option is fairly deep in the money (the implicit option is then fairly deep out of the money). So early exercise becomes more meaningful concern as the expiration approaches. Otherwise, it's usually less worrisome but more than a nonzero proposition.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dc97090be3ab27139fd98f9ac08e954b",
"text": "\"You are likely making an assumption that the \"\"Short call\"\" part of the article you refer to isn't making: that you own the underlying stock in the first place. Rather, selling short a call has two primary cases with considerably different risk profiles. When you short-sell (or \"\"write\"\") a call option on a stock, your position can either be: covered, which means you already own the underlying stock and will simply need to deliver it if you are assigned, or else uncovered (or naked), which means you do not own the underlying stock. Writing a covered call can be a relatively conservative trade, while writing a naked call (if your broker were to permit such) can be extremely risky. Consider: With an uncovered position, should you be assigned you will be required to buy the underlying at the prevailing price. This is a very real cost — certainly not an opportunity cost. Look a little further in the article you linked, to the Option strategies section, and you will see the covered call mentioned there. That's the kind of trade you describe in your example.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
c64cb306810d228c12a70b9b116fd10c
|
How can I find out who the major short sellers are in a stock?
|
[
{
"docid": "d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e",
"text": "",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6498dc17cb7cd572ef19866fea19f6d2",
"text": "There is no way to know anything about who has shorted stuff or how concentrated the positions are in a few investors. Short positions are not even reported in 13(F) institutional filings. I'll take the bonus points, though, and point you to the US Equity Short Interest data source at quandl.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "dc096ed29dd62558dd7405e04ae66eb6",
"text": "Exact rules may be different depending on the size of the investor, the specific broker, and the country. For both the US and Canada, short sales occur only through one's margin account. And shares that are borrowed for shorting only come from a margin account. Shares held in a cash account are not available for shorting. From Wikipedia Short (finance) - The speculator instructs the broker to sell the shares and the proceeds are credited to his broker's account at the firm upon which the firm can earn interest. Generally, the short seller does not earn interest on the short proceeds and cannot use or encumber the proceeds for another transaction. As with many questions, I'd suggest you contact your broker for the exact details governing your account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b1fb0823ce32c596a1f3590d7c2e7c0c",
"text": "For Canada No distinction is made in the regulation between “naked” or “covered” short sales. However, the practice of “naked” short selling, while not specifically enumerated or proscribed as such, may violate other provisions of securities legislation or self-regulatory organization rules where the transaction fails to settle. Specifically, section 126.1 of the Securities Act prohibits activities that result or contribute “to a misleading appearance of trading activity in, or an artificial price for, a security or derivative of a security” or that perpetrate a fraud on any person or company. Part 3 of National Instrument 23-101 Trading Rules contains similar prohibitions against manipulation and fraud, although a person or company that complies with similar requirements established by a recognized exchange, quotation and trade reporting system or regulation services provider is exempt from their application. Under section 127(1) of the Securities Act, the OSC also has a “public interest jurisdiction” to make a wide range of orders that, in its opinion, are in the public interest in light of the purposes of the Securities Act (notwithstanding that the subject activity is not specifically proscribed by legislation). The TSX Rule Book also imposes certain obligations on its “participating organizations” in connection with trades that fail to settle (see, for example, Rule 5-301 Buy-Ins). In other words, shares must be located by the broker before they can be sold short. A share may not be locatable because there are none available in the broker's inventory, that it cannot lend more than what it has on the books for trade. A share may not be available because the interest rate that brokers are charging to borrow the share is considered too high by that broker, usually if it doesn't pass on borrowing costs to the customer. There could be other reasons as well. If one broker doesn't have inventory, another might. I recommend checking in on IB's list. If they can't get it, my guess would be that no one can since IB passes on the cost to finance short sales.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2c0d471b4475311dc5888b973e1ae327",
"text": "\"Market makers, traders, and value investors would be who I'd suspect for buying the stock that is declining. Some companies stocks can come down considerably which could make some speculators buy the stock at the lower price thinking it may bounce back soon. \"\"Short sellers\"\" are out to sell borrowed stocks that if the stock is in free fall, unless the person that shorted wants to close the position, they would let it ride. Worthless stocks are a bit of a special case and quite different than the crash of 1929 where various blue chip stocks like those of the Dow Jones Industrials had severe declines. Thus, the companies going down would be like Apple, Coca-Cola and other large companies that people would be shocked to see come down so much yet there are some examples in recent history if one remembers Enron or Worldcom. Stocks getting delisted tend to cause some selling and there are some speculators may buy the stock believing that the shares may be worth something only to lose the money possibly as one could look at the bankrupt cases of airlines and car companies to study some recent cases here. Circuit breakers are worth noting as these are cases when trading may be halted because of a big swing in prices that it is believed stopping the market may cause things to settle down.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d3123290e32d907c6d91f25b639be154",
"text": "Brokerage firms are required to report the number of shares being shorted. This information is reported to the exchange (NYSE of NASDAQ) and is made public. Most financial sites indicate the number of shares being shorted for a particular stock. The image below from Yahoo finance shows 3.29 million shares of CMG were being shorted at the close of 9-28-2012. This is over 12% of the total outstanding shares of CMG. For naked short selling additional information is tracked. If the brokerage is unable to borrow shares to deliver before the settlement date of a short sale then the transaction is recorded as fails-to-deliver. No money or shares are exchanged since the brokerage is unable to deliver the shares that were agreed upon. A large amount of fails-to-deliver transactions for a stock usually indicates an excessive amount of naked shorting. When investors and brokerage firms start to aggressively short a stock they will do so without having borrowed the shares to sell. This will result in a large amount of naked short selling. When there are a large number of naked short sellers not all the sellers will be able to borrow the necessary shares before the settlement date and many fails-to-deliver transactions will be recorded. The SEC records the number of fails-to-deliver transactions. The table below summarizes the fails-to-deliver transactions from 1-1-2012 through 9-14-2012 (data obtained from here). The “Ext Amount” column shows the total dollar value of the transactions that failed ( i.e. Fail Qty * Share price ). The “Volume” column is the total number of shares traded in the same time period. The “% Volume” shows the percentage of shares that failed to deliver as a percentage of the total market volume. The table orders the data in descending order by the quantity of shares that were not delivered. Most of the companies at the top of the list no longer exist. For many of these companies, the quantity of shares that failed to deliver where many multiples of the number of shares traded during the same time period. This indicates massive naked short selling as many brokerages where unable to find shares to borrow before the settlement date. More information here.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a16dce6dfae89c8957a21dedaf4f3116",
"text": "\"Q: A: Everyone that is short is paying interest to the owners of the shares that the short seller borrowed. Although this quells your conundrum, this is also unrelated to the term. Interest in this context is just the number. In the options market, each contract also has an open interest, which tells you how many of that contract is being held. For your sake, think of it as \"\"how many are interested\"\", but really its just a completely different context.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f3e8bee63310019eab33d01a57e57cdc",
"text": "I agree with Mark. I was quite confuse about the short position at first but then I did a lot of learning and found out that as long as you have enough cash to cover your margin requirement you do not pay any interest since you do not have a debit on your margin balance. This is not true for a long position though, supposed you have 5k cash and 5k margin balance, if you buy 10K worth of stocks then you will need to pay interest on the 5k of the margin balance since it is a debit. Since shorting is done at a credit basis, you actually get interest from the transaction but you still may need to pay the borrowing fees for the stocks so they could simply balance each other out. I have shorted stocks twice through two different companies and neither time I noticed any interest charges. But make sure you have enough cash to cover your margin requirement, because once your margin balance is used to covered your position then interest would accrual. Learn.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "57c412fe4c06eb13496ba96739bf6d9f",
"text": "No, there is no such list, as the other answers mention it is practically impossible to compile one. However you can see the institutional investors of a public company. MSN Money has this information available in a fair amount of details. For example see the Institutional Investors of GOOG",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "98634ad20792e08f87659493195a9884",
"text": "For a company listed on NASDAQ, the numbers are published on NASDAQ's site. The most recent settlement date was 4/30/2013, and you can see that it lists 27.5 million shares as held short. NASDAQ gets these numbers from FINRA member firms, which are required to submit them to the exchange twice a month: Each FINRA member firm is required to report its “total” short interest positions in all customer and proprietary accounts in NASDAQ-listed securities twice a month. These reports are used to calculate short interest in NASDAQ stocks. FINRA member firms are required to report their short positions as of settlement on (1) the 15th of each month, or the preceding business day if the 15th is not a business day, and (2) as of settlement on the last business day of the month.* The reports must be filed by the second business day after the reporting settlement date. FINRA compiles the short interest data and provides it for publication on the 8th business day after the reporting settlement date.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d80b33775084481e3cce09445f2b3a83",
"text": "I don't think that you will be able to find a list of every owner for a given stock. There are probably very few people who would know this. One source would be whoever sends out the shareholder meeting mailers. I suspect that the company itself would know this, the exchange to a lesser extent, and possibly the brokerage houses to a even lesser extent. Consider these resources:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3c281b87286decfa69e99007af37e74c",
"text": "Generally the number of shares of a U.S. exchange-listed stock which have been shorted are tracked by the exchange and reported monthly. This number is usually known as the open short interest. You may also see a short interest ratio, which is the short interest divided by the average daily volume for the stock. The short interest is available on some general stock data sites, such as Yahoo Finance (under Key Statistics) and dailyfinance.com (also on a Key Statistics subpage for the stock).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "04df881344f4003c31ca6fb7b9d516fe",
"text": "This is a gross simplification as there are a few different ways to do this. The principle overall is the same though. To short a stock, you borrow X shares from a third party and sell them at the current price. You now owe the lender X shares but have the proceeds from the sale. If the share price falls you can buy back those shares at the new lower price, return them to the lender and pocket the difference. The risk comes when the share price goes the other way, you now owe the lender the new value of the shares, so have to find some way to cover the difference. This happened a while back when Porsche made a fortune buying shares in Volkswagen from short sellers, and the price unexpectedly rose.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e4cd2570f701bfec4ecfd194f62cc6a1",
"text": "\"If you can't find anyone to lend you the shares, then you can't short. You can attempt to raise the interest rate at which you will borrow at, in order to entice others to lend you their shares. In practice, broadcasting this information is pretty convoluted. If there aren't any stocks for you to buy back, then you have to buy back at a higher price. As in, place a limit buy order higher and higher until someone decides to sell to you. This affects your profit. Regarding the public ledger: This functions different in different markets. United States stock markets have an evolving body of regulations to alleviate the exact concerns you detailed, but Canada's or Dubai's stock markets would have different provisions. You make the assumption that it is an efficient process, but it is not and it is indeed ripe for abuse. In US stocks, the public ledger has a 3 business day delay between showing change of ownership. Many times brokers and clearing firms and other market participants allow a customer to go short with fake shares, with the idea that they will find real shares within the 3 business day time period to cover the position. During the time period that there is no real shares hitting the market, this is called a \"\"naked short\"\". The only legal system that attempts to deter this practice is the \"\"fail to deliver\"\" (FTD) list. If someone fails to deliver, that means there is a short position active with fake shares for which no real shares have been borrowed against. Too many FTD's allow for a short selling restriction to be placed, meaning nobody else can be short, and existing short sellers may be forced to cover.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "85d58a18e68588f99c66ec5f8a8d3e2f",
"text": "Adding to the answers above, there is another source of risk: if one of the companies you are short receives a bid to be purchased by another company, the price will most probably rocket...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "da3bb20b815bd711a1d70bb82fd9fd3f",
"text": "In general you cannot. Once the security is no longer listed on the exchange - it doesn't have to provide information to the exchange and regulators (unless it wants to be re-listed). That's one of the reasons companies go private - to keep their (financial and other) information private. If it was listed in 1999, and is no longer listed now - you can dig through SEC archives for the information. You can try and reach out to the company's investors' relations contact and see if they can help you with the specific information you're looking for.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "82299a4415bac48fb7fee972fa61914a",
"text": "Well, if the short seller has to pay the dividend out of their pocket, what happens to the dividend the company paid out ?? Sounds like there are 2 divdends floating around, the short's, and the company's, but only 1 share of stock.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
51173ae59f3d25a1f7080292c6faf77d
|
How to Explain “efficient frontier” to child?
|
[
{
"docid": "ad8a6813ffead5acedb9417d1db3f382",
"text": "\"I would let them get their hands dirty, learn by practicing. Below you can find a simple program to generate your own efficient frontier, just 29 lines' python. Depending on the age, adult could help in the activity but I would not make it too lecturing. With child-parent relationship, I would make it a challenge, no easy money anymore -- let-your-money work-for-you -attitude, create the efficient portfolio! If there are many children, I would do a competition over years' time-span or make many small competitions. Winner is the one whose portfolio is closest to some efficient portfolio such as lowest-variance-portfolio, I have the code to calculate things like that but it is trivial so build on the code below. Because the efficient frontier is a good way to let participants to investigate different returns and risk between assets classes like stocks, bonds and money, I would make the thing more serious. The winner could get his/her designed portfolio (to keep it fair in your budget, you could limit choices to index funds starting with 1EUR investment or to ask bottle-price-participation-fee, bring me a bottle and you are in. No money issue.). Since they probably don't have much money, I would choose free software. Have fun! Step-by-step instructions for your own Efficient Frontier Copy and run the Python script with $ python simple.py > .datSimple Plot the data with $ gnuplot -e \"\"set ylabel 'Return'; set xlabel 'Risk'; set terminal png; set output 'yourEffFrontier.png'; plot '.datSimple'\"\" or any spreadsheet program. Your first \"\"assets\"\" could well be low-risk candies and some easy-to-stale products like bananas -- but beware, notice the PS. Simple Efficient-frontier generator P.s. do not stagnate with collectibles, such as candies and toys, and retailer products, such as mangos, because they are not really good \"\"investments\"\" per se, a bit more like speculation. The retailer gets a huge percentage, for further information consult Bogleheads.org like here about collectible items.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2365d7e4f4e52609e7a63b7d46330c4b",
"text": "I know you really like bananas, but don't you think you would get tired of them after a while? Better stock up on some kiwi and mango just to mix it up a bit. I wouldn't want to risk eating only banana sandwiches, banana ice cream and banana bread for the rest of my life. I have don't think I could take it. Same goes for mango and kiwi, but I think if I had all three I could probably get along just fine.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "edc8f5acc6acb7c172f0f6631a96b3aa",
"text": "You do know that since the shale gas boom started the cost of energy declined significantly, don't you? Your theory is a bit simplistic and had more than a few holes. GDP growth is not that contingent on energy prices. How do you factor in increasing fuel efficiency in your theory?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9da812b213cc5c3e9363a2765e600f72",
"text": "This creates high levels of efficiency, but is efficiency really what we need? A robot is very efficient, and increases income, but for who? When a corporation absorbs another, it does so *with the expectation* that redundant jobs will be shed, and that the income from those jobs will go to the shareholders. And so one can see where income inequality has it's roots.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9fa77761a09cfe9d1742dd2a47672057",
"text": "\"From his other work he certainly buys the truism that the markets are efficient at a 0-th approximation. But not entirely efficient. See e.g. Schleifer \"\"The limits to arbitrage\"\". Most if not all the money made by managed funds is at the expense of customers, not from outperforming the market. Ripping customers' faces off is a lot easier than beating the market.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fb0927a7b7d0b22ddb6786217aef90d2",
"text": "I don't know what you are asking. Can you give me an example of what fits the question? That you use phrases like profit extraction make me think we have a different assumption base, so I think we have to find common syntactic ground before we can exchange ideas in a meaningful way. I would like to do so, though, so I hope you respond.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3749bd9223d2080c026d8c67c9ac9201",
"text": "\"Translation : Funds managers that use traditionnal methods to select stocks will have less success than those who use artificial intelligence and computer programs to select stocks. Meaning : The use of computer programs and artificial intelligence is THE way to go for hedge fund managers in the future because they give better results. \"\"No man is better than a machine, but no machine is better than a man with a machine.\"\" Alternative article : Hedge-fund firms, Wall Street Journal. A little humour : \"\"Whatever is well conceived is clearly said, And the words to say it flow with ease.\"\" wrote Nicolas Boileau in 1674.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f6565dd0aa33decf3ce5cdb619b40921",
"text": "Another suggestion I heard on the radio was to give the child the difference between the name brand they want, and the store brand they settle on. Then that money can be accumulated as savings. Saving money is as important a feature of the family economy as earning money. Be careful with what you have a child do for reward vs what you have them do as a responsibility. Don't set a dangerous precedent that certain work does not need to be done unless compensation is on the table. You might have a child who relies on external motivations only to do things, which can make school work and future employment hard. I would instead have my child do yard work, but while doing it explain opportunity costs of doing the work yourself vs hiring out. I would show my kid how saving money earns interest, and how that is essentially free money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "100c16089b98c6da4bdec9e3d52ba91b",
"text": "\"The raw question is as follows: \"\"You will be recommending a purposed portfolio to an investment committee (my class). The committee runs a foundation that has an asset base of $4,000,000. The foundations' dual mandates are to (a) preserve capital and (b) to fund $200,000 worth of scholarships. The foundation has a third objective, which is to grow its asset base over time.\"\" The rest of the assignment lays out the format and headings for the sections of the presentation. Thanks, by the way - it's an 8 week accelerated course and I've been out sick for two weeks. I've been trying to teach myself this stuff, including the excel calculations for the past few weeks.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a65efd5afe866ce7d2d86bb59793098c",
"text": "\"In the UK there is a School Rewards System used in many schools to teach kids and teens about finance and economy. In the UK there is a framework for schools called \"\"Every Child Matters\"\" in which ‘achieving economic well-being’ is an important element. I think is important to offer to offer a real-life vehicle for financial learning beyond the theory.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ffd72d35894bb567068dfa4974d92543",
"text": "Well if your looking to explain inflation to children, I would use this example. Take two fruits they like IE: Apples and Oranges. Give them both 2 of each. Ask them how many of your apples would you give for 1 orange and how many apples would you want to get 1 orange(most likely they will say 1). Now give them 5 more apples each. Then ask them the same question. In economics and finance many things can not be proven, so to tell you what QE will do for a fact can't be said, you can only be told theories. There are to many variables.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1eaa8459652b36589027858764a119e6",
"text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/book-review-after-piketty/) reduced by 93%. (I'm a bot) ***** > In After Piketty: The Agenda for Economics and Inequality, editors Heather Boushey, J. Bradford DeLong and Marshall Steinbaum bring together contributors to reflect on the influence of Thomas Piketty&#039;s Capital in the Twenty-First Century and to draw attention to topics less explored in Piketty&#039;s analysis. > After Piketty: The Agenda for Economics and Inequality, edited by Heather Boushey, J. Bradford De Long and Marshall Steinbaum, further explores the &#039;process by which wealth is accumulated&#039; and the &#039;powerful forces&#039; that shape the divergence. > Even if, as described by Piketty, the process of accumulation and the forces of power that render wealth inequality prove correct - that is, r &gt; g - even then, for Branko Milanovic, high inequality is avoidable. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/758ftg/after_piketty_the_agenda_for_economics_and/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~224779 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*: **Piketty**^#1 **Capital**^#2 **Inequality**^#3 **wealth**^#4 **work**^#5\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a7b912d294a04211b50ef946ef32180e",
"text": "Context: assessed project as part of a tech internship in an investment bank, working in small groups, task: to design an app using a financial solution that has an ethical impact. We came up with (what I hope) is the smart sounding idea of an app for impoverished farmers in developing countries who lack the information and market access that larger or unionised farmers would have. The app would use some kind of decision tree (which may grow with machine learning) to assess the best kind of crops to grow given the region and local conditions for max profitability, and would provide access to some kind of derivatives market, and insurance, allowing the farmers a consistent income. Struggling with the specifics of how the business/finance side of things would work. Let's assume the bank builds the app and puts it on the app-store as part of some charitable initiative. 1) Would the farmers go directly to the bank to price and purchase derivatives on their crops? 2) Options/futures/forwards - which is most appropriate, or would it make sense to offer all three? 3) Is there any way this could be adjusted to provide regular payments, with a lump sum at the end? Would this be something the bank chooses to do, or is there an existing financial instrument for this kind of setup? 4) How does this tie in with the commodities markets (or is that what the derivatives already are?) 5) Probably a long-shot but any chance of know-your-customer implementations for countries with terrible infrastructure? 6) (probably a dumb question) Say the farmer sells an option on his crops, would this be sold directly to the bank or a 3rd party who'd be more interested in actually buying the crop? Or is this a far too simplistic view? Basically who would the farmer actually deliver the crops to? 7) Any other issues/oversights? Any ideas to make this sound somewhat viable? It doesn't have to strictly be realistic in any sense, but it also can't be flat-out incorrect! tyvm in advance, edited to make questions clearer",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "37f50f2c22c9d006a2e8b44a7fadccb5",
"text": "Thanks for the correction it was just a story my dad would tell me so the details have likely blurred. My point is that even if we could automate all physical jobs there could still be work to do, distribution of resources would likely need to be handled differently then now some sort of utopian communism or something not really the main point though.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "993d8ae63cd270d4ad5880f4866f600e",
"text": "\"No, there's no justification for saying that the resource \"\"needs to be used in a way which is most productive\"\". That's not consistent with either capitalism (which does not take a moral stance, but observes that it goes to the highest bidder) or with social welfare (which is concerned with maintaining a reasonable rate of employment). And we were not discussing govt employment.\"",
"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": "5da547d40bc58ce938dde6001001f3f8",
"text": "Growth and efficiency can occur independently of each other. For instance, if an economy consists of one inefficient business and then a second more efficient business opens to compete agains the first the overall efficiency increases while the economy grows. New industries tend to be inefficient at the beginning (since initiation is more important than optimisation) and then become more efficient over time. Agriculture is an amazingly efficient business if you consider how many people now produce the amount of food we consume in comparison to only 100 years ago. Plus, efficiency is not only about producing extra widgets. You could produce the same number of widgets for lower cost. Outsourcing to China (taking advantage of their lower cost of production) increases the efficiency of the US economy, but also increases the efficiency of the Chinese economy (since extra work is created producing more things). Lower costs in the US lead to increased investment in other production. Increased production in China leads to the rising wages there. Growth can be achieved in both places for very different reasons. So, no, growth doesn't have to come about through less efficiency.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
1a6e55ec4bab9688baa2cb2d475107f8
|
If I make over 120k a year, what are my options for retirement plans?
|
[
{
"docid": "a4617e0261b7f1b94be4dd512cb4fbd2",
"text": "All data for a single adult in tax year 2010. Roth IRA 401K Roth 401k Traditional IRA and your employer offers a 401k Traditional IRA and your employer does NOT offer a 401k So, here are your options. If you have a 401k at work, you could max that out. If you make close to $120K, you could reduce your AGI enough to contribute to a Roth IRA. If you do not have a 401k at work, you could contribute to a Traditional IRA and deduct the $5K from your AGI similar to how a 401k works. Other than that, I think you are looking at investing outside of a retirement plan which means more flexibility, but no tax advantage.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0e7aaa3545c4d6f453db4c1aab884836",
"text": "\"First off, high five on the paycheck. There are a few retirement issues to deal with. 401k issues - At that income level, you will probably fall into the \"\"Highly Compensated Employee\"\" category, which means things get a little more complicated, both for you and your employer. (Wikipedia link) IRA issues - As you already realized, you make too much to directly open and contribute to a Roth IRA. You can open a Traditional IRA, however. Your income is already over the limit for Traditional IRA deduction (bummer), so it would seem there is little point to opening an IRA at all. However, there is a way to take advantage of a Roth IRA, even at your income level. It is possible to convert a Traditional IRA into a Roth IRA. There used to be income limits on the ability to do the conversion, which would have normally made this off limits to you. Starting in 2010, the income limit is removed, so you can do this. Basically, you open a Traditional IRA, max it out, then convert it to a Roth. Since there was no income deduction, you shouldn't have to pay any more taxes. (link) Disclaimer: I've never tried this, nor do I know anyone who has, so you might want to research it a bit more before you try it yourself.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8b0c286ab645d8767cbf1e001122d581",
"text": "Put in the maximum you can into the 401(k), the limit should be $16,500 so long as the highly compensated rules don't kick in. Since you cannot deduct the traditional IRA, it's a great option to deposit to a traditional IRA and immediately convert that balance to a Roth account. That puts you at $21,500/yr saved, nearly 18%. There's nothing stopping you from investing outside these accounts. A nice ETF with low expenses, investing in a stock index (I am thinking SPY for the S&P 500) is great to accumulate long term.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d93d70f146680771492964e51a2be575",
"text": "There are three common options for you:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "219a7a848cb49b4297db60baf479de70",
"text": "The other alternative: just invest it in tax-efficient investments. You will have limited tax-deferral options outside of your 401k, but don't let that limit you. You can invest in a variety of ETFs, stocks and mutual funds for growth, and tax-free investments like municipal bonds as you get older and need to draw income.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6f3d9168d77d34be6e5866a401312aa7",
"text": "You can contribute to a Traditional IRA instead of a Roth. The main difference is a contribution to a Roth is made with after tax money but at retirement you can withdraw the money tax free. With a Traditional IRA your contribution is tax-deductible but at retirement the withdrawal is not tax free. This is why most people prefer a Roth if they can contribute. You can also contribute to your work's 401k plan assuming they have one. And you can always save for retirement in a regular account.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "47a9a3e8ed0fdc1ec68c6aa0efca6508",
"text": "\"The only time to stop saving money for retirement is when you have enough money to retire tomorrow. Not all of your \"\"retirement savings\"\" need to be in a 401k, it is just better if you can. Be sure to get as much as you can from the employer matching program. Unfortunately some employer matching programs discourage you from putting in too much. I've been able to max out the 401k contribution a number of times, which helps. Remember: you are likely to live to 100, so you better save enough to live that long. I don't trust social security to be there. I recommend saving so that you end up with \"\"enough to be comfortable\"\" -- this is usually about 25x your current income - PLUS inflation between now and when you plan to retire (age 62 is a good target). It is worth knowing your \"\"retirement savings number\"\". If you are making $100K per year now, you need to target $2.5M - PLUS allowance for inflation between now and when you plan to retire. This usually means you need to also arrange to make more money as well as save as much as you can and to use passive investing. Finance advisors are not worth it if you have less than $1M to invest.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1403c0dc25f5e605961b289b5b269a59",
"text": "\"If you have already maxed your TSP contributions, the \"\"401k\"\" for military folks, you could consider a Traditional IRA contribution. They are tax-deductible, based on some limits, so it may reduce your tax liability. Many online services (Vanguard, Fidelity, etc.) offer quick and free setup of Traditional IRA accounts. If you have already maxed the Traditional IRA as well, you could look at making taxable investments through an online service. Like homer150mw, I would recommend low-cost funds. For reasons why, see this article by John Bogle.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "789d3dcae90ef6d21ef686157bc50cf5",
"text": "I would open a taxable account with the same custodian that manages your Roth IRA (e.g., Vanguard, Fidelity, etc.). Then within the taxable account I would invest the extra money in low cost, broad market index funds that are tax efficient. Unlike in your 401(k) and Roth IRA, you will now have tax implications if your funds produce dividends or realize a capital gain. That is why tax-efficient funds are important to minimize this as much as possible. The 3-fund portfolio is a popular choice for taxable accounts because of simplicity and the tax efficiency of broad market index funds that are part of the three fund portfolio. The 3-fund portfolio normally consists of Depending on your tax bracket you may want to consider municipal bonds in your taxable instead of taxable bonds if your tax bracket is 25% or higher. Another option is to forgo bonds altogether in the taxable account and just hold bonds in retirement accounts while keeping tax efficient domestic and international tock funds in your taxable account. Then adjust the bond portion upward in your retirement accounts to account for the additional stocks in your taxable accounts. This will maintain the asset allocation that you've already chosen that is appropriate for your age and goals.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fa9651ecd8b5e06c2bca0c7386e774cc",
"text": "To answer your precise question, your plans are not at all misguided, and are in fact very reasonable. You are clearly financially very comfortable, and from the tone of your post it sounds like you value security and simplicity over maximizing your investment return over the coming years. If money was the most important thing to you then you would stay shackled to your high paying jobs. @JoeTaxpayer's answer has some great information for a person who is interested in maximizing their investment return. If you followed that advice, you might increase your return on investments by up to 1%/year (I'm just throwing a ball park number out there). So your choice is simple. Peace of mind on one hand and perhaps 1% additional return on investments on the other hand.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a448d95f22d848cd9953392e69d8a3c6",
"text": "If you exceed the income limit for deducting a traditional IRA (which is very low if you are covered by a 401(k) ), then your IRA options are basically limited to a Roth IRA. The Cramer person probably meant to compare 401(k) and IRA from the same pre-/post-tax-ness, so i.e. Traditional 401(k) vs. Traditional IRA, or Roth 401(k) vs. Roth IRA. Comparing a Roth investment against a Traditional investment goes into a whole other topic that only confuses what is being discussed here. So if deducting a traditional IRA is ruled out, then I don't think Cramer's advice can be as simply applied regarding a Traditional 401(k). (However, by that logic, and since most people on 401(k) have Traditional 401(k), and if you are covered by a 401(k) then you cannot deduct a Traditional IRA unless you are super low income, that would mean Cramer's advice is not applicable in most situations. So I don't really know what to think here.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0deb71bd75eb42efd55ff7ba8b2bc824",
"text": "\"IRA is not always an option. There are income limits for IRA, that leave many employees (those with the higher salaries, but not exactly the \"\"riches\"\") out of it. Same for Roth IRA, though the MAGI limits are much higher. Also, the contribution limits on IRA are more than three times less than those on 401K (5K vs 16.5K). Per IRS Publication 590 (page 12) the income limit (AGI) goes away if the employer doesn't provide a 401(k) or similar plan (not if you don't participate, but if the employer doesn't provide). But deduction limits don't change, it's up to $5K (or 100% of the compensation, the lesser) even if you're not covered by the employers' pension plan. Employers are allowed to match the employees' 401K contributions, and this comes on top of the limits (i.e.: with the employers' matching, the employees can save more for their retirement and still have the tax benefits). That's the law. The companies offer the option of 401K because it allows employee retention (I would not work for a company without 401K), and it is part of the overall benefit package - it's an expense for the employer (including the matching). Why would the employer offer matching instead of a raise? Not all employers do. My current employer, for example, pays above average salaries, but doesn't offer 401K match. Some companies have very tight control over the 401K accounts, and until not so long ago were allowed to force employees to invest their retirement savings in the company (see the Enron affair). It is no longer an option, but by now 401K is a standard in some industries, and employers cannot allow themselves not to offer it (see my position above).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "02774bad616ec7caadba2ad0ca64f880",
"text": "\"If you are the sole owner (or just you and your spouse) and expect to be that way for a few years, consider the benefits of an individual 401(k). The contribution limits are higher than an IRA, and there are usually no fees involved. You can google \"\"Individual 401k\"\" and any of the major investment firms (Fidelity, Schwab, etc) will set one up free of charge. This option gives you a lot of freedom to decide how much money to put away without any plan management fees. The IRS site has all the details in an article titled One-Participant 401(k) Plans. Once you have employees, if you want to set up a retirement plan for them, you'll need to switch to a traditional, employer-sponsored 401k, which will involve some fees on your part. I seem to recall $2k/yr in fees when I had a sponsored 401(k) for my company, and I'm sure this varies widely. If you have employees and don't feel a need to have a company-wide retirement plan, you can set up your own personal IRA and simply not offer a company plan to your employees. The IRA contribution limits are lower than an individual 401(k), but setting it up is easy and fee-free. So basically, if you want to spend $0 on plan management fees, get an individual 401(k) if you are self-employed, or an IRA for yourself if you have employees.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e9608373ac4641fd3bf118810516a650",
"text": "\"In asnwer to your questions: As @joetaxpayer said, you really should look into a Solo 401(k). In 2017, this allows you to contribute up to $18k/year and your employer (the LLC) to contribute more, up to $54k/year total (subject to IRS rules). 401(k) usually have ROTH and traditional sides, just like IRA. I believe the employer-contributed funds also see less tax burden for both you and your LLC that if that same money had become salary (payroll taxes, etc.). You might start at irs.gov/retirement-plans/one-participant-401k-plans and go from there. ROTH vs. pre-tax: You can mix and match within years and between years. Figure out what income you want to have when you retire. Any year you expect to pay lower taxes (low income, kids, deductions, etc.), make ROTH contributions. Any year you expect high taxes (bonus, high wage, taxable capital gains, etc.), make pre-tax payments. I have had a uniformly bad experience with target date funds across multiple 401(k) plans from multiple plan adminstrators. They just don't perform well (a common problem with almost any actively managed fund). You probably don't want to deal with individual stocks in your retirement accounts, so rather pick passively managed index funds that track various markets segments you care about and just sit on them. For example, your high-risk money might be in fast-growing but volatile industries (e.g. tech, aerospace, medical), your medium-risk money might go in \"\"total market\"\" or S&P 500 index funds, and your low-risk money might go in treasury notes and bonds. The breakdown is up to you, but as an 18 year old you have a ~50 year horizon and so can afford to wait out anything short of another Great Depression (and maybe even that). So you'd want generally you want more or your money in the high-risk high-return category, rebalancing to lower risk investments as you age. Diversifying into real estate, foreign investments, etc. might also make sense but I'm no expert on those.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"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": "a4af3b7e4a7dc409c0d3b4efd7d64128",
"text": "\"I have an idea. Keep saving what you are and think \"\"Early Retirement\"\". Work for 20 years, then do whatever you want 40 hours a week. If your satisfied with your current lifestyle, start thinking of your bigger long term financial goals and when you want to accomplish them by. Maybe you can accomplish these sooner than you think. Saving to buy a house/property? Investment portfolio? Want to travel all over the world? Family planning/kids? I am sure you will figure out how you would want to spend it.\"",
"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 $115,000 for 2012), even your 401k contributions are limited. Given that, is there any difference at all between having a traditional IRA and a normal, taxable (non-retirement) investment account? You should consider a Roth IRA if you are making too much for a traditional IRA. When you make even more, then you can't contribute to a Roth, but can only contribute post-tax money to a traditional IRA. Use Form 8606 to keep track of non-deductable contributions over the years. Publication 590 is the official IRS explanation of what is deductable or not.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9d80f72238439599b06de7da0a422228",
"text": "While the 55 exception noted by Joe and JB makes this less of a worry, it's worth noting that to retire early most people would need additional investments beyond a maxed out 401(k). As most people make more money later in life it is generally worth putting what you can in a 401(k) now and later when your savings would max out a 401(k) then you can start adding money to accounts that are not tax-advantaged. These additional funds can be used during the bridge period. Run the numbers yourself as these assumptions won't be true for all individuals, but this may be the piece you are missing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7ee2984c54c112d43b0ba985c3b222f1",
"text": "\"Some 401k plans allow you to make \"\"supplemental post-tax contributions\"\". basically, once you hit the pre-tax contribution limit (17.5k$ in 2014), you are then allowed to contribute funds on a post-tax basis. Because of this timing, they are sometimes called \"\"spillover\"\" contributions. Usually, this option is advertised as a way of continuing to get company match even if you accidentally hit the pre-tax limit. But if you actually pay attention to your finances, it is instead a handy way to put away additional tax-advantaged money. That said, you would only want to use this option if you already maxed out your pre-tax and Roth options since you don't get the traditional tax break on contributions or the Roth tax break on the earnings. However, when you leave the company, you can transfer the post-tax money directly into a Roth IRA when you transfer the pre-tax money, match, and earnings into a traditional IRA.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e0181b5b73cc89e56d3146f077981403",
"text": "You need a find a financial planner that will create a plan for you for a fixed fee. They will help you determine the best course of action taking into account the pension, the 403B, and any other sources of income you have, or will have. They will know how to address the risk that you have that that particular pension. They will help you determine how to invest your money to produce the type of retirement you want, while making sure you are likely to not outlive your portfolio.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3338cdf93ea8e4afd56c25c5749a9ce7",
"text": "\"Retirement accounts often can be invested with pretax money, with the exception of Roth accounts that use post-tax and have tax-free growth if you follow the rules, rather than after tax money as well as provide a shelter so that you aren't having to pay annual taxes on dividends and other possible distributions. Another point would be to consider how much money you'd be investing as some funds may have institutional versions that can be much cheaper than others, e.g. compare Vanguard's index funds that the 500 Index in Investor shares, Admiral shares and institutional forms where the tickers would be VFINX, VFIAX, VINIX, VIIIX to consider. Some companies may have access to the institutional funds that aren't what you'd have unless you are investing millions of dollars upfront. Lastly, if there isn't an employer plan and you make a ton of cash, you may not qualify for a deductible IRA or Roth IRA contribution for something else that may happen if you want to start playing with, \"\"What if.\"\"\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
1d4672a3b81d159a07b9edb4c6dedb89
|
Stocks and Shares ISA: What are the options for “near cash equivalents”?
|
[
{
"docid": "c40d07c619f044e9a931db4e06d967d2",
"text": "You can actually hold cash in your account as long as the manager has reason to believe it is awaiting investment. As for your question, some near cash equivalents are: It's difficult to go into more detail about which investments are eligible due to the variety of risk characteristics, but you can certainly find investment opportunities in the assets mentioned above. A good money manager can advise you better since he'll have an idea of their risk characteristics as well as tax status.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "4fdc0c096584047dd029d2407e86289d",
"text": "With a lot excess cash you eventually have two goals: Since interest on cash bank deposits does not exceed inflation and you have currency risk, you may want to get into other asset classes. Options that might be, but not limited to are:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "86c02effdb691f1d65361e398e167b86",
"text": "According to HMRC it seems that if you overpay, then at least part of the interest generated by that ISA is taxable (emphasis mine): If, by mistake, you put more than £10,680 into your ISAs in a tax year, the excess payments are invalid, and you are not entitled to any tax relief on investments purchased with the excess payments. You should not try to correct this mistake yourself. Instead, you should call the ISA Helpline and explain the problem to them. They will advise you what action you need to take. However, as AlexMuller pointed out, HMRC also states (in section 6.1 here) that the ISA Manager (ie. the bank/building society) should not allow you to overpay. Managers’ systems must ensure that ... no more than the cash ISA subscription limit can be subscribed to a cash ISA in a tax year and that no more than the overall subscription limit can be subscribed to a stocks and shares ISA in a tax year. As to what an individual ISA Manager would do should you attempt to over-pay, I imagine it would vary from Manager to Manager. ING Direct, for example, has the following policy (Taken from Section 12.5 here): ...f you send us a payment for an amount which would take you over the ISA investment limit under the ISA Regulations, we will send the excess above the investment limit, or, if you sent us the payment by cheque, the whole of that payment, back to you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "47022c459fd73d34e750ad24e0a8534f",
"text": "im shorting stocks and gold. the only way stocks and gold can go up is coz of QE3. if no QE3, then im shorting gold and stocks. but more gold than stocks. and i'm holding cold hard US FIAT dollars in my mattress. i'm letting my mattress manage my cash, nah' mean.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1581182a845bc22f273501fd9e8568c0",
"text": "API wise there's just one at the retail level: Interactive Brokers (India). Brokerage is high though - 3.5 bps for F&O and 5 bps for cash. I've used Sharekhan (good, can get to 2 bps brokerage, trading client software, no API). Also used multiple other brokerages, and am advising a new one, Zerodha http://www.zerodha.com. API wise the brokers don't provide it easily to retail, though I've worked with direct access APIs at an institutional level.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "82563d9338f0325f339f1d01260121ea",
"text": "There's no best strategy. Options are just pieces of paper, and if the stock price goes below the strike price - they're worthless. Stocks are actual ownership share, whatever the price is - that's what they're worth. So unless you expect the company stock prices to sky-rocket soon, RSU will probably provide better value. You need to do some math and decide whether in your opinion the stock growth in the next few years justifies betting on ESOP. You didn't say what country you're from, but keep in mind that stock options and RSUs are taxed differently and that can affect your end result as well.",
"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": "72175f90adc2e004c434fd308c1d2327",
"text": "That is a weird one. Typically one never needs to layout cash to exercise an option. One would only choose to use option 1, if one is seeking to buy the options. This would occur if an employee was leaving a company, would no longer be eligible for the ISO (and thereby forfeit any option grant), and does not want to exercise the options. However, what is not weird is the way income tax works, you are taxed on your income in the US. I assume you are talking about the US here. So if you exercise 10K shares, if under either option, you will be taxed on the profit from those share. Profit = (actual price - strike price) * shares - fees",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "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": "8099a97c02fab67bcfe613d07362cedd",
"text": "Depends on your contract, cash or shares delivered? If shares, then you get 5 BIG shares. Theres no longer any options. If you sell instantly, theoretically you will net the $10 difference + profit above strike. If cash, same thing just that you get cash $50 less strike. Applies to cash and stock deals Options are binary, never pro-rated. if converted, basically you end up with BIG shares.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "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": "2c0ae24ba33f029d528764a03af25505",
"text": "Yep, but it you didn't answer my question (edit: I know it was phrased as a question, but I do know youre supposed to model changes in cash). When bankers calculate all three approaches, how do they compare them? From what I see, the conclusion of each approach gives us: * Public Company Approach: Enterprise Value * Transaction Approach: Enterprise Value * Discounted Cash Flow Approach: Enterprise Value + Minimum Level of Operating Cash Does an investment banker subtract out that minimum level of operating cash at the end of the calculation to get to a value that he can then compare?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3b92ddb76f337b877c0bd43c2cf267c2",
"text": "Another option is the new 'innovative finance isa' that allow you to put a wrapper round peer to peer lending platform investments. See Zopa, although I don't think they have come out with an ISA yet.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "37f50f2c22c9d006a2e8b44a7fadccb5",
"text": "Thanks for the correction it was just a story my dad would tell me so the details have likely blurred. My point is that even if we could automate all physical jobs there could still be work to do, distribution of resources would likely need to be handled differently then now some sort of utopian communism or something not really the main point though.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
844eac8fa3ef2b42df9c9aa0587210e0
|
Estimate a future option price given greeks and a 1$ move in underlying
|
[
{
"docid": "3c0b7d3095559509ec23312044a5ee9b",
"text": "It's not that straightforward, even though your gamma will change your delta on the fly, you likely won't see the full $.48 after such a small move. If the vega drops due to lack of volatility while the stock is moving up, those few percentage points up might help your delta (2% gain $50 to $51 in your example) but will be partially negated by volatility going down. I mean, don't be surprised to see it at closer to $1.33 or something. The market is out to make money, not to make you money.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "ac4977a4961a36d663225f022a72b039",
"text": "Not to be a jerk, since I'm learning about options myself, but I think you have a few things wrong about your tesla put postion. First, assuming it was itm or atm within a week of strike it would maybe be worth $12-15, I glanced at the 11/10 put strikes ~325 trades for $12.65 https://www.barchart.com/stocks/quotes/TSLA/options?expiration=2017-11-10 The closer it gets to expiry theta decay reduces put value significantly, the 325's that expire tomorrow are only worth $2.60. Expecting TSLA to drop from 325 to 50 a share by Jan has a .006% chance of occuring according to the current delta. It's a lottery ticket at best. _____ Lastly the $50 price is the expected share price at the date of expiry. The price you pay is 57c for the options. So in order to get to your 494k number TSLA would need to decline $50 dollars to a price of 275 a share. You wouldn't want to buy 50 dollar puts, just the 275 puts, provided it declines very quickly. EDIT: I was looking at the recent expiration to get an idea of atm or itm prices, since it's not like you would hold to expiration. Also the Jan has a 0.6% chance of hitting 50, not .006%. That said what I've noticed when things start to slide is that puts have a weird way of pricing themselves. For example when something gradually goes up all of the calls go up down the chain through time frames, but puts do not in the same fashion. Further out lower priced puts won't move nearly as much unless the company is basically headed for bankruptcy.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c091e3281e221f90416b841dccd337be",
"text": "Ok maybe I should have went into further detail but I'm not interested in a single point estimate to compare the different options. I want to look at the comparable NPVs for the two different options for a range of exit points (sell property / exit lease and sell equity shares). I want to graph the present values of each (y-axis being the PVs and x-axis being the exit date) and look at the 'cross-over' point where one option becomes better than the other (i'm taking into account all of the up front costs of the real estate purchase which will be a bit different in the first years). i'm also looking to do the same for multiple real estate and equity scenarios, in all likelihood generate a distribution of cross-over points. this is all theoretical, i'm not really going to take the results to heart. merely an exercise and i'm tangling with the discount rates at the moment.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "37e4a50d30b9b0df113973cbb7a4e610",
"text": "The other answer covers the mechanics of how to buy/sell a future contract. You seem however to be under the impression that you can buy the contract at 1,581.90 today and sell at 1,588.85 on expiry date if the index does not move. This is true but there are two important caveats: In other words, it is not the case that your chance of making money by buying that contract is more than 50%...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5887589fd2f004e5ffadf2a922b01929",
"text": "Im creating a 5-year projection on Profit and loss, cash flow and balance sheet and i\\m suppose to use the LIBOR (5 year forward curve) as interest rate on debt. This is the information i am given and it in USD. Thanks for the link. I guess its the USD LIBOR today, in one year, in two years, three years, four years and five years",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "966f5f6dfd5cf39b9a1c72a734924277",
"text": "\"Currently, when \"\"implied volatility\"\" is spoken, the Black-Scholes-Merton model is implied. This model has been shown to be deficient, thus the Variance Gamma Model should be used. However, as nearly no one uses VG, it can be assumed that BS is still being implied. The BS formula has multiple variables. Some are external to the underlying in question. The rest are internal. When all but one variable is known or assumed, the last variable can be calculated, so if one has the price of the underlying and all else except the volatility, the volatility can be calculated thus implied. If one selects an implied volatility, and all variables except the underlying price is known, the underlying price can be calculated. For the present, one uses the current price of the underlying to calculate the implied volatility. For future option prices, one assumes an implied volatility at a later date to calculate a possible price. For prices not at the money, the BS model is extremely imprecise. The VG model can better determine a potential future price.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e215380be65e1d229d6662ffc05ffa45",
"text": "A bullish (or 'long') call spread is actually two separate option trades. The A/B notation is, respectively, the strike price of each trade. The first 'leg' of the strategy, corresponding to B, is the sale of a call option at a strike price of B (in this case $165). The proceeds from this sale, after transaction costs, are generally used to offset the cost of the second 'leg'. The second 'leg' of the strategy, corresponding to A, is the purchase of a call option at a strike price of A (in this case $145). Now, the important part: the payoff. You can visualize it as so. This is where it gets a teeny bit math-y. Below, P is the profit of the strategy, K1 is the strike price of the long call, K2 is the strike price of the short call, T1 is the premium paid for the long call option at the time of purchase, T2 is the premium received for the short call at the time of sale, and S is the current price of the stock. For simplicity's sake, we will assume that your position quantity is a single option contract and transaction costs are zero (which they are not). P = (T2 - max(0, S - K2)) + (max(0, S - K1) - T1) Concretely, let's plug in the strikes of the strategy Nathan proposes, and current prices (which I pulled from the screen). You have: P = (1.85 - max(0, 142.50 - 165)) - (max(0, 142.50 - 145)) = -$7.80 If the stock goes to $150, the payoff is -$2.80, which isn't quite break even -- but it may have been at the time he was speaking on TV. If the stock goes to $165, the payoff is $12.20. Please do not neglect the cost of the trades! Trading options can be pretty expensive depending on the broker. Had I done this trade (quantity 1) at many popular brokers, I still would've been net negative PnL even if NFLX went to >= $165.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9e080f52dc5ab00a2c1dee3097206fc9",
"text": "Don´t forget that changing volatility will have an impact on the time value too! So at times it can happen that your time value is increasing instead of decreasing, if the underlying (market) volatility moves up strongly. Look for articles on option greeks, and how they are interdependent. Some are well explaining in simple language.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "057082b5885da5dc1df7c391596501ef",
"text": "I have been looking into CMEs trading tool. I might just play around with futures on it. You make a good point on that though. I am reading Hull's book on options, futures and derivatives, and so far so good. Only thing I would want to test is options on futures, which is missing :( .",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "705edc8917c352edfecb5356b6058ef2",
"text": "I'm not entirely sure about some of the details in your question, since I think you meant to use $10,000 as the value of the futures contract and $3 as the value of the underlying stock. Those numbers would make more sense. That being said, I can give you a simple example of how to calculate the profit and loss from a leveraged futures contract. For the sake of simplicity, I'll use a well-known futures contract: the E-mini S&P500 contract. Each E-mini is worth $50 times the value of the S&P 500 index and has a tick size of 0.25, so the minimum price change is 0.25 * $50 = $12.50. Here's an example. Say the current value of the S&P500 is 1,600; the value of each contract is therefore $50 * 1,600 = $80,000. You purchase one contract on margin, with an initial margin requirement1 of 5%, or $4,000. If the S&P 500 index rises to 1,610, the value of your futures contract increases to $50 * 1,610 = $80,500. Once you return the 80,000 - 4,000 = $76,000 that you borrowed as leverage, your profit is 80,500 - 76,000 = $4,500. Since you used $4,000 of your own funds as an initial margin, your profit, excluding commissions is 4,500 - 4,000 = $500, which is a 500/4000 = 12.5% return. If the index dropped to 1,580, the value of your futures contract decreases to $50 * 1,580 = $79,000. After you return the $76,000 in leverage, you're left with $3,000, or a net loss of (3,000 - 4000)/(4000) = -25%. The math illustrates why using leverage increases your risk, but also increases your potential for return. Consider the first scenario, in which the index increases to 1,610. If you had forgone using margin and spent $80,000 of your own funds, your profit would be (80,500 - 80,000) / 80000 = .625%. This is smaller than your leveraged profit by a factor of 20, the inverse of the margin requirement (.625% / .05 = 12.5%). In this case, the use of leverage dramatically increased your rate of return. However, in the case of a decrease, you spent $80,000, but gained $79,000, for a loss of only 1.25%. This is 20 times smaller in magnitude than your negative return when using leverage. By forgoing leverage, you've decreased your opportunity for upside, but also decreased your downside risk. 1) For futures contracts, the margin requirements are set by the exchange, which is CME group, in the case of the E-mini. The 5% in my example is higher than the actual margin requirement, which is currently $3,850 USD per contract, but it keeps the numbers simple. Also note that CME group refers to the initial margin as the performance bond instead.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "6473d727ce6f8ff477b24768d2c05b49",
"text": "\"Option pricing models used by exchanges to calculate settlement prices (premiums) use a volatility measure usually describes as the current actual volatility. This is a historic volatility measure based on standard deviation across a given time period - usually 30 to 90 days. During a trading session, an investor can use the readily available information for a given option to infer the \"\"implied volatility\"\". Presumably you know the option pricing model (Black-Scholes). It is easy to calculate the other variables used in the pricing model - the time value, the strike price, the spot price, the \"\"risk free\"\" interest rate, and anything else I may have forgotten right now. Plug all of these into the model and solve for volatility. This give the \"\"implied volatility\"\", so named because it has been inferred from the current price (bid or offer). Of course, there is no guarantee that the calculated (implied) volatility will match the volatility used by the exchange in their calculation of fair price at settlement on the day (or on the previous day's settlement). Comparing the implied volatility from the previous day's settlement price to the implied volatility of the current price (bid or offer) may give you some measure of the fairness of the quoted price (if there is no perceived change in future volatility). What such a comparison will do is to give you a measure of the degree to which the current market's perception of future volatility has changed over the course of the trading day. So, specific to your question, you do not want to use an annualised measure. The best you can do is compare the implied volatility in the current price to the implied volatility of the previous day's settlement price while at the same time making a subjective judgement about how you see volatility changing in the future and how this has been reflected in the current price.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8a6e87ece5bda5dbb3720b8f90837b88",
"text": "\"Here is how I would approach that problem: 1) Find the average ratios of the competitors: 2) Find the earnings and book value per share of Hawaiian 3) Multiply the EPB and BVPS by the average ratios. Note that you get two very different numbers. This illustrates why pricing from ratios is inexact. How you use those answers to estimate a \"\"price\"\" is up to you. You can take the higher of the two, the average, the P/E result since you have more data points, or whatever other method you feel you can justify. There is no \"\"right\"\" answer since no one can accurately predict the future price of any stock.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3f2d02333fab4076506ce124c981619d",
"text": "If you're talking about just Theta, the amount of decay due to the passage of time (all else being equal), then theoretically, the time value is a continuous function, so it would decay throughout the day (although by the day of expiry the time value is very, very small). Which makes sense, since even with 15 minutes to go, there's still a 50/50 shot of an ATM option expiring in-the-money, so there should be some time value associated with that one-sided probability. The further away from ATM the option is, the smaller the time value will be, and will be virtually zero for options that are deep in- or out-of-the-money. If you're talking about total time value, then yes it will definitely change during the day, since the underlying components (volatility, underlying price, etc.) change more or less continuously.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0bc45136caca7745acf7af3a33fe7e41",
"text": "I don't think you understand options. If it expires, you can't write a new call for the same expiration date as it expired that day. Also what if the stock price decreases further to $40 or even more? If you think the stock will move in either way greatly, and you wish to be profit from it, look into straddles.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "351f89bd9a41b943744b8ce95e967cdb",
"text": "Excellent, very sharp. No it will not be vega neutral exactly! If you think about it, what does a higher vol imply? That the delta of the option is higher than under BS model. Therefore, the vega should also be greater (simplistic explanation but generally accurate). So no, if you trade a 25-delta risky in equal size per leg, the vega will not be neutral. But, in reality, that is a very small portion of your risk. It plays a part, but in general the vanna position dominates by many many multiples. What do you do that you asked such a question, if you don't mind?",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
3a0e864ead4e34038ef9881fbadf995a
|
Expense ratio of an ETF included in the price or calculated separately
|
[
{
"docid": "3fb4054783d74edb5a5d34db8ab34a4d",
"text": "The expense ratio reduces the return of the ETF; your scenario of paying 100.0015 is that of a load. Most (all?) ETFs can be bought without paying a load (sales charge as a percent of amount invested), and some ETFs can be bought without paying a brokerage fee (fixed or variable charge for a buy transaction just like buying any other stock through the brokerage) because the brokerage has waived it. Your broker might charge fees for both buying and selling shares in an ETF, but in any case, this is quite separate from the expense ratio.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "f535a0d7cc0538b79c889db8e26ef801",
"text": "Stock price = Earning per share * P/E Ratio. Most of the time you will see in a listing the Stock price and the P/E ration. The calculation of the EPS is left as an exercise for the student Investor.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3214d417942a98cc97c5269f2ec52458",
"text": "ETF is essentially a stock, from accounting perspective. Treat it as just another stock in the portfolio.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bdcf05dafe8669ec0c776f77e15f1190",
"text": "Yes you should take in the expenses being incurred by the mutual fund. This lists down the fees charged by the mutual fund and where expenses can be found in the annual statement of the fund. To calculate fees and expenses. As you might expect, fees and expenses vary from fund to fund. A fund with high costs must perform better than a low-cost fund to generate the same returns for you. Even small differences in fees can translate into large differences in returns over time. You don't pay expenses, so the money is taken from the assets of the fund. So you pay it indirectly. If the expenses are huge, that may point to something i.e. fund managers are enjoying at your expense, money is being used somewhere else rather than being paid as dividends. If the expenses are used in the growth of the fund, that is a positive sign. Else you can expect the fund to be downgraded or upgraded by the credit rating agencies, depending on how the credit rating agencies see the expenses of the fund and other factors. Generally comparison should be done with funds invested in the same sectors, same distribution of assets so that you have a homogeneous comparison to make. Else it would be unwise to compare between a fund invested in oil companies and other in computers. Yes the economy is inter twined, but that is not how a comparison should be done.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "353cf4e3d4d1f9677170606035436ef6",
"text": "See my comment for some discussion of why one might choose an identical fund over an ETF. As to why someone would choose the higher cost fund in this instance ... The Admiral Shares version of the fund (VFIAX) has the same expense ratio as the ETF but has a minimum investment of $10K. Some investors may want to eventually own the Admiral Shares fund but do not yet have $10K. If they begin with the Investor Shares now and then convert to Admiral later, that conversion will be a non-taxable event. If, however, they start with ETF shares now and then sell them later to buy the fund, that sale will be a taxable event. Vanguard ETFs are only commission-free to Vanguard clients using Vanguard Brokerage Services. Some investors using other brokers may face all sorts of penalties for purchasing third-party ETFs. Some retirement plan participants (either at Vanguard or another broker) may not even be allowed to purchase ETFs.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "746b61376ddac3943da200be54cbe1c5",
"text": "From Wikipedia - To calculate the value of the S&P 500 Index, the sum of the adjusted market capitalization of all 500 stocks is divided by a factor, usually referred to as the Divisor. For example, if the total adjusted market cap of the 500 component stocks is US$13 trillion and the Divisor is set at 8.933 billion, then the S&P 500 Index value would be 1,455.28. From a strictly mathematical perspective, the divisor is not canceling out the units, and the S&P index is dollar denominated even though it's never quoted that way. A case in point is that the S&P is often said to have a P/E, and especially an E, the earnings attributed to one 'unit' of S&P. And if you buy a mutual fund sporting a low expense ratio, you can invest exactly that much money (the current S&P index value) and see the dividends accrue to your account, less the fee.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bd36cc84ea10cfdc1920099d015b5085",
"text": "Why don't you look at the actual funds and etfs in question rather than seeking a general conclusion about all pairs of funds and etfs? For example, Vanguard's total stock market index fund (VTSAX) and ETF (VTI). Comparing the two on yahoo finance I find no difference over the last 5 years visually. For a different pair of funds you may find something very slightly different. In many cases the index fund and ETF will not have the same benchmark and fees so comparisons get a little more cloudy. I recall a while ago there was an article that was pointing out that at the time emerging market ETF's had higher fees than corresponding index funds. For this reason I think you should examine your question on a case-by-case basis. Index fund and ETF returns are all publicly available so you don't have to guess.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f9540286c4bcd9d9b76518407c6796ed",
"text": "The fund should be reporting returns net of expenses, so your interpretation is right; it made something like 0.42% (which sounds plausible, based on current yields on short-term securities), and the 0.05% is what's left after expenses. I've never seen a regular mutual fund report raw returns before expenses. If one does, the my personal opinion would be that they're trying to snooker you, as that number isn't actually representative of anybody's actual returns. If you look carefully, you should be able to find a table that reports several kinds of adjusted returns for the fund: As to what happens if a fund can't earn enough returns to cover its expenses, in that case the value of the fund shares will decrease. This happens from time to time with riskier funds. It shouldn't happen with a money market fund because both the returns and the expenses are fairly predictable, so the fund managers should be able to avoid it, unless they get caught up in a major crisis like the 2008 banking crisis. In ordinary times, a money market fund managers who couldn't keep expenses below income would find themselves looking for a new job fairly quickly. Finally, for what it's worth, 0.37% is a really high expense ratio for a money market fund. If you were to shop around, you could easily find comparable funds with expenses less than half that.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "f2957071718c3125aae989498d051224",
"text": "I was emailing back and forth with a manager in a different department on how real returns are being calculated, and he said that the industry standard is 1 + real returns*(1+inflation) - fees, and to not use my formula because it can double count inflation, making fees lower. However, real returns are not observable in the future, and I do not why he uses that formula. The returns were used in an Excel spreadsheet. What are your thoughts about this?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9a2fb8987853dd7bb42da0a18d64dd5a",
"text": "The ETF price quoted on the stock exchange is in principle not referenced to NAV. The fund administrator will calculate and publish the NAV net of all fees, but the ETF price you see is determined by the market just like for any other security. Having said that, the market will not normally deviate greatly from the NAV of the fund, so you can safely assume that ETF quoted price is net of relevant fees.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "70591461ef9fce7e7b32b7b259bf14f6",
"text": "The quant aspect '''''. This is the kind of math I was wondering if it existed, but now it sounds like it is much more complex in reality then optimizing by evaluating different cost of capital. Thank you for sharing",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "b3ff2d91d58df55f959c18195cd1b5d0",
"text": "As BrenBarn stated, tracking fractional transactions beyond 8 decimal places makes no sense in the context of standard stock and mutual fund transactions. This is because even for the most expensive equities, those fractional shares would still not be worth whole cent amounts, even for account balances in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. One important thing to remember is that when dealing with equities the total cost, number of shares, and share price are all 3 components of the same value. Thus if you take 2 of those values, you can always calculate the third: (price * shares = cost, cost / price = shares, etc). What you're seeing in your account (9 decimal places) is probably the result of dividing uneven values (such as $9.37 invested in a commodity which trades for $235.11, results in 0.03985368550891072264046616477394 shares). Most brokerages will round this value off somewhere, yours just happens to include more decimal places than your financial software allows. Since your brokerage is the one who has the definitive total for your account balance, the only real solution is to round up or down, whichever keeps your total balance in the software in line with the balance shown online.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f432e4202cba51201a47e1b5b6731005",
"text": "Should you care? From Vanguard: The long-term impact of investment costs on portfolio balances Assuming a starting balance of $100,000 and a yearly return of 6%, which is reinvested Check out this chart, reflecting the impact of relatively small expense ratios on your 30 year return: All else being equal you should very much care about expense ratios. You end up with a significantly smaller amount if your pre-expense return is the same. A 0.75% difference in ER compounds to 20% over 30 years. If so, how should I take them into consideration when comparing funds? I'm in the U.S. if that matters. If they track the same index, cheaper is better. The cases where higher expense ratios might be better are if you believe that index will outperform the market by enough to recoup the cost of the ER. There is significant research that most funds do not do this.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
5abdb9857290aa9e28429de177adbbc6
|
Can we compare peer-to-peer loans to savings accounts?
|
[
{
"docid": "a054ca3c8051520e4f81bc4f65260a79",
"text": "I don't think you can compare savings accounts and peer-to-peer lending. The former is a liquid way of stashing some money away (IOW you can get at it pretty much any time you want) whereas the latter is extremely illiquid (you only get your money back if and when the loan has been repaid). Also, as mentioned by the other posters, there is a risk attached to p2p lending, even if the borrowers are vetted by the p2p lending platform. You're essentially taking the same risks that a bank would take when writing a couple of personal loans, and that's quite far removed from a safe haven for your cash. If you have enough money to invest (not save, invest) then it might be worth putting a small amount into p2p lending, but it's anything but an alternative to a savings account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "df322350eed5168f633b0788c61e3938",
"text": "\"That argument is an argument for investing generally, not peer-to-peer lending per se, and the argument as phrased (\"\"thus you should invest your money at a Peer-to-peer loan platform\"\") is a false dichotomy. That said, as soon as one is investing as opposed to just getting a small but guaranteed return, then risk comes into play. In that sense, any savings account is fundamentally different from any investment, and, in that reading, the two shouldn't be compared as different approaches to \"\"investing\"\". Peer-to-peer lending as an investment could be aptly compared with stock market investing, for one.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8d71b469e3855b4e701d6773ef116874",
"text": "Peer to peer lending isn't FDIC insured. You can lose all your investment with peer to peer lending, whereas you will not lose your deposited money in a savings account, even if it doesn't grow very fast.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "7fb04bb2fa978a172aa3069d185e839f",
"text": "There is no difference in safety form the perspective of the bank failing, due to FDIC/NCUA insurance. However, there is a practical issue that should be considered, if you allow payments to be automatically withdrawn from your checking account In the case of an error, all of you money may be unavailable until the error is resolved, which could be days or weeks. By having two accounts, this possibility may be reduced. It isn't a difference between checking and savings, but a benefit of having two accounts. Note that if both accounts are at the same bank, hey make take money from other accounts to cover the shortfall. That said, I've done this for years and have never had a problem. Also, I have two accounts, one at a local credit union with just enough kept in it to cover any payments, and another online account that has the rest of my savings. I can easily transfer funds between the two accounts in a couple days.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "301bfdde2a9a2b9e9e1161c2eb7aba16",
"text": "You can't both enforce saving and have access to the money -- from what you say, it's clear that if you can access the money you will spend it. Can you find an account that allows one withdrawal every six months but no more, which should help to cut down on the impulse buys but still let you get at your money in an emergency?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e99b721a884edb2c4c47ceb0e0863f59",
"text": "I'm not sure there is good data on Kiva, etc, but P2P microlending site Prosper has released their data. The default rates are evidently fairly high. For borrowers in the 'developed' world (the target audience of Prosper), other sources of credit are available (e.g. banks); one has to suspect, then, that borrowers on Prosper are considered too risky for bank loans.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e30b8712c6b877a04ef6121f0d95b6a2",
"text": "\"Credit Unions turn a profit by lending money at a higher interest rate than their savings do, just like banks do. It is an amoral feat, completely parallel to any moral weights you have assigned to \"\"the system\"\". If the most favorable circumstance is you receiving access to capital, then you can easily achieve that with zero reservations about the system that granted it to you.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "96f9b0800ca50be7a63057563f753f60",
"text": "\"Your instructor's numbers do not seem to have any basis in current reality. At this page you can see a comparison of interest rates offered by banks and credit unions. In the most recent table for June 2014, banks paid an average interest rate of 0.12 percent on savings accounts, while credit unions paid an average of 0.13 percent. If you look back further, you will see that interest rates paid by banks and credit unions are generally comparable. Credit union rates tend to be a little bit higher, but certainly not 7 times higher. The last time any financial institution paid as much as 15% on a savings account would probably be the early 1980s. You can see here a historical chart of the \"\"prime rate\"\" for lending. Savings account rates (at either banks or credit unions) would typically be lower. (This is based on the US, in accordance with your tag. Interest rates in other places, especially developing countries with less stable currencies, can be dramatically different.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f43a0b7b433e2b4d389c13d44e373ed1",
"text": "\"Yes... but it is a matter of balancing risks. It is wiser to keep a small amount of \"\"ready cash\"\" as an emergency/buffer -- and to suffer the gradual loss to inflation... Than it is risk becoming \"\"stuck\"\" in an emergency with zero dollars in any (low or no cost) source of funds -- those kinds of \"\"emergencies\"\" ($500 or $1,000 \"\"unexpected/unbudgeted\"\" expenses) are fairly frequent and virtually inevitable. You lose vastly MORE money when you are forced to borrow those amounts (interest -- even **low-rate** loans -- is virtually always higher than the average inflation rate).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "235f063b15ea8d58511488c38c8316ab",
"text": "Looks more like an idea for a business rather than an actual business -- especially since it hasn't even launched. That said, it does have its merits. What bank actually holds the deposit funds becomes irrelevant, and may actaully change from time to time as they forge better partnerships with different banks. Think of it like a mutual fund -- the individual stocks (if there are stocks) in the fund are less important than the balance of risk vs. income and the leveling of change over the course of time. It offers services banks offer, without fees (at least that is the proposal) with the addition of budgetting capability as well. It does have downsides as well There is an increased level of indirection between you and your money. They propose to simplify the banking business model, but in fact are only hiding it from you. The same complexity that was there before is still there, with the added complexity of their service on top of it. It's just a matter of how much of that complexity you would have to deal with directly. With that in mind, I would reiterate that they are not a business yet -- just a proposed business model. Even the sign up process is a red flag for me. I understand they need to gauge interest in order to forge initial relationships with various banks, but I don't see the need for the 'invitation only' sign up method. It just sounds like a way to increase interest (who doesn't like feeling exclusively invited), and is a bit too 'gimmicky' for my taste. But, like I said, the idea has merit -- I have my reservations, but will reserve full judgement until they are an actual operating business.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c19ae66b44737cc53fa80786107eabb5",
"text": "The best description of P2P lending process I saw comes from the SEC proceedings. They are very careful about naming things that are happening in the process. Prosper got back to business after this order, but the paper describes succinctly how Prosper worked when its notes haven't yet been registered by the SEC. These materials contain a lot of responsible comments on how crowdfunding, including P2P lending, works.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c13eba07f2fd4614e44c02219fb55b0d",
"text": "Someone I know had an idea to open a savings account as an LLC or corporation to receive better interest rates on savings, and set up a system where anyone can pool money in and receive a larger cut through savings interest than with a personal account. Is this legal/feasible in any way?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a8262280a534f9f9d548248b9e526f8a",
"text": "Here are some typical differences between savings and checking accounts: Depending on your banks offerings and your personal goals, you would have to decide which factors matter to you. It's certainly possible that you may conclude there is no difference in your case.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0339acde124bc7d1ff0f4bbec49f66dc",
"text": "\"To begin with, bear in mind that over the time horizon you are talking about, the practical impact of inflation will be quite limited. Inflation for 2017 is forecast at 2.7%, and since you are talking about a bit less than all of 2017, and on average you'll be withdrawing your money halfway through, the overall impact will be <1.3% of your savings. You should consider whether the effort and risk involved in an alternative is worth a few hundred pounds. If you still want to beat inflation, the best suggestion I have is to look at peer-to-peer lending. That comes with some risk, but I think over the course of 1 year, it's quite limited. For example, Zopa is currently offering 3.1% on their \"\"Access\"\" product, and RateSetter are offering 2.9% on the \"\"Everyday\"\" product. Both of these are advertised as instant access, albeit with some caveats. These aren't FSCS-guaranteed bank deposits, and they do come with some risk. Firstly, although both RateSetter and Zopa have a significant level of provision against bad debt, it's always possible that this won't be enough and you'll lose some of your money. I think this is quite unlikely over a one-year time horizon, as there's no sign of trouble yet. Secondly, there's \"\"liquidity\"\" risk. Although the products are advertised as instant access, they are actually backed by longer-duration loans made to people who want to borrow money. For you to be able to cash out, someone else has to be there ready to take your place. Again, this is very likely to be possible in practice, but there's no absolute guarantee.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ad987298311ae9645c14f704c7e653eb",
"text": "\"I invested a small amount of money with Prosper, and later with Lending Club. I don't know why there is such a discrepancy, but over half of my Prosper loans defaulted, while only 1 of my Lending Club loans has defaulted so far. I think that P2P lending is for \"\"early adopters\"\" right now. There are regulation issues, transparency issues, legal issues, etc. Once all of those issues get worked out, I think that P2P lending will eventually overtake conventional lending, and it will be more profitable for both the lender and the borrower. The Internet is simply eroding the value that banks are adding to the process (primarily aggregation of funds), and the system has to change.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "817db6a727dc0ed4825fbb46bf03671e",
"text": "In a word, no. Diversification is the first rule of investing. Your plan has poor diversification because it ignores most of the economy (large cap stocks). This means for the expected return your portfolio would get, you would bear an unnecessarily large amount of risk. Large cap and small cap stocks take turns outperforming each other. If you hold both, you have a safer portfolio because one will perform well while the other performs poorly. You will also likely want some exposure to the bond market. A simple and diversified portfolio would be a total market index fund and a total bond market fund. Something like 60% in the equity and 40% in the bonds would be reasonable. You may also want international exposure and maybe exposure to real estate via a REIT fund. You have expressed some risk-aversion in your post. The way to handle that is to take some of your money and keep it in your cash account and the rest into the diversified portfolio. Remember, when people add more and more asset classes (large cap, international, bonds, etc.) they are not increasing the risk of their portfolio, they are reducing it via diversification. The way to reduce it even more (after you have diversified) is to keep a larger proportion of it in a savings account or other guaranteed investment. BTW, your P2P lender investment seems like a great idea to me, but 60% of your money in it sounds like a lot.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "423ab71df601cb740e4df3cb6ab1caf1",
"text": "There's a primer on valuing community banks by oddball Stocks, an investor who specializes in that kind of stuff. I can't link it cause I'm on my phone, but just search it up on Google and I'm sure you'll find it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "39a433a84ddadd612b78e80c78d4808f",
"text": "\"The UK has Islamic banks. I don't know whether Germany has the same or not (with a quick search I can find articles stating intentions to establish one, but not the results). Even if there's none in Germany, I assume that with some difficulty you could use banks elsewhere in the EU and even non-Euro-denominated. I can't recommend a specific provider or product (never used them and probably wouldn't offer recommendations on this site anyway), but they advertise savings accounts. I've found one using a web search that offers an \"\"expected profit rate\"\" of 1.9% for a 12 month fix, which is roughly comparable with \"\"typical\"\" cash savings products in pounds sterling. Typical to me I mean, not to you ;-) Naturally you'd want to look into the risk as well. Their definition of Halal might not precisely match yours, but I'm sure you can satisfy yourself by looking into the details. I've noticed for example a statement that the bank doesn't invest your money in tobacco or alcohol, which you don't give as a requirement but I'm going to guess wouldn't object to!\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
cc99df0d62d5d1e700b69dd332bdedf0
|
Learn investing as a programmer
|
[
{
"docid": "ac0222f92e01b641b4751aaa2e080175",
"text": "\"My master's thesis was on using genetic algorithms and candle stick method. If you are familiar, the AI was used to answer questions like \"\"what is a long day\"\", which is not formally defined in most candle stick texts. So in theory unlimited potential for learning including teaching machines to learn. Wall street pays pretty well for such developers, and if you are young and single man Manhattan is pretty sweet place to be. In practicality your formula for building wealth is the same as everyone else's: get out of debt, build an emergency fund, and invest. Initially invest in growth stock mutual funds through a 401K (assuming US).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d17ed8e56265ef8310730a0b1213554a",
"text": "The software you provided as an example won't teach you much about investing. The most important things of investing are: These are the only free lunches in investing. Allocation tells you how much expected return (and also how much risk) your portfolio has. Diversification is the only way to reduce risk without reducing return; however, just note that there is market risk that cannot be eliminated with diversification. Every penny you save on costs and taxes is important, as it's guaranteed return. If you were to develop e.g. software that calculates the expected return of a portfolio when given allocation as an input, it could teach you something about investing. Similarly, software that calculates the average costs of your mutual fund portfolio would teach you something about investing. But sadly, these kinds of software are uncommon.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "c1fda39c1aa47e80318f580278627aaa",
"text": "Hey man. First of all, having a firm understanding in SE is a blessing! Finance firms are actively looking to hire with software engineering skills from tech. The closer to your background skills, the easier it will be to get a job. If you don't want to be a programming drone for Goldman, i'd say algo trading or being a quant at a hedge fund would be an awesome gjg. If you definitely want to do investment banking (m&a/ibd), focus on spinning your story and background targeting tech companies. Just make sure you know why you want to go into finance and that role vs SE. Make sure you truly try to understand what investment banking/algo trading is and can explain it to your grandma. Above all, network, network, network. Good luck.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "076c20e42566a8138853c5478b3d358b",
"text": "Most quants I've worked with aren't exceptional programmers. I definitely think you can teach yourself enough C++ to get by. You probably want to learn a little of Matlab, R, Sas, Excel, and SQL along with C++ rather than to try to be an expert in programming.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dd0cdb33bb16c2cd9885660a2f39574d",
"text": "The article links to William Bernstein’s plan that he outlined for Business Insider, which says: Modelling this investment strategy Picking three funds from Google and running some numbers. The international stock index only goes back to April 29th 1996, so a run of 21 years was modelled. Based on 15% of a salary of $550 per month with various annual raises: Broadly speaking, this investment doubles the value of the contributions over two decades. Note: Rebalancing fees are not included in the simulation. Below is the code used to run the simulation. If you have Mathematica you can try with different funds. Notice above how the bond index (VBMFX) preserves value during the 2008 crash. This illustrates the rationale for diversifying across different fund types.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "31aee2d34d62c45dbe1bd0439bd542b1",
"text": "\"A couple options that I know of: Interactive Brokers offers a \"\"paper trading\"\" mode to its account holders that allows you to start with a pretend stack of money and place simulated trades to test trading ideas. They also provide an API that allows you to interface with their platform programmatically for retrieving quotes, placing orders, and the such. As you noted, however, it's not free; you must hold a funded brokerage account in order to qualify for access to their platform. In order to maintain an account, there are minimums for required equity and monthly activity (measured in dollars that you spend on commissions), so you won't get access to their platform without having a decent amount of skin in the game. IB's native API is Java-based; IbPy is an unofficial wrapper that makes the interface available in Python. I've not used IB at all myself, but I've heard good things about their API and its accessibility via IbPy. Edit: IB now supports Python natively via their published API, so using IbPy is no longer needed, unless you wish to use Python 2.x. The officially supported API is based on Python 3. TD Ameritrade also offers an API that is usable by its brokerage clients. They do not offer any such \"\"paper trading\"\" mode, so you would need to \"\"execute\"\" transactions based on quotes at the corresponding trade times and then keep track of your simulated account history yourself. The API supports quote retrieval, price history, and trade execution, among other functions. TDA might be more attractive than IB if you're looking for a low-cost link into market data, as I believe their minimum-equity levels are lower. To get access, you'll need to sign up for an API developer account, which I believe requires an NDA. I don't believe there is an official Python implementation of the API, but if you're a capable Python writer, you shouldn't have trouble hooking up to the published interfaces. Some caveats: as when doing any strategy backtesting, you'll want to be sure to be pessimistic when doing so, so your optimism doesn't make your trades look more successful than they would be in the real world. At a minimum, you'll want to ensure that your simulations transact at the posted bid/ask prices, not necessarily the last trade's price, as well as any commissions and fees associated with the trade. A more robust scheme would also take into account the depth of the order book (also known as level 2 quotes), which can cause additional slippage in the prices at which you buy/sell your security. An even more robust scheme would take into account the potential latency of trade execution, looking at all prices over some time period that covers the maximum expected latency and simulating the trade at the worst-possible price.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "609df879e23f8bc656b9519af3778ac2",
"text": "Many people have provided very good answers to this question and all the answers provide sound advice and justification. Below are some of my thoughts on the questions that you have put forward. 1) The investment manager question: The returns on your capital for a half year has been quite low; having said that, some investments do take more than half year to show some growth. You could try talking to your investment manager and ask where your money has been deployed and why the returns are low. If there are no real explanation given forth (which would be more likely as you have mentioned your investment manager does not like to discuss your money with you) you should conside Xolorus & Pete's advice and forthwith take all your money from investment manager and park it in the bank till you figure out what to do next with it. 2) Finances are not my forte: At 22 finance is nobodies forte, it takes longer than that; however having said that, how do you know finance is actually not your forte? Being a computer science graduate you would be more than comfortable with the mathematics required for finance. You may not have looked seriously at finance till now (I assume by your statement). Once way to be certain about this would be self learning, some good books have been refered above and there are online information, courses and articles on the Internet, for example here. You could give some spare time and explore if finance interests you or not. 3) If finance interests you: Then consider the 30K as your seed fund and take a small portion of it say 2K and try out your hand at investing on your own in the instruments that you feel most comfortable and see how you fare, you are young enough to take the risk. Rest of the money you could put in other low risk instruments (that you have identified through self study) 4) If finance does not interest you: The probably you are better off with an investment manager, as observed above, it will take some time for you to identify him/her 5) On returns: As mentioned above different instruments produce returns differently, however, one question that is universally asked is how much return on an invetment shoule one expect (you were expecting more than $12 on your investment). It is a difficult question to answer as invetment returns and investment needs depend on a persons financial goals and risk taking profile. One way to have some measure is to take 15-20 years CAGR of the stock index return and reduce it by 2-3%, that is (in many cases, not all) a reasonable return expectation in medium-long term.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "778c0d92d2a35ab391cb4a0481d8f181",
"text": "no offense, but clicking through to that guys blog and fund page he seems like a charlatan and a snake oil salesman. It's not surprising that he doesn't like asset manager software because he himself is an asset manager. the software is trying to replace him. He doesn't make money by beating the market... he makes money by convincing others that he can... he is exactly the type of person that the original article is warning against investing with.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3c86ef63d24853ad9bb7f969cbe35133",
"text": "“Burt Malkiel is still the high priest of passive investing,” said Jakub Jurek, vice president for research at Wealthfront. “To be absolutely clear, we’re not stock pickers. There are decades of research on active investors, which show they underperform.” So ... not really straying, just promoting a somewhat more sophisticated model based on algos (robo-investors?)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "73f7c99297db58913b0afca914cccbdd",
"text": "-Get a job doing it. -Try the CFA curriculum if you want the base financial knowledge - but only if you don't have that knowledge already. -Check out coursera -Try writing some pricing tools or trading algo, depending on what area you're interested in. The future is not options pricing, the future is in data aggregation and prediction. Yes it's possible to learn if you have the mathematical foundation. It's really no as complicated as the world believes. Remember that most people go finance -> math and find it hard whereas you're going math -> finance.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "307e12c983b5fd0bf60a9811f70883cb",
"text": "\"While I've never used Wall Street Survivor, I took a look over the marketing materials and I've seen multiple similar contests run among investment interns also just out of college. I see some good here and some bad. First off, I love interactive web-based tutorials. I've used one to learn the syntax of a new programming language and I find the instant feedback and the ability to work at your own pace very useful. The reviews seem to say that Wall Street Survivor is a good way to learn the basics of how trading stocks works and the lingo. Also, it seems pretty fun which I've found helps a lot. Wall Street Survivor will hopefully teach you that there are many real stock markets and that they may have somewhat different prices and they likely take the real and timely data from a single market. Wall Street Survivor also frightens me. The big problem that I see with interns running similar contests is that the market is extremely random over short to medium periods of time. An intern can make an awful portfolio or even pick stocks at random and still win the contest. These interns know a lot about the randomness in markets already so they don't believe they are trading geniuses because they won a contest, I'm not sure there is much to temper this view on this web-site. Also, while Wall Street Survivor teaches you about trading it doesn't appear to teach you about investing. The website appears to encourage short term views and changing positions a lot and doesn't seem to simulate the full trading costs (including fees) that would eat away at the gains of a individual investor that trades that much. It gives some help with longer term thinking like diversification, but also seems to encourage trading that makes Wall Street Survivor more money, but are likely detrimental to the user. I would say have fun with Wall Street Survivor. Let it teach you some things about trading, but don't give the site much if any money. At the same time, pick up a copy of short book called \"\"A Random Walk Down Wall Street\"\" and start learning about investing at the same time. Feel free to come back to Stack Exchange with questions along the way.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "74d7ad4cb9f02118401ae5f419d3de31",
"text": "\"I'm 39 and have been investing since my very early 20's, and the advice I'd like to go back and give myself is the following: 1) Time is your friend. Compounding interest is a powerful force and is probably the most important factor to how much money you are going to wind up with in the end. Save as much as you possibly can as early as you can. You have to run twice as hard to catch up if you start late, and you will still probably wind up with less in the end for the extra effort. 2) Don't invest 100% of your investment money It always bugged me to let my cash sit idle in an investment account because the niggling notion of inflation eating up my money and I felt I was wasting opportunity cost by not being fully invested in something. However, not having enough investable cash around to buy into the fire-sale dips in the market made me miss out on opportunities. 3) Diversify The dot.com bubble taught me this in a big, hairy painful way. I had this idea that as a technologist I really understood the tech bubble and fearlessly over-invested in Tech stocks. I just knew that I was on top of things as an \"\"industry insider\"\" and would know when to jump. Yeah. That didn't work out so well. I lost more than 6 figures, at least on paper. Diversification will attenuate the ups and downs somewhat and make the market a lot less scary in the long run. 4) Mind your expenses It took me years of paying huge full-service broker fees to realize that those clowns don't seem to do any better than anyone else at picking stocks. Even when they do, the transaction costs are a lead weight on your returns. The same holds true for mutual funds/ETFs. Shop for low expense ratios aggressively. It is really hard for a fund manager to consistently beat the indexes especially when you burden the returns with expense ratios that skim an extra 1% or so off the top. The expense ratio/broker fees are among the very few things that you can predict reliably when it comes to investments, take advantage of this knowledge. 5) Have an exit strategy for every investment People are emotional creatures. It is hard to be logical when you have skin in the game and most people aren't disciplined enough to just admit when they have a loser and bail out while they are in the red or conversely admit when they have a winner and take profits before the party is over. It helps to counteract this instinct to have an exit strategy for each investment you buy. That is, you will get out if it drops by x% or grows by y%. In fact, it is probably a good idea to just enter those sell limit orders right after you buy the investment so you don't have to convince yourself to press the eject button in the heat of a big move in the price of that investment. Don't try to predict tops or bottoms. They are extremely hard to guess and things often turn so fast that you can't act on them in time anyway. Get out of an investment when it has met your goal or is going to far in the wrong direction. If you find yourself saying \"\"It has to come back eventually\"\", slap yourself. When you are trying to decide whether to stay in the investment or bail, the most important question is \"\"If I had the current cash value of the stock instead of shares, would I buy it today?\"\" because essentially that is what you are doing when you stick with an investment. 6) Don't invest in fads When you are investing you become acutely sensitive to everyone's opinions on what investment is hot and what is not. If everyone is talking about a particular investment, avoid it. The more enthusiastic people are about it (even experts) the MORE you should avoid it. When everyone starts forming investment clubs at work and the stock market seems to be the preferred topic of conversation at every party you go to. Get out! I'm a big fan of contrarian investing. Take profits when it feels like all the momentum is going into the market, and buy in when everyone seems to be running for the doors.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "52683fac8adacb6501cef0f04b28178d",
"text": "The best way I know of is to join an investment club. They club will act like a mutual fund, investing in stocks researched and selected by the group. Taking part in research and presenting results to the group for peer review is an excellent way to learn. You'll learn what is a good reason to invest and what isn't. You'll probably pick both winners and losers. The goal of participation is education. Some people learn how to invest and continue happily doing so. Others learn how to invest in single stocks and learn it is not for them.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "59863bdbdc58a56e57aff3dd0c7b6376",
"text": "\"You bring up some very high level stuff, each of which can be the subject of a life's work. For taxes, I first read J.K. Lasser's Your Income Tax. I actually read it cover to cover instead of using it as a reference guide. I hit topics that I'd otherwise have never looked up on purpose. Once you familiarize yourself with the current tax code, keeping up on changes to the code goes pretty well. As far as investing goes, William Bernstein has two titles, “The Four Pillars of Investing” and “The Intelligent Asset Allocator”. Others have liked “Personal Finance for Dummies” by Eric Tyson. These are great introductory books, the classic is “Security Analysis” by Graham & Dodd. Warren Buffet was a student of Benjamin Graham and he did fine applying these principals. For retirement, The Number by Lee Eisenberg was a good read. I consider retirement an extension of the investing education, only the money flow is reversed, withdrawals, no new deposits. Of course this is an oversimplification. In my own reading list, I include books such as “Extraordinary Popular Delusions & the Madness of Crowds” by Charles MacKay and “The Great Crash 1929″ by John Kenneth Galbraith. Understanding how these bubbles happen is critical to a complete education. I'm convinced that when it comes to investing if I can teach my daughter to understand the concept of Risk and Reward and to understand there are certain common alerts to such bubbles, the simplest of which is the term \"\"this time is different\"\" as though a hundred years of market dynamics can change in a matter of a few years. Last, there are books like \"\"Stop Acting Rich\"\" by Dr Thomas Stanley. Not quite investing, per se, but a good read to get an idea of how we have a distorted view of certain signs of wealth. Keep reading, no harm in taking books out of the library and returning if the first chapter or two disappoints.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "295d5c6848a2b68cebed78ccc36d5b67",
"text": "Most programming for financial engineering will be in C++, Python, R, or MATLAB; some books written by Mark Joshi or Daniel Duffy may be a good place to look for how C++ is used in FE (Duffy also has an online C++ course that's quite good). If you have a physics/math background then you likely have 90% of the required maths, such as calculus, linear algebra, probability and statistics. I would recommend taking a course/reading a book on advanced probability, real analysis, and stochastic calculus, but these are not trivial subjects. If you are more interested in learning specifically about how math is applied to FE you can take a look at a book such as [a primer for the mathematics of FE](https://www.amazon.com/dp/0979757622/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_2KumzbMN6ZPE5). Also, check out online forums that discuss this such as [quantent](quantnet.com).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "87111ad5079b801b29090cb55023ea74",
"text": "\"It reminds me of the Efficient Market Hypothesis, except that just states in its weakest form that the current market price accounts for all information embedded in previous market prices. In other words, people buying today at 42 know it was selling for 40 yesterday, and the patterns and such. To say that stock is memoryless strikes me as not quite right -- to the extent that stocks are valued based on earnings, much of what we infer about future earnings relies on past and present earnings. One obvious counterexample to this \"\"memoryless\"\" claim is bankruptcy. If a stock files bankruptcy, and there isn't enough money to pay senior debt, your shares are worth 0 in perpetuity.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
48d117a07f1bd9a8b1876b78d434fa3d
|
I have about 20 000 usd. How can invest them to do good in the world?
|
[
{
"docid": "88edd029ff0f292e8b015f2b0773a604",
"text": "\"Vanguard has a Vanguard FTSE Social Index Fund. Their web page says \"\"Some individuals choose investments based on social and personal beliefs. For this type of investor, we have offered Vanguard FTSE Social Index Fund since 2000. This low-cost fund seeks to track a benchmark of large- and mid-capitalization stocks that have been screened for certain social, human rights, and environmental criteria. In addition to stock market volatility, one of the fund’s other key risks is that this socially conscious approach may produce returns that diverge from those of the broad market.\"\" It looks like it would meet the qualifications you require, plus Vanguard funds usually have very low fees.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "278ad0a79af5a293c6d548a5c2b234ca",
"text": "One of the best things you can do for this purpose, while getting a modest ROI on a passive investment, is invest in a company that profitably does whatever you want to see more of. For example, you could invest in a for-profit company that sells needed goods to low-income people at lower prices. Something like Wal-Mart, which is one of the most effective anti-poverty engines in the US. You might also say the same of something like Aldi (owner of Aldi stores and Trader Joe's), which is a discount store chain. This is true even though a company like Wal-Mart is seeking to make money first. Its customer base tends to skew heavily towards low-income consumers, and historically to rural and elderly consumers. When Wal-Mart is able to provide food, clothing, appliances and the like to poor people at a lower cost, it is making it marginally less painful to have a low income. Peter Suderman can explain why Wal-Mart is a humanitarian enterprise: Walmart’s customer base is heavily concentrated in the bottom income quintile, which spends heavily on food. The bottom income quintile spends about 25 percent of income on food compared to just 3.5 percent for the top quintile. So the benefits of Walmart’s substantially lower prices to the lowest earning cohort are huge, especially on food. As Suderman points out, this view of Wal-Mart dramatically lowering prices that low-income people pay for food was corroborated by an Obama adviser. That's just one company. You can pick the industry and company that best suits your personal preferences. Alternatively, you could invest in something like Whole Foods, a company with multiple missions to improve the planet and the community, in addition to the more typical mission of being a prosperous retail chain. Of course, as a general proposition, a less than entirely altruistic, charity-inclined investment doesn't need to be targeted at those with low incomes or at saving the planet. You could invest in almost anything you think is good (yachts, yo-yos, violins, energy production, industrial inputs, music performances) and the company will take care of making more of that good thing. You didn't say whether your goal was to help the poor, the planet, arts, sciences, knowledge, community, or whatever. What I understand you to be saying is you are willing to accept a lower ROI in exchange for some warm-fuzzies from your investment. That seems perfectly valid and reasonable to me, but it makes it much more subjective and particular to your tastes. So you'll need to pick something that's meaningful to you. If you're going to trade ROI for positive feelings, then you should pick whatever gives you your optimal blend of emotions and returns. Alternatively, you could invest in something stable and predictable to beat inflation (some sort of index or fund) and then annually use some portion of those profits to simply give to the charity of your choice. Your investment and your charity do not necessarily need to be the same vehicle.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c6d5c19eaa0665e82e44ae513025b627",
"text": "\"Shariah compliant investments attempt to achieve your \"\"ethical investing\"\" ideals. Many countries around the world have a long list of shariah compliant investments and lots of journalists will go great lengths to reveal when a company is not really shariah compliant. Standard & Poors (S&P), an American financial services company, hosts a Shariah compliant index too, but on the Toronto Stock Exchange in Canada due to the Islamaphobia rampant in the United States. But of course, international companies are indifferent to any single country's social problems, and in your new pastime as an international speculator you will get the same luxury too and exemption from the political spectrum. S&P/TSX 60 information can be found here: http://web.tmxmoney.com/tmx_indices.php?section=tsx&index=%5ETXSI Business sectors prohibited from the Shariah index include: Gambling, Pornography, Tobacco, amongst others. In the United States, the concept has been renamed \"\"B-Corporation\"\" (a play on the federal term C-Corporation and S-Corporation), and has garnered enough of a movement that several states have created these as entities people can actually register them with the state, but these are not recognized as \"\"B-Corporations\"\" to the federal government. Shariah compliant investments will be easier to find worldwide, due to the popularity of the associated religion.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d3a07db7134b4aabb36326eddcc577d8",
"text": "\"I'd suggest you to separate \"\"doing good\"\" from \"\"earning profit\"\". Look at the guys like Warren Buffett and Bill Gates (or Carnegie and Ford for that matters). They understand that you can't reconcile the two goals, so they donate for free what they earned for profit. If you want to make a social impact with your money, you can check the charity programs that have a confirmed record of a positive impact on people's lives. Non-profits that studied such programs publish their results extensively: AidGrade compiles this research and suggests direct donations to the programs that demonstrated best outcomes per dollar invested:\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ea5224b299f0a085053f5da9d760c98c",
"text": "\"FTSE ethical investment index: http://www.ftse.com/products/indices/FTSE4Good \"\"The FTSE4Good Index is a series of ethical investment stock market indices launched in 2001 by the FTSE Group. A number of stock market indices are available, for example covering UK shares, US shares, European markets, and Japan, with inclusion based on a range of corporate social responsibility criteria. Research for the indices is supported by the Ethical Investment Research Services (EIRIS).\"\" - Wikipedia\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "37126f0995b4349d15fca86b4a2556f6",
"text": "There isn't going to be one right answer, but LessWrong has some posts on effective altruism you might find helpful. They also link to a TED talk",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "65f7cecbb29b4cef157e86f531be6a7d",
"text": "\"In the UK, one quirky option in this area (OK, admittedly it's not a passive) is the \"\"Battle Against Cancer Investment Trust\"\" (BACIT). Launched in 2012, it's basically a fund-of-funds where the funds held charge zero management charges or performance fees to the trust, but the trust then donates 1% of NAV to charity each year (half to cancer research, investors decide the other half).\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "56b56b4bf26e9920cae04c9da1cbebee",
"text": "You chose the worst case though, his last year alive. The GDP of the world is something like $85 trillion. 1.05^x = 85 *10^12 x = log base 1.05(85*10^12 ) //reddit should add subscripts, that would be nice x = 657 2014-x = 1357 He was born in 1343, so if he invested when he was 14 he would be good.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2de9276a87b1cfd4b291753649b1e2a3",
"text": "There's a few different types of investments you could do. As poolie mentioned, you could split your money between the Vanguard All World ex-US and Vanguard Total Stock Market index. A similar approach would be to invest in the Vanguard Total World Stock ETF. You wouldn't have to track separate fund performances, at the downside of not being able to allocate differential amounts to the US and non-US markets (Vanguard will allocate them by market cap). You could consider investing in country-specific broad market indices like the S&P 500 and FTSE 100. While not as diversified as the world indices, they are more correlated with the country's economic outlook. Other common investing paradigms are investing in companies which have historically paid out high dividends and companies that are under-valued by the market but have good prospects for future growth. This gets in the domain of value investing, which an entire field by itself. Like Andrew mentioned, investing in a mutual fund is hassle-free. However, mutual fees/commissions and taxes can be higher (somewhere in the range 1%-5%) than index funds/ETF expense ratios (typically <0.50%), so they would have to outperform the market by a bit to break-even. There are quite a few good books out there to read up about investing. I'd recommend The Intelligent Investor and Millionaire Teacher to understand the basics of long-term investing, but of course, there are many other equally good books too.",
"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": "6207d6f6b6c4c84fc02c0153c0fc89f6",
"text": "I would strongly recommend investing in assets and commodities. I personally believe fiat money is losing its value because of a rising inflation and the price of oil. The collapse of the euro should considerably affect the US currency and shake up other regions of the world in forex markets. In my opinion, safest investment these days are hard assets and commodities. Real estate, land, gold, silver(my favorite) and food could provide some lucrative benefits. GL mate!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cf5e2509b359dc37d07056f9830050ea",
"text": "\"Markets are amoral. If you don't buy stock in a company that has high growth/earnings, someone else will. By abstaining you will actually make it cheaper for someone else who is interested in making money. Investing in \"\"socially responsible\"\" funds will only ensure that you have less money to make a moral difference in the world when you decide to transition from working to philanthropy. Edit to clarify -- You aren't interested in buying individual stocks directly, that leaves you with two general options: You can make a statement with your investment now, or you can take the better returns and make a difference with your money later.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dd3c6e4a2fd7f18be93d7d51a00d951f",
"text": "That's what I would do; 1.2 million dollars is a lot of money, but it doesn't make you retired for the rest of your life: There is a big crisis coming soon (my personal prediction) in the next 10-15 years, and when this happens: government will hold your money if you leave them in the bank (allowing you to use just part of it; you will have to prove the reason you need it), government will pass bills to make it very hard to close your investment positions, and government will pass new laws to create new taxes for people with a lot of money (you). To have SOME level of security I would separate my investment in the following: 20% I would buy gold certificates and the real thing (I would put the gold in a safe(s)). 20% I would put in bitcoin (you would have to really study this if you are new to crypto currency in order to be safe). 40% I would invest in regular finance products (bonds, stocks and options, FX). 20% I would keep in the bank for life expenses, specially if you don't want work for money any more. 20% I would invest in startup companies exchanging high risk hoping for a great return. Those percentages might change a little depending how good/confident you become after investing, knowing about business, etc...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "020e7b03bd2546714cf636928de96efc",
"text": "Most people when asked what would they do with $X dollars say: Pay debt (their own / loved ones) Buy a nice house Buy a nice car Travel 460 million is plenty to do all those things. With the rest I'd start a bond ladder and try to live off the interest",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aa2e095caac3e8601d766e12fde31a6d",
"text": "What is the goal of the money? If it is to use in the short term, like savings for a car or college, then stick it in the bank and use it for that purpose. If you really want this money to mean something, then in my opinion you have only one choice: Open a ROTH IRA with something like Vanguard or Fidelity and invest in an index fund. Then do something that will be very difficult: Don't touch it. By the time you are 65, it will grow to about 60,000. However, assuming a 20% tax bracket, the value of that money is really more like 75,000. Clearly this will not make or break you either way. The way you live the rest of your life will have far more of an impact. It will get you started on the right path. BTW this is advice I gave my son who is about your age, and does not earn a ton of money as a state trooper. Half of his overtime pay goes into a ROTH. If he lives the rest of his life like he does now, he will be a wealthy man despite making an average income. No debt, and investing a decent portion of his pay.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "481dbbdc25cd20c96fb2cc46074382b3",
"text": "You can invest more that 20,000 in Infrastructure bonds, however the tax benefit is only on 20,000. Further the interest earned is taxable. The best guaranteed post tax returns is on PPF. So invest a substantial sum in this. As your age group low you can afford to take risk and hence could also look at investing in ELSS [Mutual Fund]. A note on each of these investments: LIC: If you have taken any of the endowment / Money Back plan, remember the returns are very low around 5-6%. It would make more sense to buy a pure term plan at fraction of the cost and invest the remaining premium into even PPF or FD that would give you more return. NSC/Postal Savings: They are a good option, however the interest is taxable. There is a locking of 6 years. PPF: The locking is large 15 years although one can do partial withdrawals after 7 years. The interest is not taxable. ULIP: These are market linked plans with Insurance and balance invested into markets. The charges for initial few years is quite high, plus the returns are not comparable to the normal Mutual Funds. Invest in this only if one needs less paper and doesn't want to track things separately. ELSS/Mutual Fund: These offer good market returns, but there is a risk of market. As you are young you can afford to take the risk. Most of the ELSS have given average results that are still higher than FD or PPF. Pension Plan: This is a good way to accumulate for retirement. Invest some small amount in this and do not take any insurance on it. Go for pure equity as you can still take the risk. This ensures that you have a kit for retirement. Check out the terms and conditions as to how you need to purchase annuity at the term end etc.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "541369f6976f7cbf27dcac4f6a9fc4fc",
"text": "No doubt. But someone who is motivated by greed or money may use that motivation to do great good, at great profit. If someone could become the first trillionaire by turning China and India – and the US – away from fossil fuels, and that's the way they're motivated, and without that motivation they wouldn't bother, I'd be asking how I could help them make the Big T.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6c093ef2e23eed57714dc26bb27c4d2b",
"text": "Oh, geez, well-regarded arguments against investing, hmm? Well, I have a couple. They're not against investing per se. They're asking about your priorities and whether you might have something better to do than inevesting: And he spake a parable unto them, saying, The ground of a certain rich man brought forth plentifully: and he thought within himself, saying, What shall I do, because I have no room where to bestow my fruits? And he said, This will I do: I will pull down my barns, and build greater; and there will I bestow all my fruits and my goods. And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry. But God said unto him, Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee: then whose shall those things be, which thou hast provided? So is he that layeth up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God. -- Luke 12:16-21 Christian or otherwise, there may be better things for you to do with your excess cash - indeed, with your life - than simply invest it to bring yourself more money. Many people find charitable contributions more important than spending a little more money on themselves (immediately or in the future). Of course, you will need to decide what these things are that matter to you. Perhaps you would like to contribute to traditional charities. Perhaps you would like to fund education, or a religious organization, or the Democratic Party, or the Republican Party, or the Libertarian Party, or the Green Party, or the Tea Party, or Occupy Wall Street. Perhaps you'd like to fund research into something. Perhaps you simply have friends and family that you want to make happy. Perhaps a small vacation to spend time with family is worth more to you now than the investment returns will be worth later. Moreover, note that economic decisions like this are made on the margin - it's not so much a question of whether you invest at all, but whether you should invest more or less, and spend/donate more or less. I made me great works; I builded me houses; I planted me vineyards: I made me gardens and orchards, and I planted trees in them of all kind of fruits: I made me pools of water, to water therewith the wood that bringeth forth trees: I got me servants and maidens, and had servants born in my house; also I had great possessions of great and small cattle above all that were in Jerusalem before me: I gathered me also silver and gold, and the peculiar treasure of kings and of the provinces: I got me men singers and women singers, and the delights of the sons of men, as musical instruments, and that of all sorts. So I was great, and increased more than all that were before me in Jerusalem: also my wisdom remained with me. And whatsoever mine eyes desired I kept not from them, I withheld not my heart from any joy; for my heart rejoiced in all my labor: and this was my portion of all my labor. Then I looked on all the works that my hands had wrought, and on the labor that I had labored to do: and, behold, all was vanity and vexation of spirit, and there was no profit under the sun. -- Ecclesiastes 2:4-11 Because in the long run, we're all dead. Anywho! It's all a matter of returns and risk analysis. Even spending on yourself and charitable giving can be thought in these terms (the returns are not 'more money', so they may be harder to analyze, but they're important too).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "44f3472e2763764b0699988a69b9de22",
"text": "Congratulations on making it at minimum you are close to a 2 millionaire if I understand your numbers correctly. Here is what I would do if I woke up in your shoes: 1) Take some time. Budget some money and time. Go live abroad, take hang gliding lessons or become scuba certified. Something like that. The only thing I really dislike about your situation is that your wife may be precluded on going with you due to her business concerns. During this time dream, plan and decide what you want your life to look like. You seem to understand that you won't be happy doing nothing for a really long time. Its not a big deal if you blow 50K or so doing this. Take the wife to Paris, go visit the Galapagos Islands. 2) You are going to have to become wise about investing. I'd put close to one million in stock based mutual funds. That may sound scary, and you might seek others out to help you with this transition. I feel like that your time spent in your business may have precluded you delving into this area of knowledge. For now, you may just want to stick it all in interest bearing accounts, and slowly invest the money. Don't invest in things you don't understand, and you have to be on the look out for the next Bernie Madoff. 3) Its hard to speak to your desire to downsize your home. You could probably buy a nice ranch in Nevada from the sale of your home if that is what you desire, but you may kind of hate something like that. 4) Could you start more of a boutique business? Not one that occupies all of your time, but one that takes 20-40 hours per week. Something that interests you, not something that is overly a chore. Perhaps you can consult in the field that your former business was in. You most certainly have a lot of intelligent things to say. 5) Be generous. Find worthwhile charities to give time and money to. Congratulations again. Take some time to dream, and then make those things happen. Edit: You may need to make new friends. Actually wealthy people are a very small segment of the population and are out numbered by people who act wealthy. Its going to be hard, but you need to find people that have a certain level of wealth but are also don't make you uncomfortable with their level of spending (either high or low).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6f071e945bba3472b76c827d82dfbd1d",
"text": "[Here's](http://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-is-how-much-money-exists-in-the-entire-world-in-one-chart-2015-12-18) and explanation. The broadest interpretation is that there are quadrillions (1,000,000,000,000,000) of dollars in various markets. Bill Gates could become a Trillionaire, so even his wealth is a drop the ocean. Well, not really, but you get the idea. A lot of this money is constantly on the move, it is impossible to track down all the movements. Value is increasing, Value is destroyed etc. Your bank account can be tallied, but it's impossible to track down the money of the world, a continent or even a small country. Even bigger companies have trouble tracking down their money. The idea of the 'tally' is a bit of an outdated one, it came from a time when there was a gold standard, and when old fashioned marxism was still a thing. //edit: words, English, difficult",
"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": "0b4d28631a9df3dc4aedc366da571626",
"text": "\"This is clearly a scam, and you should stay away from it. Anyone reading this knew that from the title alone - and it seems that you know it too. Don't \"\"test\"\" whether something is a scam by putting your own money in it. That is exactly how these scammers make money, and how you lose it. How their scam works is irrelevant. The simple fact is that there is no way you can safely earn 20% return over the course of a year, let alone in 1 day*. You know this is true. Don't bother trying to figure out what makes it true in this case. There is no free lunch. Best case scenario, this is a hyper-risky investment strategy [on the level of putting your money down at a roulette wheel]. Worst case scenario, they simply steal your money. Either way, you won't come out ahead. Although I agree with others that this is likely a Ponzi scheme, that doesn't really matter. What matters is, there is no way they can guarantee those returns. Just go to a casino and throw your money away yourself, if you want that level of risk. *For reference, if you invested $100 for a year, earning 20% returns every day, you would have 6 million trillion trillion dollars by the end of the year. that's $6,637,026,647,624,450,000,000,000,000,000. that number doesn't even make sense. It's more money than exists on earth. So why would they need your $100?\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
01a924df6603bd297ed1188f0e9d6da5
|
Stock valuation - Volkswagen
|
[
{
"docid": "008101757be540c44fd26f9fcc236c2a",
"text": "The prices dropped because the scandal could mean: This some people estimated that the company could lose money, or have smaller profit. Thus each share was worth less money going forward. The mechanism is that in order to sell their shares the current share owners had to settle for lower prices.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7a5d135076a3b45f3f91f004e37abcbf",
"text": "(I live in the UK and along with my wife we both drive Volkswagen cars.) A few factors: VW is widely acknowledged as having some of the best diesel car engines. -Now lot of people are questioning if diesel car will be outlawed. VM management has just said they don’t know what their workers are doing! The USA has made it clear they will create pollution law in a way that benefit their own car makers. (E.g. they don’t care about CO2.) If not diesel cars, then it needs hybrid or electric cars to get good MPG – VM is not seen as a leader in these. Hybrid cars tend to be gas as diesel engines cost too much. VW is no longer looking like a nice safe investment! I think VW will recover, but it may get worse for them before it gets better - trying to call the bottom of a stock is high risk.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b98ee7e7e4ca63d99227b2c3a3504ea8",
"text": "\"The primary reason a scandal like this hurts the company is the \"\"bottom line.\"\" Any legal action means defense costs. In this case the potential of massive fines became reality. And a buyback program. So, if any publicly traded company stacked up $10B in assets, doused it in diesel and set it on fire, their stock would take a dip too. Billions in revenue directed to the expense side of the ledger instead of the profit side. That money should have gone to building the company and dividends.\"",
"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": "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": "ed94c996ea2eda52c332ab82b4541cd4",
"text": "I really like Value Investing by Bruce Greenwald. It's not a textbook so you can probably pick it up for about $20. While it is dense, I think with some patience you might be able to understand it at the undergrad level. The process outlined in the VI book is very different from the conventional corp finance way of valuing a company. A typical corp finance model would probably have you model cash flows 5 or 10 years out and then assume some sort of terminal growth. The VI book argues that it's nearly impossible to predict things that far out accurately so build your valuation on what we know. Start with the balance sheet. Then look at this year's earnings. Is that sustainable? This is a simplification of course but I describe it only so you can get the idea. I think it's definitely a worthwhile read.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0fabf85cd931ba89b9c27fcb7b04bb9b",
"text": "\"To my knowledge, there's no universal equation, so this could vary by individual/company. The equation I use (outside of sentiment measurement) is the below - which carries its own risks: This equations assumes two key points: Anything over 1.2 is considered oversold if those two conditions apply. The reason for the bear market is that that's the time stocks generally go on \"\"sale\"\" and if a company has a solid balance sheet, even in a downturn, while their profit may decrease some, a value over 1.2 could indicate the company is oversold. An example of this is Warren Buffett's investment in Wells Fargo in 2009 (around March) when WFC hit approximately 7-9 a share. Although the banking world was experiencing a crisis, Buffett saw that WFC still had a solid balance sheet, even with a decrease in profit. The missing logic with many investors was a decrease in profits - if you look at the per capita income figures, Americans lost some income, but not near enough to justify the stock falling 50%+ from its high when evaluating its business and balance sheet. The market quickly caught this too - within two months, WFC was almost at $30 a share. As an interesting side note on this, WFC now pays $1.20 dividend a year. A person who bought it at $7 a share is receiving a yield of 17%+ on their $7 a share investment. Still, this equation is not without its risks. A company may have a solid balance sheet, but end up borrowing more money while losing a ton of profit, which the investor finds out about ad-hoc (seen this happen several times). Suddenly, what \"\"appeared\"\" to be a good sale, turns into a person buying a penny with a dollar. This is why, to my knowledge, no universal equation applies, as if one did exist, every hedge fund, mutual fund, etc would be using it. One final note: with robotraders becoming more common, I'm not sure we'll see this type of opportunity again. 2009 offered some great deals, but a robotrader could easily be built with the above equation (or a similar one), meaning that as soon as we had that type of environment, all stocks fitting that scenario would be bought, pushing up their PEs. Some companies might be willing to take an \"\"all risk\"\" if they assess that this equation works for more than n% of companies (especially if that n% returns an m% that outweighs the loss). The only advantage that a small investor might have is that these large companies with robotraders are over-leveraged in bad investments and with a decline, they can't make the good investments until its too late. Remember, the equation ultimately assumes a person/company has free cash to use it (this was also a problem for many large investment firms in 2009 - they were over-leveraged in bad debt).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3fb7e228563796fa46d65b6918fe1cd1",
"text": "I have heard that people say the greater earning means greater intrinsic value of the company. Then, the stock price is largely based on the intrinsic value. So increasing intrinsic value due to increasing earning will lead to increasing stock price. Does this make sense ? Yes though it may be worth dissecting portions here. As a company generates earnings, it has various choices for what it can do with that money. It can distribute some to shareholders in the form of dividends or re-invest to generate more earnings. What you're discussing in the first part is those earnings that could be used to increase the perceived value of the company. However, there can be more than a few interpretations of how to compute a company's intrinsic value and this is how one can have opinions ranging from companies being overvalued to undervalued overall. Of Mines, Forests, and Impatience would be an article giving examples that make things a bit more complex. Consider how would you evaluate a mine, a forest or a farm where each gives a different structure to the cash flow? This could be useful in running the numbers here.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a386bedbf0f63f354370e49ebbe1d777",
"text": "I still can't understand why there is a price discrepancancy. There isn't. It's the same stock and price differences between such major exchanges will always be minimal. I think you simply haven't paid attention to the date range. It seems Google finance only has data for FRA:BMW reaching back to 2011, so if you try to look at the development of your investment since 2009, you're not getting comparable data.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "babde865bb9d96b55faa268417c37cb3",
"text": "It's a way to help normalize the meaning of the earnings report. Some companies like Google have a small number of publicly traded shares (322 Million). Others like Microsoft have much larger numbers of shares (8.3 Billion). The meaning depends on the stock. If it's a utility company that doesn't really grow, you don't want to see lots of changes -- the earnings per share should be stable. If it's a growth company, earnings should be growing quickly, and flat growth means that the stock is probably going down, especially if slow growth wasn't expected.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c13c73a337f0b416dd0e626ae4d9b7cf",
"text": "To be fair, the analyst is talking about the book value of the firm. Basically, the value of all the stuff it owns now. There are plenty of companies with negative book value that can justify a positive share price. Ford, for instance, had negative book value but positive future earnings.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "af2e38ba5d717fc1e30e479aeb76faec",
"text": "There are two very large negative factors that affect Yahoo's valuation. The first is that their search business is in decline and continues to lose ground to Google and even Bing. There's no sign that they have any plan or product in the works to offset this decline, so there's tremendous uncertainty about the company's forward-looking revenues. The second is that the company can't seem to decide what to do with its stake in Alibaba, clearly the company's most valuable asset. It they sell it, the question then becomes what they plan to do with the proceeds. Will they do share buybacks or offer a special dividend to reward investors? Will they use some or all of the money to make strategic acquisitions that are revenue-enhancing? Will they use it to develop new products/services? Keep in mind one other thing here, too. There's a world of difference between what something is valued at and what someone's willing to actually pay for it. A patent portfolio is great and perhaps holds good value, assuming the buyer can find a way to monetize it. How exactly was the valuation of the patents arrived at, and are they worthwhile enough for someone to pay anywhere close to that valuation? There's more to this than meets the eye by using a first-blush look at asset valuation, and that's where the professionals come in. My bet is that they have it right and there's something the rest of the market doesn't see or understand about it, hence questions like yours. I hope this helps. Good luck!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4f86a8a4bb3fa8d170e7d2cb5f67b104",
"text": "Thanks for your thorough reply. Basically, I found a case study in one of my old finance workbooks from school and am trying to complete it. So it's not entirely complicated in the sense of a full LBO or merger model. That being said, the information that they provide is Year 1 EBITDA for TargetCo and BuyerCo and a Pro-Forma EBITDA for the consolidated company @ Year 1 and Year 4 (expected IPO). I was able to get the Pre-Money and Post-Money values and the Liquidation values (year 4 IPO), as well as the number of shares. I can use EBITDA to get EPS (ebitda/share in this case) for both consolidated and stand-alone @ Year 1, but can only get EPS for consolidated for all other years. Given the information provided. One of the questions I have is do I do anything with my liquidation values for an accretion/dilution analysis or is it all EPS?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b573ff1763f664a030871b1be7801af5",
"text": "Could be misunderstanding your context. But ev = equity + debt - cash. So don't think it makes sense for an equity holder to have an individual ev/ebitda different from the company's. Are you asking in context of valuing equity and debt from an ev/ebitda multiple?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0bf175860f61be95923760b9ffaeb241",
"text": "No, it is the same as it has always been. The market gives a valuation of a company based off its expected discounted cash flow. Only problem we see is that many growth companies ($TSLA!!!) are being given the benefit of the doubt in regards to their expected growth and future profitability. **IF** Tesla does grow as many expect, then current share prices are definitely justifiable. But since when do we price things based on their ideal scenario? This market has lost its grip on risk-reward and risk tolerance. Does even a Tesla bull think that the company even has a >10% chance at ever exceeding expectations in regards to near-future growth or profitability? And even those who are invested in the company admit there is a serious chance that Tesla fails to reach expectations for growth/margins. Either way the market will cool soon. And negative cash flow companies with ultra-aggressive growth targets will be punished. --- If I wasn't poor/saving up to buy a house. I'd love to purchase 100 [January 2019 $50 Put Leaps at a cost of $0.55 each](http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/tsla/option-chain/190118P00050000-tsla-put) (total cost $5,500). A Tesla BK before January 18th 2019 would mean $50x100x100 - $5,500 = **$494,500** net profit WOW. A reduction in market cap to $5 Billion and increase in outstanding shares to 200 million (currently at 167M) results in a net profit of **$244,500** A reduction in market cap to $10 Billion with the same share dilution results in share price of $50 and thus a full loss of my $5,500. :(",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "193fcf22ed5e553406178908183e95ff",
"text": "To figure this out, you need to know the price per share then vs the price per share now. Google Finance will show you historical prices. For GOOG, the closing price on January 5, 2015 was $513.87. The price on December 31, 2015 was $758.88. Return on Investment (ROI) is calculated with this formula: ROI = (Proceeds from Investment - Cost of Investment) / Cost of Investment Using this formula, your return on investment would be 47.7%. Since the time period was one year, this number is already an annualized return. If the time period was different than one year, you would normally convert it to an annualized rate of return in order to compare it to other investments.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b0450d67e8cbf88413d3c97a3f56ac2f",
"text": "You need a source of delisted historical data. Such data is typically only available from paid sources. According to my records 20 Feb 2006 was not a trading day - it was Preisdent's Day and the US exchanges were closed. The prior trading date to this was 17 Feb 2006 where the stock had the following data: Open: 14.40 High 14.46 Low 14.16 Close 14.32 Volume 1339800 (consolidated volume) Source: Symbol NVE-201312 within Premium Data US delisted stocks historical data set available from http://www.premiumdata.net/products/premiumdata/ushistorical.php Disclosure: I am a co-owner of Norgate / Premium Data.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7586147cc335126f7bc08f20bff2f746",
"text": "In your own example of VW, it dropped from its peak price of $253 to $92. If you had invested $10,000 in VW in April 2015, by September of that year it would have gone down to $3,600. If you held on to your investment, you would now be getting back to $6,700 on that original $10,000 investment. Your own example demonstrates that it is possible to lose. I have a friend who put his fortune into a company called WorldCom (one of the examples D Stanley shared). He actually lost all of his retirement. Luckily he made some money back when the startup we both worked for was sold to a much larger company. Unsophisticated investors lose money all the time by investing in individual companies. Your best bet is to start searching this site for answers on how to invest your money so that you can see actual strategies that reduce your investment risk. Here's a starting point: Best way to start investing, for a young person just starting their career? If you want to better illustrate this principle to yourself, try this stock market simulation game.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
7d59b575a8e8df636ca2dfc675207c77
|
Why did the price of ASH common stock drop when the market opened on May 15, 2017?
|
[
{
"docid": "b37aa8cd04dbde7ddbf0702f06ce5d4a",
"text": "Ashland Global Holdings Inc. (ASH) sold off their ownership in Valvoline Inc. (VVV). Friday, May 12 was the distribution date of the sale; at the end of the day, every stockholder of ASH received 2.745338 shares of VVV stock for each share of ASH held. That is why the value of ASH has dropped significantly on open this morning. Sources:",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "736a55e0a32c4ad36f39fa79da6ae589",
"text": "They haven't been doing very well for a while. Their stock was in a downward trend since October 2006. They had an upward trend since 1986, then in 2006 they transitioned to a downward slope. Their stock plummeted in 2008, then rebounded shortly after (due to the bailout?) to continue its downward trend.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ede6a47dd7289c2b8990c723b09625da",
"text": "A stock is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it. If it trades different values on different days, that means someone was willing to pay a higher price OR someone was willing to sell at a lower price. There is no rule to prevent a stock from trading at $10 and then $100 the very next trade... or $1 the very next trade. (Though exchanges or regulators may halt trading, cancel trades, or impose limits on large price movements as they deem necessary, but this is beside the point I'm trying to illustrate). Asking what happens from the close of one day to the open of the next is like asking what happens from one trade to the next trade... someone simply decided to sell or pay a different price. Nothing needs to have happened in between.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "187f3a5c7edd8b2f15765e8c96cb1b6e",
"text": "I do not fully understand the transactions involved, but it appears that there was a reverse stock split (20:1) and some legal status change as well on June 29th. This seems to be the cause for the change in valuation of the stock as the dates match the drop. https://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/RMSLD/filings",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b64039bc560e8e8456ccf2efff2ffab9",
"text": "This would otherwise be a comment, but I wish to share an image. A stock I happened to own, gapped up on the open to $9.20 and slowly worked its way down to $8.19 where it closed up 6% but near its low for the day. This is an addendum to my comment above, warning about buying a stock on the open when news is coming out. Or more important, to be mindful of that news and the impact it might have on the stock. In this case, when the news came out and the stock had closed at $7.73, one would need to decide if he wished to buy it at any cost, or place a limit order. I've redacted the name of the company, as this discussion has nothing to do with any particular stock, I'm just offering an example of the effect I warned about, three weeks ago. (Full disclosure, I got out at $8.70 in the first minutes of trading.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b0450d67e8cbf88413d3c97a3f56ac2f",
"text": "You need a source of delisted historical data. Such data is typically only available from paid sources. According to my records 20 Feb 2006 was not a trading day - it was Preisdent's Day and the US exchanges were closed. The prior trading date to this was 17 Feb 2006 where the stock had the following data: Open: 14.40 High 14.46 Low 14.16 Close 14.32 Volume 1339800 (consolidated volume) Source: Symbol NVE-201312 within Premium Data US delisted stocks historical data set available from http://www.premiumdata.net/products/premiumdata/ushistorical.php Disclosure: I am a co-owner of Norgate / Premium Data.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "76fbdd753ee03ba712dac9f4079389c7",
"text": "\"Part of it was an Oops, but not all of it. There were reports that the sudden drop was caused by a trader who mistyped an order to sell a large block of stock. The drop in that stock's price was enough to trigger \"\"sell\"\" orders across the market. Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36983596/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0c8ebeab922a88a6568179e1480ad73d",
"text": "\"Prices reflect all available information. (Efficient markets hypothesis) A lot can happen between the time a stock closes on one day and opens on another. Particularly in a heavily traded stock such as IBM. Basically, you have a different \"\"information set\"\" the following day, which implies a different price. The instances where you are most likely to have a stock where the price opens at the same price is at the previous close is a thinly traded stock on which you have little information, meaning that the \"\"information set\"\" changes less from day to day.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "d21510e020a4614e78e632825b4328fa",
"text": "It does sometimes open one day the same as it closed the previous day. Take a look at ESCA, it closed October 29th at 4.50, at opened November 1st at 4.50. It's more likely to change prices overnight than it is between two successive ticks during the day, because a lot more time passes, in which news can come out, and in which people can reevaluate the stock.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5949539198c871c182c0da1bb78ce5e5",
"text": "I'm going to guess that you found this because of a stock screener. This company went through a 1:20 reverse split on June 30, so every 20 shares outstanding became a single share. Where before you had 20 shares worth $100 you now have 1 share worth $100, the value of the company doesn't change because of a split. This company was never trading for $30+ per share. Reverse splits are typical of a floundering company trading on an exchange that has a minimum share price requirement. While reverse splits don't change the value of the company, just the number of shares outstanding and the price per share, no healthy company performs a reverse split. Reverse splits are generally a massive signal to jump ship... The company seems to be trading for $1 right now, why the value fell from a pre-split $1.65 ($33/20) to $1 is anyone's guess; how the company ever got to $1.65 is also anyone's guess. But looking at the most recent 10-Q there are numerous causes for concern: Note 2. Capital Stock On March 6, 2017, the Company issued as compensation for services provided a total of 650,000 common shares with a fair value of $390,000 to a third party. The fair value of the shares was based on the price quoted on the OTC pink sheets on the grant date. this indicates a share price of $0.60 ($390,000/650,000) as of 3/6/2017, just to reinforce that the google price chart doesn't show the true past but a past adjusted for the split Results of Operations The three months ended March 31, 2017 compared to the three months ended March 31, 2016 For the three months ended March 31, 2017 compared to the three months ended March 31, 2016, total revenues were $0 and $0, respectively, and net losses from operations were $414,663 and $26,260, respectively. The net losses were attributable to costs attributable to operating as a public company, in particular, common stock with a valuation of $390,000 that was issued to an investor relations firm in the first quarter of 2017. Going Concern As of March 31, 2017, there is substantial doubt regarding our ability to continue as a going concern as we have not generated sufficient cash flow to fund our proposed business. We have suffered recurring losses from operations since our inception. In addition, we have yet to generate an internal cash flow from our business operations or successfully raised the financing required to develop our proposed business. As a result of these and other factors, our independent auditor has expressed substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. Liquidity and Capital Resources We had no cash as of the date of March 31, 2017. Additionally, since there is no balance sheet in the last 10-Q (another bad sign), the last annual report 10-K has this balance sheet: So the company: So why did the stock value plummet? It's anyones' guess but there is no shortage of ways to justify it. In fact, it's reasonable to ask how is this company still worth $3mm ($1 * 3mm shares outstanding)...",
"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": "5a50d2cf6d90725d5e1782f47f5c09b5",
"text": "\"You probably bought the stock near the peak because \"\"it's been up a lot lately.\"\" That's the easiest way to lose money. You need to go back and do some basic research. The stock appears to have been expensive around 75. Why is that? The stock seems to be in a \"\"comfortable\"\" level around 45. Why is THAT? Maybe it's too expensive around 45 (based on the P/E ratio, or other measures); maybe you should buy more at 45, where it is cheap, even though 75 is too expensive. The key is to study the stock where it is today (45-47). Ask yourself what you would do at TODAY's price, and today's \"\"fundamentals.\"\" That will also save you from paying 75 for a stock worth 45, and should save you from paying 45 for a stock if it is only worth 35.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "f4f42a26d035479427867cc4eb653fc4",
"text": "Two reasons why I think that's irrelevant: First, if it was on 3/31/2012 (two other sources say it was actually 4/3/2012), why the big jump two trading days later? Second, the stock popped up from $3.10 to $4.11, then over the next several trading days fell right back to $3.12. If this were about the intrinsic value of the company, I'd expect the stock to retain some value.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "43ad010ab1ec43b26491351bc71d1f6e",
"text": "You sold a call, I trust? I bought a call. I have the right to exercise at my will. No sense if out of the money, of course, but if in the money, I might want to capture a dividend or just start the clock for long term gains. Once I exercise, you have no option (pun intended) but to let it go. The assignment is notification, not a request for permission.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
cc1c30febff0bc10342fd1e7a56c38ba
|
How to convert coins into paper money or deposit coins into bank account, without your bank in local?
|
[
{
"docid": "10c59a7402e31a912bc9b8e08479c2e2",
"text": "Ask around your area. Some stores will exchange because it saves them having to go to the bank to stock up on change. Some stores have machines that will convert the coins for a small percentage fee. Some banks may do this exchange for folks who aren't customers, though that's uncommon. My solution was to open a small account locally specifically as a place to dump my coins into. They'll even run a pile of coins through their counting machine for me, free, so I don't have to make up coin rolls as I did in the past.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "03d2a0141218f59ccc7954e37ef6ee94",
"text": "We have machines in several grocery store chains that will take your coins, sort them, and give you two ways to get your money back: I've seen these many places, but, of course, I cannot say for sure if there are any near you.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "5ee3001cd34c55627e3909d2ff7fb0f3",
"text": "Just take it to a bank that will count it and give you cash or put it in your account. Don't bother counting it and rolling it. They will just break the rolls and throw it into a change counting machine. I did that once and never will again after I saw that years ago. The local bank I used for this offered it as a free service. You could also use those coinstar machines found in many grocery stores and various outlets, but they take like 8 or 9%. Unless time/hassle is of concern, why do that when there are possible free options?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9abb9c67f5d9b752d21d6be9d5cd17f1",
"text": "Every now and then I fill a pocket with a handful of coins and spend it on a very small shop on my way home, i.e. a loaf of bread (£1.50), a pint of milk (50p) by using the self-check out (Tesco/Sainsbury's) which has a coin slot or even better the little bowl where you put coins down. I find this pretty straightforward. There's no point having a jar at home worth £50.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "15404acf93f7162857cc0bc696e09b11",
"text": "\"There are firms that let you do this. I believe that Saxo Bank is one such firm (note that I'm not endorsing the company at all, and have no experience with it) Keep in mind that the reason that these currencies are \"\"exotic\"\" is because the markets for trading are small. Small markets are generally really bad for retail/non-professional investors. (Also note: I'm not trying to insult Brazil or Thailand, which are major economies. In this context, I'm specifically concerned with currency trading volume.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "531b4168ddf30bcc15f30b86c0f9b4e3",
"text": "You could buy Bitcoins. They are even more deflationary than Swiss Francs. But the exchange rate is currently high, and so is the risk in case of volatility. So maybe buy an AltCoin instead. See altcoin market capitalization for more information. Basically, all you'd be doing is changing SwissFrancs into Bitcoin/AltCoin. You don't need a bank to store it. You don't need to stockpile cash at home. Stays liquid, there's no stock portfolio (albeit a coin portfolio), unlike in stocks there are no noteworthy buy and sell commissions, and the central bank can't just change the bills as in classic-cash-currency. The only risk is volatility in the coin market, which is not necessarely a small risk. Should coins have been going down, then for as long as you don't need that money and keep some for everyday&emergency use on a bank account, you can just wait until said coins re-climb - volatility goes both ways after all.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7e6ce529c96e20905f0789621c8fcfea",
"text": "The easiest options appear to be to open an account with one of the large multinational banks like Citi. They have options such as opening two separate checking accounts, one in each currency, and Citi in particular has an international account that appears to make mutli-currency personal banking easier. All of the options have minimum balance requirements or fees for conversion, but if you need quick access this seems to be the best bet. Even if this is a one-time event and you don't need the account, a bank like Citi may be able to help you cash the check and get access to the funds quicker than a national or local bank. http://www.citibank.com/ipb-global/homepage/newsite/content/english/multi_cap_bank_depo.htm Alternatively if you know anyone with a US bank account you can deposit it with them and take the cash withdrawal from their account, assuming they agree, the check isn't too large, etc.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e7b16d8fd53d30ebcc15ef950ddf947f",
"text": "I don't like paying the percentage on the supermarket coin counters, and don't feel like buying a coin counter so I have my own solution. I keep higher value coins for vending machines, parking meters etc, and lower value coins I put in charity boxes.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a4e58faa1499381eae0b8f52dba878e4",
"text": "Check with your local bank - you're likely to be able to either deposit it to your account or exchange into more useful form of currency. Otherwise, you can also check eBay. I'm not familiar with the Australian law, and it may be illegal to do that, but I know that coins from other countries that went out of circulation become quite popular with collectors and you can sell them for more than their face value (recently I've seen this happening to the Canadian 1 cent coin).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "402d894d164a090cd1ee322b8d504b17",
"text": "\"In India, Can I write a multi-city cheque to myself (Self cheque) and present to non-home branch to withdraw money? If yes, Can bank deny this transaction? Yes you can. There are limitations on the amount advised from time to time. What is \"\"genuine transactions / bonafide remittances\"\"? The multi-city cheque were created / issued to ease the clearing time. Previously outstation cheques would take max of 1 month by law. having a Multi-City cheque reduces this to max of 3 days. So what the clause says is one should use MCC to make genuine payments for parties outside your city. These should not be used as conduits for money laundering activities. No cash payment to third parties It means cash payment is not given to others except to account holder in non-home branch. A 3rd party can withdraw from home branch. Suppose someone gave me a cheque and I don't have an account in that bank (or I am out of town, so I go to a non-home branch), how can I get the money in cash? You can't. Generally I have seen that this can be en-cashed in the same city and not necessarily the same branch. However its been sometime when I have done this. Best is deposit this into your Bank or have payer initiate an IMPS/NEFT transfer.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ee3540e8ee76bd278c7cfe2b600cbeac",
"text": "Other than the options pointed out by MoneyOne, I would like to add one more. If the bank that you want to transfer money from has bill pay facility, then you can send yourself a check for the required amount. Then you could deposit this check in the bank where you want to money transferred. I do agree that this is a long way method of transferring money between banks, but this is the only way to do it if your (From) bank doesn't allow bank to bank transfers for your (To) bank or charges you money for each transfer. Normally, most banks give you access to bill pay facility free of charge if you use online banking. I also believe that you could even use it with a savings account, but don't quote me on that. Also, I do know that Bank Of America has started accepting checks through their ATMs, so if your (To) bank does something similar, you would not even need to go to a physical branch.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "25865b998a68af259bbb602ce40e0cda",
"text": "I know that many HSBC ATMs at branches in the US and Canada offer this service (they actually scan and shred checks as you deposit them). Perhaps they do same in Germany... but not all ATMs offer this feature.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "302019998d8505c3d4064045d88f4dcc",
"text": "TD Bank (Northeast US) has free change counting machines at its branches. You don't have to have an account to use them.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2011d772af8004a0cb808e5e711da8bd",
"text": "\"You are making this far more complex than it needs to be. Direct deposit your savings directly into a savings account. To track spending, invest in a small notebook, and keep a tally of what you spend every day. Also, it seems odd to me that you want to track your budget in minute detail, but coins are \"\"useless\"\" to you.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d14c708264ea9f9d8eb46a76dd39c6e1",
"text": "It can be done, but I believe it would be impractical for most people - i.e., it would likely be cheaper to fly to Europe from other side of the world to handle it in person if you can. It also depends on where you live. You should take a look if there are any branches or subsidiaries of foreign banks in your country - the large multinational banks most likely can open you an account in their sister-bank in another country for, say, a couple hundred euro in fees.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "56e501ad9e345426d2297fbcb1c91911",
"text": "The classic Nigerian scam involves sending fraudulent cashier's checks to unwitting recipients who then deposit them in their account. The bank reverses these deposits once they discover the check is not valid. At least in the US and in the parts of the EU I'm familiar with (the Netherlands), the method of the Nigerian scam is consistent and banks will reverse the deposit after some holding period. Given this, it's unlikely that most banks will convert an arbitrary cashier's check to cash without any means to recover the amount should the check be fraudulent.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "93f36ea4cc5f8bfbaeb82ff0e07742a1",
"text": "Are you in an occupation that regularly collects change or is this change left in your pocket at the end of the day? Here in the US it is typically worth it to invest in some automatic coin counters if you are in an occupation that regularly collects coins. In your case you can collect the little baggies from the bank, use your coin counters and then make a deposit. Here is an example of US coin counters. If it is just pocket change then in the morning, make it a habit of taking some with you. This way you are less likely to break larger bills. Also if you are making a deposit at the bank, add some change to the deposit without making it to annoying.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
64d48a24a6ee5094270b534f3c95a565
|
Can There Be Partial Trade Fill Percentage?
|
[
{
"docid": "9423efe84c7fc3bad04c93871b20eaf2",
"text": "\"I place a trade, a limit order on a thinly traded stock. I want to buy 1000 shares at $10. The current price is $10.50. Someone places a market order for 500 shares. Another trader has a limit order for $10.10 for 400 shares. His order fills, and I get 100 at my price. I wait another day to see if I get any more shares. This is just an example of how it can work. I can place my order as \"\"all or none\"\" if I wish to avoid this.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "69003ef4b8e5329aecf0172a01c19054",
"text": "Although this is possible with many brokers, it's not advisable. In many cases you may end up with both trades executed at the same time. This is because during the opening, the stock might spike up or down heavily, bid/ask spread widens, and both of your orders would get picked up, resulting in an instant loss. Your best bet is to place the stop manually sometime after you get filled.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "72153fe7bbee61ed08f51eea1fc9b32c",
"text": "In practice, it would not work. If you put a bid in that was really out of line, even if it got filled, the exchange would reverse it. Other than that it really depends on what the current bid/ask spread it, and what volume its trading, as well as how the market feels. Say the current bid is 11 and you put an order in with bid 11.5, it would soak up all the orders on the market up to the volume your buying. But once your order is filled the market will be determined by what the next order's bid/ask is. It might stay where you moved it too if others feels thats a fair price. But if every other order on the market is still at 11, then the price isnt gonna move. tl;dl unless your a market maker, you could not realistically affect the price.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8f62098abf8c810c830b02bea712faa0",
"text": "You can do FOK on both market and limit orders. Normal market orders will partial fill if you want more shares than are being offered, or if someone pulled their order before you get there and now there are fewer shares than you placed a trade for. With a FOK limit order not at the BBO you are shooting in the dark for a quick match, most of the time it does not fill. This is a commonly used order type for UHFT arbitrage. Some exchanges will not attempt to cross it for a match if its price is not at, or better than the market price. When the FOK limit order is at the BBO it is essentially a FOK market order. FYI: Sometimes you have a minimum quantity to fill option, so you can let the order sit on the book until it fills or you cancel.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6910613137c444c85fb4e476e25872dc",
"text": "I have heard of this, but then the broker is short the shares if they weren't selling them out of inventory, so they still want to accumulate the shares or a hedge before EOD most likely - In that case it may not be the client themselves, but that demand is hitting the market at some point if there isn't sufficient selling volume. Whether or not the broker ends up getting all of them below VWAP is a cost of marketing for them, how they expect to reliably get real size below vwap is my question.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7a75b535aa087132d36f9dd54f4abc64",
"text": "I understand the question, I think. The tough thing is that trades over the next brief time are random, or appear so. So, just as when a stock is $10.00 bid / $10.05 ask, if you place an order below the ask, a tick down in price may get you a fill, or if the next trades are flat to higher, you might see the close at $10.50, and no fill as it never went down to your limit. This process is no different for options than for stocks. When I want to trade options, I make sure the strike has decent volume, and enter a market order. Edit - I reworded a bit to clarify. The Black–Scholes is a model, not a rigid equation. Say I discover an option that's underpriced, but it trades under right until it expires. It's not like there's a reversion to the mean that will occur. There are some very sophisticated traders who use these tools to trade in some very high volumes, for them, it may produce results. For the small trader you need to know why you want to buy a stock or its option and not worry about the last $0.25 of its price.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b146e4424d5e595a6da88bcf9c996c68",
"text": "\"You can choose to place successively lower buy limit orders, but whether they get filled or not is not a given; it depends on whether sellers care to accept your bid. In your example of a 49.98 / 50.01 spread, if you place a buy with limit of 49.99, it won't get filled (if the order reaches the market while still at 49.98 / 50.01) immediately, but will be added to the order book. By being added to the order book, the markets bid and ask become 49.99 / 50.01. Your order won't get filled until some seller places a market order or a sell limit order of 49.99 or less. No guarantee that that will happen, and even if it does, there's nothing to say that your follow-up buy at 49.98 will ever be filled. In fact, your 49.98 buy order queues up at the \"\"end of the line\"\" behind all previously pending 49.98 bids, since your order arrived after those other bids. Since the initial conditions you supposed had a 49.98 bid, such an order exists (or at least did exist; it might have been cancelled in the intervening moment. Basically, your first buy at 49.99, if it happens, has essentially no influence on whether your second buy at 49.98 will happen. You can't expect to move the market lower by making a bid that is higher (49.99) than the existing best bid (49.98). Whatever influence your 49.99 order has is to raise the market's price, not lower it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "07c75adfe6ef2da84f3e05878e67e85f",
"text": "My employer matches 6% of my salary, dollar for dollar. So you have a great benefit. The self-directed side has no fees but $10 trades. No option trading. Yours basically allows you to invest your own funds, but not the match. It's a restriction, agreed, but a good plan.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0e8e98abf9a17744f9ee0c6dbedd0dad",
"text": "where A1 is the number of trades. you may have to change the number 100 to 99 depending on how the 100th trade is charged. The idea is to use the if statement to determine the price of the trades. Once you are over the threshold the price is 14*number over threshold.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3f128f16f4e6731cf3b3b249ec63a4f4",
"text": "\"Assuming you are executing your order on a registered exchange by a registered broker, your order will be filled at the best bid price available. This is because brokers are legally obliged to get the best price available. For example, if the market is showing a bid of 49.99 and an offer of 50.01 and you submit an order to offer 1000 shares at 5.00, your order will be filled at 49.99. This is assuming the existing bids are for enough shares to fill all of the 1000 shares being offered. If the share you are offering lacks the necessary liquidity to fill the order - i.e., the 49.99 bid is for less than 1000 shares and the \"\"level two\"\" bids are not enough to fill the remaining shares, then the order would be posted in the market as an offer to sell the balance (1000 - shares filled at 49.99 and those filled at level two bids) at 5.00. I'm pretty sure that the scenario you are describing would be described as market manipulation and it would be against the law.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c56ce18ddd5d3201fd1a73b21475e23f",
"text": "While volume per trade is higher at the open and to a lesser extent at the close, the overall volume is actually lower, on average. Bid ask spreads are widest at the open and to a lesser extent at the close. Generally, bid ask spreads are inversely proportional to overall volumes. Why this is the case hasn't been sufficiently clearly answered by academia yet, but some theories are that",
"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": "f0cc2ee8bcf8cd7e18ceef9936872781",
"text": "\"You need to negotiate with your broker to allow you to do more exotic order types. One in particular I recommend is a \"\"hidden\"\" aka iceberg order. You enter two numbers. The first is the number of shares for your entire order, the second is the amount that will be displayed in the book (this is the tip of the iceberg, the remaining shares are hidden below the surface). The maker/taker rule applies as follows: The amount displayed will receive the rebate for providing liquidity. The amount hidden will be charged the fee for taking liquidity. Example: You want to sell 10,000 shares total. You enter a hidden order for 10,000 shares with 1,000 displayed. On the level 2 screen traders will see 1,000 shares, and those shares will stay displayed there until the entire order is filled. You receive a rebate for 1,000 shares, you pay the brokerage fee for 9,000 shares. Also, like one of the previous posters mentioned, only trade high liquidity stocks. Large market cap companies with high volume. This is why day traders love Tesla, Amazon, Netflix, etc. Large market cap, high volume, and high volatility. Easy to catch $10+ moves in price. Hope this helps Happy trading\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "34496eab57952e94977ad49daae7fb34",
"text": "I doubt that this exists, but it could theoretically. After all, a share is kind of an option to a company's future success, and so a call is already a second level on indirection. The better approach would be to 'create your own Put-Puts', by investing less money (A) in the Put you wanted to invest into, and put the smaller rest (B) in the share itself or a Call. That way, if the original Put is successful, at max (B) is lost, and if it is unsuccessful, the loss on (A) is covered by a gain on (B). Potentially, if you do the math, you can reach a mathematical equivalent situation to a Put-Put by buying the right amount and kind of Calls. However, we know already that buying a Put and a Call is a poor strategy, so that would mean a Put-Put would also be a poor strategy.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f844c78a118a6364699fe2009542eed2",
"text": "\"Yes, almost always. I trade some of the most illiquid single stock options, and I would be absolutely murdered if I didn't try to work orders between the bid/ask. When I say illiquid, I mean almost non-existent: ~50 monthly contracts on ALL contracts for a given underlying. Spreads of 30% or more. The only time you shouldn't try to work an order, in my opinion, is when you think you need to trade immediately (rare), if implied volatility (IV) has moved to such a degree that the market makers (MM) won't hit your order while they're offering fair IV (they'll sometimes come down to meet you at their \"\"real\"\" price to get the exchange's liquidity rebate), or if the bid/ask spread is a penny. For illiquid single stock options, you need to be extremely mindful of implied and statistical volatility. You can't just try to always put your order in the middle. The MMs will play with the middle to get you to buy at higher IVs and sell at lower. The only way you can hope that an order working below the bid / above the ask will get filled is if a big player overwhelms the MMs' (who are lined up on the bid and ask) current orders and hits yours with one large order. I've never seen this happen. The only other way is like you said: if the market moves against you, the orders in front of yours disappear, and someone hits your order, but I think that defeats the intent of your question.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eaa45b2deee8a6a82046b0c53b99e1fa",
"text": "If the IRA is costing you $100 a year, you should almost certainly transfer it to a cheaper provider, regardless of whether you're going to withdraw anything. You can transfer the IRA to another provider that doesn't charge you the fees. Or you can convert it to Roth and combine it with your existing Roth. Either way, you will keep all the money, and save $100 per year in the future. If you want to take money out of your retirement accounts, you should take it out of your Roth IRA, because you can withdraw contributions (i.e., up to the amount you contributed) from the Roth without tax or penalty. Whether you should withdraw anything from your retirement accounts is a different question. If you're already maxing out your Roth IRA, and you have sufficient retirement savings, you could just instead plow that $5500 into your student loans. (If you can afford it, of course, it'd be better to just pay the $7500 from your income and still contribute to the retirement accounts.) There's no reason to withdraw from retirement accounts to pay loans when you could just divert current income for that purpose instead.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
6608867a4c9ea85c2eebd7048b14e5f5
|
Why use ROI if I can use effective compount interest?
|
[
{
"docid": "e147ee4363530039831bfe67c3df9573",
"text": "Yes though I'd likely put a caveat on that. If you take short-term investments and extrapolate the results to get an annual result this can be misleading. For example, if a stock goes up 10% in a month, assuming this will continue for the next 11 months may not be a great idea. Thus, beware of how much data do you have in making these calculations. When looking at long-term investments, the compound annual growth rate can be quite useful for comparison.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "e91d8c0dcb863fc4b14459f62a081534",
"text": "\"Complex matter that doesn't boil down to a formula. The quant aspect could be assessed by calculating WACCs under various funding scenarii and trying to minimize, but it is just one dimension of it. The quali aspects can vary widely depending on the company, ownership structure, tax environment and business needs and it really can't be covered even superficially in a reddit comment... Few examples from the top of my mind to give you a sense of it: - shareholders might be able to issue equity but want to avoid dilution, so debt is preferred in the end despite cost. Or convertible debt under the right scenario. - company has recurring funding needs and thinks that establishing a status on debt market is worth paying a premium to ensure they can \"\"tap\"\" it whenever hey need to. - adding debt is a way to leverage and enhance ROI/IRR for certain types of stakeholders (think LBOs) - etc etc etc Takes time and a lot of experience/work to be able to figure out what's best and there isn't always a clear answer. Source: pro buy side credit investor with experience and sizeable AuMs.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3ee55c34d9b94fe8f4aa0d6df9705a70",
"text": "Yes. Using debt appropriately is a huge part of what's called optimal capital structure theory in the finance world. Debt is generally cheaper than equity financing due to the tax deductibility of interest and using it appropriately can really juice the profitability of a business as long as the rate of return on equity in the business exceeds the interest rate on the debt.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "33e88a0fd8405877ed821efe13bd3a78",
"text": "P/E ratio is useful but limited as others have said. Another problem is that it doesn't show leverage. Two companies in the same industry could have the same P/E but be differently leveraged. In that case I would buy the company with more equity and less debt as it should be a less risky investment. To compare companies and take leverage/debt into account you could use the EV/EBIT ratio instead. Its slightly more complicated to calculate and isn't presented by as many data sources though. Enterprise Value (EV) can be said to represent the value of the company if someone would buy it today and then pay off all its (interest bearing) debt. EV is essentially calculated like this: (Market Capitalization plus cash & cash equivalents) minus interest-bearing debt. This is then divided by EBIT (Earnings before interest and tax) to get the ratio. One drawback of this ratio though is that it can't be used for financials since their balance sheet pretty much consists of debt and the Enterprise Value therefore doesn't tell us very much. Also, like the P/E ratio it is dependent on fresh numbers. A balance sheet is just a glimpse of the companys financial situation on ONE DAY, and this could (and probably will, although not drastically for bigger companies) change to the next day.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e5048e4d9632df7eaba7dfc268e86f37",
"text": "\"Hi, accounting major here! A lot of people mentioned both tax advantages and \"\"cheap\"\" money (money you can borrow at a low interest rate). Another reason businesses do this is to reward investors. Generally people with stock in a company want to see some of its operations financed with debt, instead of all of it financed from investors' money or profit. This way the company can grow more and still pay better dividends to its investors. However, you don't want too much debt either. It's a balance, and a way to see how much debt vs equity a company has is called a leverage ratio (leverage=debt). Hope this helps!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1bea3acc878bbc52ef38fcc73324835a",
"text": "\"An asset allocation formula is useful because it provides a way to manage risk. Rebalancing preserves your asset allocation. The investment risk of a well-diversified portfolio (with a few ETFs or mutual funds in there to get a wide range of stocks, bonds, and international exposure) is mostly proportional to the asset class distribution. If you started out with half-stocks and half-bonds, and stocks surged 100% over the past few years while bonds have stayed flat, then you may be left with (say) 66% stocks and 33% bonds. Your portfolio is now more vulnerable to future stock market drops (the risk associated with stocks). (Most asset allocation recommendations are a little more specific than a stock/bond split, but I'm sure you can get the idea.) Rebalancing can be profitable because it's a formulaic way to enforce you to \"\"buy low, sell high\"\". Massive recessions notwithstanding, usually not everything in your portfolio will rise and fall at the same time, and some are actually negatively correlated (that's one idea behind diversification, anyway). If your stocks have surged, chances are that bonds are cheaper. This doesn't always work (repeatedly transferring money from bonds into stocks while the market was falling in 2008-2009 could have lost you even more money). Also, if you rebalance frequently, you might incur expenses from the trading (depending on what sort of financial instrument you're holding). It may be more effective to simply channel new money into the sector that you're light on, and limit the major rebalancing of the portfolio so that it's just an occasional thing. Talk to your financial adviser. :)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c12afdfda110b918e2a94689f865b3ee",
"text": "Depending on the improvement, you have to amortize or depreciate it over time, which effectively allows you to write off the value over a period of years, even if you pay for it all up front. This messes with cash flow, which is different than profitability, but when you span the write off over five or ten years, the distinction between cash flow and profitability for a private, self funded company is irrelevant. If the money ain't there, the money ain't there. Operating capital is life blood. Taxes also alter the ROI equation of the investment, since you don't keep all the money you put in. Way over simplified example: Lets say I close out the year with some arbitrary profit - ten million bucks - in my war chest. 3.5 could go to taxes. I also know that my supplier can't handle my volume for next year while the season is hot, so I'd like to buy inventory in the off season. Last year I sold 6.5 mill worth of stuff from this supplier, but I estimate I could sell 9-10 mill if I didn't have availability problems. If I buy 9-10 mill in inventory, I can't pay taxes. If I pay taxes, I can't buy enough to grow next year. Sure, COGS is a deductible expense, but the expense isn't realized until the inventory is sold, which won't be until long after these taxes are due. I now have taxes interfering with my expansion, even though eventually I can write that off. Now lets look at the manufacturer - sure he could expand his capacity and make more money, but he has to deduct the 5 mill machine he needs over twenty years (or ten or whatever) while the purchase price needs to be made today. This year he's gonna pay tax on 90 or 95% of the money he used to buy that machine, which would eat into the money he needs to buy raw materials to fill orders he already has. Of course, the real world is much more complicated, and you can leverage leasing agreements and purchasing terms to alleviate this to some extent, but I wanted to illustrate a point. I hope my extremely simplified example communicated what I mean. Does that make sense?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6470741c89540d9d5adea1af37740f9b",
"text": "\"I don't follow the numbers in your example, but the fundamental question you're asking is, \"\"If I can borrow money for a low cost, and if I think I can invest it and receive returns greater than that cost, should I do it?\"\" It doesn't matter where that money comes from, a mortgage that's bigger than it needs to be, a credit card teaser rate, or a margin line from your stock broker. The answer is \"\"maybe\"\" - depending on the certainty you have about the returns you'd receive on your investments and your tolerance for risk. Only you can answer that question for yourself. If you make less than your mortgage rates on the investments, you'll wish you hadn't! As an aside, I don't know anything about Belgian tax law, but in US tax law, your deductions can be limited to the actual value of the home. Your law may be similar and thus increase the effective mortgage interest rate.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8e67b6911d14a79d53b0b47b4fdd2ac1",
"text": "\"Accounts track value: at any given time, a given account will have a given value. The type of account indicates what the value represents. Roughly: On a balance sheet (a listing of accounts and their values at a given point in time), there is typically only one equity account, representing net worth, I don't know much about GNUCash, though. Income and expenses accounts do not go on the balance sheet, but to find out more, either someone else or the GNUCash manual will have to describe how they work in detail. Equity is more similar to a liability than to assets. The equation Assets = Equity + Liabilities should always hold; you can think of assets as being \"\"what my stuff is worth\"\" and equity and liabilities together as being \"\"who owns it.\"\" The part other people own is liability, and the part you own is equity. See balance sheet, accounting equation, and double-entry bookkeeping for more information. (A corporate balance sheet might actually have more than one equity entry. The purpose of the breakdown is to show how much of their net worth came from investors and how much was earned. That's only relevant if you're trying to assess how a company has performed to date; it's not important for a family's finances.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4f7d9c6d9bd9a85810ebab48a59bacba",
"text": "Because a paying down a liability and thus gaining asset equity is not technically an expense, GnuCash will not include it in any expense reports. However, you can abuse the system a bit to do what you want. The mortgage payment should be divided into principle, interest, and escrow / tax / insurance accounts. For example: A mortgage payment will then be a split transaction that puts money into these accounts from your bank account: For completeness, the escrow account will periodically be used to pay actual expenses, which just moves the expense from escrow into insurance or tax. This is nice so that expenses for a month aren't inflated due to a tax payment being made: Now, this is all fairly typical and results in all but the principle part of the mortgage payment being included in expense reports. The trick then is to duplicate the principle portion in a way that it makes its way into your expenses. One way to do this is to create a principle expense account and also a fictional equity account that provides the funds to pay it: Every time you record a mortgage payment, add a transfer from this equity account into the Principle Payments expense account. This will mess things up at some level, since you're inventing an expense that does not truly exist, but if you're using GnuCash more to monitor monthly cash flow, it causes the Income/Expense report to finally make sense. Example transaction split:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1f0c4c9e61a59c3e3be09bbee6ad4897",
"text": "I'm not asking if I should carry a balance to the end of the billing period and accrue interest Typically (I say typically because there may be some fringe outlier exception product that begins accruing interest immediately), if you're not carrying a balance already you will not be charged interest for carrying a balance during the billing period. You accrue a balance, you're issued a statement, if you pay the statement before the due date indicated you don't pay interest; even if your statement balance is less than the current actual balance on the account. If you carry a balance through that due date you begin to accrue interest. Not only on the balance carried but on all new charges as well. But as long as you consistently pay your statement balance before the statement due date you will not be charged any interest. As for a reason why you may want to take advantage of this, simply to ease the administration of your finances. You just don't need to touch the accounts that frequently to avoid interest charges. Sure you can let your money sit in an interest bearing account and earn a couple dollars a year but really, you just don't need to focus on your CC charges this frequently.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "53715f3693b0a7430d04ed2a85a24a3f",
"text": "IRR is the acronym for internal rate of return. And it appears that you do understand how it works. It's not the phrase most investors use for their own returns. I'd typically talk about my own return last year, or over the last decade, etc, as well as what the S&P did during that time, and might even use the term CAGR, compound annual growth rate, although I wouldn't pronounce it 'kegger' or anything like that. Aside from discussing company investments in some MBA class, the only time I'd use IRR is in an excel spreadsheet to calculate the return over time of a series of my own investments. The nothing magic about this, it's a function of an initial dollar investment, time passing, and the final value. All else is addition complexity based on multiple deposits/withdrawals, etc. If I deposit $100 and get back $200 in a year, it's a 100% IRR. Disclosure - I am no fan of Investopedia or re-explaining its wording on these topics. I've caught multiple errors in their articles, and unlike the times I've emailed my friends at the IRS who quickly fix typos and mistakes I've caught, Investopedia authors are no better than bloggers (which I am) who take offense at any criticism (which I do not).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e5084ed0ccf9ff17551785a1c05ce511",
"text": "\"TL;DR: Sure, \"\"do your own homework\"\" is sometimes a cop out. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't do our homework. I agree that in many cases this is a cop-out by commentators. However, even if you believe in perfect market efficiency, there is benefit in \"\"doing your homework\"\" for many reasons. One of which you already mention in the question: different stocks all with the same \"\"value\"\" might have widely ranging risk. Another factor that might vary between stocks is their tax consequences. High dividend stocks might be a better fit for some buyers than others. One stock might be priced at $40 because there is a small chance they might get regulatory approval for a new product. This might make this stock very risky with a 20% of being $150 in 12 months, and a 80% chance of being $20. Another stock might be priced at $40 because the company is a cash cow, declining in revenues but producing a large dividend of $0.40 per quarter. Low risk, but also with some potential tax disadvantages. Another stock might be priced at $40 because it's a high growth stock. This would be less risky than the first example, but more risky than the second example. And the risk would be more generalized, i.e. there wouldn't be one day or one event that would be make or break the stock. In short, even if we assume that the market is pricing everything perfectly, not all stocks are equal and not all stocks are equally appropriate to everyone. Sometimes when we hear an analyst say \"\"they should have done their homework\"\" they are really saying \"\"This was a high risk/high reward stock. They should have known that this had a potential downside.\"\" And that all assumes that we believe in 100% pure market efficiency. Which many disagree with, at least to some extent. For example, if we instead subscribe to Peter Lynch's theories about \"\"local knowledge\"\", we might believe that everyone has some personal fields of expertise where they know more than the experts. A professional stock analyst is going to follow many stocks and many not have technical experience in the field of the company. (This is especially true of small and mid cap stocks.) If you happen to be an expert in LED lighting, it is entirely feasible (at least to me) that you could be able to do a better job of \"\"doing homework\"\" on CREE than the analysts. Or if you use a specialized piece of software from a small vendor at work, and you know that the latest version stinks, then you will likely know more than the analyst does. I think it is somewhat akin to going to a doctor. We could say to ourselves \"\"the doctor is more knowledgeable about me than medicine, I'm just going to do what they tell me to do.\"\" And 99% of the time, that is the right thing to do. But if we do our \"\"homework\"\" anyway, and research the symptoms, diagnoses, and drugs ourselves as well, we can do get benefits. Sometimes we just can express our preferences amongst equal solutions. Sometimes we can ask smarter questions. And sometimes we have some piece of knowledge that the doctor doesn't have and can actually make an important discovery they didn't know. (And, just like investing, sometimes we can also have just enough knowledge to be dangerous and do ourselves harm if we go against the advice of the professionals.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "47e0690aa437e34e2bb0b32aa1e8c5e7",
"text": "You're not missing any concepts! It sounds like you are contributing a piece of collateral to the business, and you want to know a fair way to value how much this contribution of collateral is worth. Technically the economic answer would be the difference in interest between a secured loan and an unsecured loan. So for example suppose that the business could get a loan at 17% without the collateral (maybe just on a credit card) but with the duplex as collateral it is able to get the loan at 10.5%. In principle, the value of this collateral is (17% - 10.5%) or 6.5%, because it has allowed the business to pay 6.5% less interest on its loan.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "74a6a11df8141bf6906945103103b30f",
"text": "Right, I understand minority interest but it is typically reported as a positive under liabilities instead of a negative. For example, when you are calculating the enterprise value of a company, you add back in the minority interest. Enterprise Value= Market Share +Pref Equity + Min Interest+ Total Debt - Cash and ST Equivalents. EV is used to quantify the total price of a company's worth. If you have negative Min Interest on your books, that will make your EV less than it should be, creating an incorrect valuation. This just doesn't make any sense to me. Does it mean that the subsidiary that they had a stake in had a negative earning?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e31d8c3f836d3ec8d604107df90b5081",
"text": "For the purpose of personal finance, treating $500 as Interest Expense is sufficient. For business accounting, it involves making the $500 a contra-liability and amortizing it as interest expense over the course of life of the loan.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.